zurew

Some of the arguments here are bottom of the barrel quality. Relying on a very weird definition for morality like "all types of suffering in any low quantity is necessarily bad" and pretending that if you can establish that morals are subjective that will justify all of your choices that you make without needing to reflect on your own values

Just lay out the syllogism for each of these arguments. Im curious how they look like (if you have any).

@Majed Whats your case for why classical music is objectively better than hip-hop? Also its unclear how you use "better" in this context.

I don't see the relevance of that in the context of this discussion, because veganism can be compatible with the subjectivist view of morality. But if the reason why you brought that up is because you try to explain some vegans crazy attitude towards the defence and the spread of veganism, that can be true and that can explain some portion of vegan activists, but thats a separate topic. People can be subjectivists about morality and have their awakenings and still advocate for or against some things - for example against murder.

Thats like saying whoever says murder is wrong - that person must operate from objective morality , which is false. You are implying that they are definitely lying either to you or to themselves, but the fact of the matter is that their view is compatible with subjective morality.

We are moralizing all the time when we talk about things what we should or shouldn't do and you do this as well, especially when you talk about politics. The goal of these debates is not to establish objective morality (most vegans are subjectivists anyway), but to 1) make an internal critique (where you show that their view is incoherent , because even if you take their moral view for granted, there will be most likely a contradiction regarding veganism ) and 2) This can be a good exercise to make them review their own beliefs and morals about this subject matter and check whether their belief(s) about veganism really align with their own preferences and values or not.

You are definitely wrong. The level of AI glazing on this forum is getting crazy

I don't think it will remove the need to think and to understand things. Your level of understanding of a certain thing will determine what quality of questions you can ask to the AI and if your questions are vague or meaningless, the AI won't be able to provide you the answers that you might be looking for or you won't even realize that you are asking the wrong questions in the firstplace. The more understanding you have and the more nuance you can recognize, the better and more specific questions you will be able to ask to the AI and that will elevate the AI's usefulness and efficiency.

What would be the difference between a person who has infinite memory vs a person who has infinite intelligence?

Yes, I think its useful to separate knowledge from intelligence. Yeah thats a good breakdown. A little longer version of Vervaeke's relevance realization is something like this (this is for other users, I know you know these things): Ideally we would solve problems algorithmically if we could, which means 100% certainty regarding either confirming that there is no logically possible solution for a problem or finding the best possible solution. The issue is that , that would entail searching the whole problemspace beforehand and checking all logically possible options and the connection between those options. Now of course, thats not really viable when it comes to most problems , because the amount of logically possible options and the connections between those options is way too large. So we end up using herusitics, where finding a solution or confirming that it is logically impossible to solve a problem is not guaranteed. A Heruistic basically means bias. A Heruistic in the context of problemspace can mean 2 different things: 1) The framing of the problem (how you want to connect/contextualize the parts together) and 2) Preemptively selecting a small fraction from the whole problemspace and hoping that all the relevant information to solve the problem will be there. And thats where self-deception comes in. So the self deception: There is a difference between psychological certainty (when you are unable to question or deny the validity of your conclusion, because you can't conecieve of a different conclusion) and between logical certainty (which is deductive validity, where its logically impossible for the solution to be false if the premises are true). Now, because we use heruistics, we only focus on certain things and we completely ignore and are unaware of things, we often times end up with highly certain conclusions about things, even though none of them is deductively justified. Sometimes you misframe a problem (you try to connect the dots together in a way , where they cant be connected) and thats why you can't find a solution for it and other times the reason why you can't find a solution, is because you are not aware of all the relevant info that would be necessary to solve the problem. - and thats where the concept of breaking the salience landscape comes in. Salience landscape is all the things that you are aware of a given moment (all the thoughts, sounds, feelings, sights etc, that are salient to you). In the context of problemspace, salience landscape is basically the small fraction that you are aware from the whole. Breaking the salience landscape is necessary so that you can become aware of other parts and other connections in the problemspace. And this is where the usefulness of psychedelics . meditation, yoga and other methods comes in.

I don't really have a solid theory for intelligence, but I agree with John Vervaeke on how he defines general intelligence , which is basically about your ability for relevance realization in multiple different contexts - which can be translated to using the right heruistic(s) at the right time and the right place, without searching the whole problemspace beforehand.

Yeah I agree.

They want justice not just peace. Any side could achieve peace right now, if they would completely drop all their standards and would completely submit to the other side's wants , but of course both sides take into consideration much more than just instant peace at all costs.

The redpill logic: If she talks about it publicly then she must doing it just purely for attention and if she doesn't talk about it or report it right away, then it must be because it didn't happen, because it if would have happened, then she would have talked about it publicly.

Which specific protocol was not followed? Not flipping anything. Again very basic stuff - you make a statement with an incredibly high conviction , bring evidence that substantiates that high conviction - if you can't, then dial way down your conviction and be honest that you don't have any tangible evidence for your speculation. Notice you are using weasel words like "can". Do you think the standard when it comes to any medicine should be "0% chance of killing anyone"? If your answer is yes, then you are living in lala-land and you would actually cause much more harm on a global scale by that standard than good. If your answer is no, then tell me what do you think in contrast has a higher chance to kill people, the vaccine or catching covid?

This is nothing new - this was acknowledged yeears ago. Notice the tactics that are being used and how non-tangible and sneaky the claim is in the video - "It can cause blood clots and that can be lethal". That can can mean anything from 0.00000000000000001% to 100% - so why be such a weasel with words and why not put some numbers behind it? Well, the answer is because then it suddenly loses the power behind it and it ain't that news worthy anymore. Yes of course and there are very clear and good reasons why. Making a statement without having any strong evidence for that claim is nothing other than speculation, so why should anyone take your claim seriously? We can probably generate a 100 hypothesis for any given pattern that needs to be explained ,but that doesn't mean that each of those have the exact same probability to them and also doesn't mean that you can provide evidence for your hypothesis. Once you provide strong tangible evidence, then your hypothesis will be taken seriously or what you can do is - dial way down the conviction in your hypothesis up until it is explored and investigated. The question isn't about you having luck and stumbling your way (in reality being the victim of your biases) to a conclusion that might end up to be true in the future, the question is what reasons with the combination of evidence you have in a particular given time (in this case 2-3 years ago) to prove that your hypothesis about a particular thing is true.

That depends on how much harm a particular wrong theory can produce. If you are not advocating for your theory, you just live your life by it and you don't do any direct harm to anyone then Im generally okay with it (but thats rarely if ever the case). I agree in general, that trying relentlessly to persuade or to attack a person's idea (just because we disagree) is not really a mature way to go about things (especially if the disagreement is about some random thing that don't really have any weight to it), however I think there are contexts where it is appropriate to do so. I would even go to say that in some cases you letting certain ideas to just float around without any pushback - is the unethical thing to do, because you let other people to get potientially mislead by wrong or not well evidenced ideas and that can directly lead to physical and material harm and that will be kind of on your hands as well, because you didn't do anything about it.

@tvaeli So the TL;DR is that ethics should be the relevant symettry breaker (the thing that differentiates two or more things - in this case 2 scientific paradigms from each other) ? - So in other words, if you have 2 scientific paradigms that are equally fit in terms of theoretical virtues ( testability, empirical accuracy, simplicity, etc), then we should choose the one that is more ethical?

Im familiar with Dr K, but I havent watched too much HealthyGamerGG content, but I will check out some of his videos that are specifically related to this topic.

I think the research can be conducted without any need for the direct involvement of the big tech company itself. For example - you gather a large sample size of people and then start to monitor how their behavior and life is affected once they start to use tiktok.

The only part (from what you have listed) that im unsure about is the "how to properly limit" part. I havent looked up any empirical research on this, so this is only based on my intuition, but Im unsure how you can limit supernormal stimuli (I would consider tiktok to have supernormal stimuli to it). Because it seems to me, that you can't really productively fight against it (once you receive it - it is extremely predictable how you are going to react to it and it seems to be mostly an unconscious reaction rather than an agency driven choice.) .

@DocWatts Do you agree with his arguments?

I think most of us here sometimes forget about the importance of beauty and fun. We are hardcore focused on growth so much so, that sometimes we narrowly define whats important and because of that we lose the ability to see anything outside of that frame - in this case, we forget to appreciate beauty for its own sake and forget to appreciate the importance of play / having fun. The growth frame is good, but sometimes breaking that frame to recognize whats outside of it can be important. Heroes of Might and Magic 3

As Daniel Schmachtenberger once said - our capacity for abstraction is a pretty new phenomena (on an evolutionary time scale). We take that capacity completely for granted, but we probably can't even imagine what it would be like if we wouldn't have this capacity at all. Now think about how much things your capacity for abstraction makes avalaible for you (to understand and to grasp). The ability to do math The ability to establish deductive proofs (where you don't need to prove by exhaustion) The ability to grasp time (you can think about the past and the future) The ability to categorize things The ability to do science The ability to grasp sets that have infinite members in them and the ability to grasp that there are bigger and smaller infinites. The ability to recognize things both on a micro and macro scale and in between. The ability to recognize limitation - the ability to go big picture and examine your own thoughts and thought processes and so much more Now, there are probably other things that are as if not more radical (in terms of scaling up how much you can understand and grasp and make sense of) for aliens as the capacity for abstraction is for us.

are you sure 100% that it is fibromyalgia? How many doctors have you visited who independently come to this conclusion?