zurew

@StarStruck Nice . Anyone who will get triggered by your memes, is not awake .

Change "Godz & shiii" to "Aliens & shiii" and you are good. Or please make a meme about people arguing who is more conscious.

Thats not the question, because no one here is denying that you can awaken without any religion. The question is that whats more effective? Having an organized system where you can find all the teachings and methods and all the pitfalls and everything in an organised way with the combination of all the good parts of science to maximize the effectiveness or a world where people who want to awaken have to do all the investigative work alone by exploring many different kind of cults and by all that maximizing their chances of getting caught up in one and getting mislead by one? Its almost the same as if we were talking about learning in a high conscious university (where all the knowledge is organised, and where many different kind of highly educated people are at your disposal in one place vs you having a big need for collecting and trying out and testing all the selfhelp books alone and wasting a lot of time and money by doing so) I haven't said that that is the highest value, I just used it as an example to make a point. The other thing that is relevant here is that people on this forum are very fast with saying "everything is relative, and nothing has inherent value , and no value is higher than any other value" which btw isn't necessarily true, especially if you guys agree with Leo that Reality is Love,- but regardless of that - this is fine on a theoretical level, however no one here is living up to that nihilistic notion and the very fact that you guys are alive, proves that no one here lives up to it. If we know that survival necessitates a hierarchy of values, then we might as well consciously construct a moral and a valuesystem that we could all collectively live up to. You made an argument about how dogmas are necessarily bad (I disagree, because you can't escape certain dogmas and dogmas can have a very specific purpose - namely for example to make you take action), however, on this site we have dogmas as well, but these are harder to recognise. The very purpose of a dogma is to not question it, and I brought up an example of a dogma: "You can experience awakening/the Absolute if you do x methods, and you don't have to believe me, just try it for yourself!", if I question that dogma, then I can't start doing the work, but if I don't question it and I buy into it and use it as a method, then I can start doing the exploration/seeking/doing the work. A person who wants to explore the absolute, first and foremost have to have a belief that it can be explored (prior to any other action). The very same way we could have a religion as I described above ,where you could find all the necessary tools, frameworks and methods in one place and all the best people that are in the field, that could help you to lead you to the explore absolute or to help you awaken.

This is not a good faith way to explore and to have an inquiry about all the effects of electric car production and usage. Here is a question: Do you have a smartphone? If you do, then you are contributing to a big market, that uses child labour to produce necessary parts for your phone and thats just one bad industry from many, that could be brought up. You not owning an electric car won't change the systemic issues that are in Congo. If you really care, then we should talk about the systemic issues and not about guilt-trapping people who own electric cars (just to be clear I don't). Unfortunately people are doing this work there, because they probably don't have a better option to earn enough money, and without addressing the systemic issues there, even if hypothetically you would manage to shut these mines down, the only thing you would achieve with that, is that you would take away a money earning opportunity from these people without actually giving them an alternative or better option. We can talk about direct and indirect effects. Regarding the indirect effects: we have an interconnected ecosystem, and if you start to fuck with certain parts of that system, then the effects of that will be eventually felt everywhere, but even if we would to ignore the indirect effects, there are direct bad effects of using gasoline.

I think the best you can do is to learn about writing and at the same time learn prompt engineering (how to use prompts the best and most efficient way to get what you want from the AI). If you learn about writing more and more, you will be able to use that knowledge to ask the right questions to the AI and to specify the needs and the tasks that the AI will need to do for you, and you will automatically become a better prompt engineer as well. The more knowledge you have about a topic or a concept (in this case about writing), the deeper questions you can ask and the more you can specify what tasks the AI will need to do. Being more educated about writing will be what will set you apart from other people who are not educated but are using AI to write things for them.

if I would know a rigorous answer to that, I would probably be one of the smartest person alive. This is one question a lot of people struggle with and the concept of an antirivalrous world is about. As I said before, debating about it won't be sufficient enough, because debating is structurally limited for this, and here is why: Debating already assumes an already agreed upon goal/goalpost where we will try to move towards during our debate, unless this is not established, we will talk past each other and we won't settle/get anywhere. Debating is about using logic to get from A to B. Morals precedes logic and sometimes if we have foundationally different morals, we won't be able to agree upon the goal/goalpost, therefore we won't even be able to begin our debate and won't be able to settle our disagreement(s) by debate Therefore the argument would be , that we need to have a common set of foundational morals that we can all use and agree upon (religion) and just after that we can start talking about debating certain topics. Once that foundation is established, that will give a structure to our debates and we can then debate about how to move towards certain goals within that structure. You might say "yeaah, but there never was a universal religion that everyone agreed upon, and we still managed to survive and to move society forward" - that would be a good point, however the next part of the argument would be , that even though in the past we somewhat managed to do that (because we weren't that depended on each other and in the past we could use might to get what we want), in the 21st century where everything is interconnected and we are depended on each other, some of these disagreements (that are at foundational moral level) needs to be settled to be able to solve some of our global problems and to be able to not live in constant fear that the other party will use their might (justifiably from their perspective) to defend their morals. The weakest part of this argument is obviously about the "how". How could we get to a universal religion without war and actual fights? The answer to that question is incredibly complicated and I am not educated enough to talk on that, however, first we have to agree that there is a strong need for it, and then we can talk about the "hows" (notice that here we have to agree on the goalpost to be able to have a debate about it and to be productive).

You can now play this game with chatgpt if you want to. Give it a prompt like this: This is how it went down for me

If it is truly totally deterministic, then you and no one have any control over their feelings, therefore being worried or feeling guilty is totally automatic and not a choice.

Some religion came from experiecing certain things, then building a framework for it and then teaching about it. (the very same way how Leo has his awakenings, then try to give a set of practices and a framework for it and then teach about it). You can experience a bunch of things, but an experience's truth value will be totally determined by you. You can experience infinite love, and then say, that it was just chemicals in my brain that made me feel that way. You can always doubt or blindly accept any experience, and how much truth value you will place on them will be grounded in subjectivity. You can say, that some religion provides dogmas that you can't really test, or falsify, however being able to test something or to experience something, doesn't necessarily makes it more true than other things either. I could create a framework where I almost perfectly describe how to achieve psychosis (but put a label "ultimate truth" on it), give you a set of practices how to achieve it, and then and the end of all that say - don't believe me , try it for yourself. Just because you can achieve or experience it , that alone doesn't mean that it will be more true than any other thing or that it will be the ultimate truth. You can find certain dogmas in any spiritual community or religion . The very notion, that ultimate truth can be experienced, in and of itself is a dogma here, that no one is allowed to question or contemplate.

Except you probably wouldn't evaluate just based on sentience, but based on outcome as well and maybe based on other things as well. The ranking of sentience is very problematic in and of itself, but regardless of that, what if you would kill all those shripms you could directly save 10000 humans (because you could give them food). Or what if that whale is the last pregnant one and the only one who could save its own species from completely dying off? Do you consider things like that in your evaluation or you would completely ignore those? 100 million dogs vs 1 human. How do you decide this one? What if it is guaranteed that the killing process is painless and instant?

from their perspective it is.

Everything is about beliefs and you can't and won't ever escape that. Everything will eventually be grounded in subjective beliefs and whatever will be your core belief, you will label that as "truth". It all depends on what kind epistemic process you will hold true and your choosing of that process will be completely subjective , so we might as well agree upon some kind of process or set of processes then. Spiritual traditions are dogmatic, and Leo is dogmatic as well.

Totally depends on the conflict. Not agreeing on the main goals and not agreeing on the main values and having completely different sensemaking processes (by having different metaphyiscs) just creates a place (what we have right now) ,where development is incredibly slowed down - by everyone having opposed incentives - and it doesn't just slows the development down, but it makes problemsolving either impossible or 10x more harder. If the incentives are aligned and we can agree on the main values and goals, then we can 10x our development and we can 10x our problemsolving capabilities and then proper cooperation is possible. That doesn't mean, that within that system we have to agree about everything, that just means we need to agree on the main building blocks. When you say "I challenge your views" you are essentially saying ,that you are trying to challenge people's deepest valuesystem and morals. If you two are starting from completely different valuesystems (that are inherently consistent) you won't be able to debate people out from their position. Sometimes you have two different valuesystems - that cancel each other out - where there is disagreement at the core levle and because of that, you are essentially ending up with wars (and from each valuesystem's perspective, it can be completely justified). But you can't, because 1) the disagreement is at a deeper level than just having different ideas (you two are essentially viewing and experiencing the world from a totally different lense) - and what you would want is a lense change, but the lense change almost never happens just by debating about this. 2) It almost never stops at just " battleing this out in the realm of ideas" and almost always leads to war (especially when your valuesystem is threatened at its core by another one).

The purpose of threads like this are questionable. You make some claims that you have no way of validating (you have no idea who is awake and who is not), but at the same time your are (again) making yourself to look special - to gain total authority over this subject.

Have you noticed any difference between bing AI and the paid version?

@StarStruck good stuff

What does that even mean? We use certain labels to describe certain parts of reality, so if we define mental illness the way Carl did, then how can you deny the existence of mental illness?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg5ew4/gpt4-hired-unwitting-taskrabbit-worker

If you take such a position, you would have to be okay with killing every person who has some kind of severe mental illness or severe disease or deformity (which would be killing millions of people). Where do you draw the line (what constitutes as a severe illness or disease or deformity), and why do you draw it exactly there? What about instances, where a person is physically or mentally seriously hurt for a while, but there is a good chance for recovery? How do you deal with those instances? Or what about the fact, that because of the exponential rate of technological development, as time goes on, we will be able to cure or at the very least, treat more and more severe illnesses and diseases? where do you draw the line, and how do you measure who will suffer more and who will enjoy life more? Even philosophically speaking this will be probably very hard for you to answer, but then we get into the pragmatic side of things, where you created a world where people using the power of institutions can actually kill people and infants based on an arbitrary principle . Once you create a system like that, It doesn't really matter where you drew your line first, because people will be able to eventually move that line elsewhere(and you will inevitably get an almost nazi like world or an even more extreme world, where for instance only the top 1% is allowed to survive) If reducing/preventing suffering is your main argument/objective , then I would ask you this: What is the difference between your position and between an antinatalist position and why do you put more emphasis on suffering than on anything else?

My bad, I misread and misinterpreted your post (I thought that you were referring to an early stage foetus). I somehow missed the word "infanticide" in his post and I disagree with that .

They don't need to think about any of those things to do riots and to participate in a revolution. I already gave two examples where people participated in riots not too long ago (and those were under a democratic framework) now imagine what those people would have done under a dictatorship. If they seriously disagree with your morality that you want to force on them, your system wont last too long. Maybe you could argue that there are some places where people are more okay with complying, but even when it comes to those cases , they are seriously depended on how much they agree with the system that you want to force upon them. Unless you actually create a system where you threat people with death, I don't think most people will comply with your dictatorship - and even if they will for some time - your system won't be sustainable for too long, because some people (within that 1% that you mentioned) will be incredibly motivated to get your power, so they will either want to kill you or at the very least get your position and you will constantly have to fear about that dynamic and eventually your system would be destroyed. Regarding your argument about how much people need to be ruled by an elite: You can argue that most people are not that developed or educated nowadays, but that doesn't mean that it will stay that way. I don't know how much you are attached to the idea of a dictatorship philosophically. What would you say about a hypothetical, where all or at least 90% of the population is very developed and educated (would you still prefer a dictatorship kind of governance, or would you prefer some kind of governance that is much closer to a democracy?) Also no elite or team of elites is capable to actually properly rule the world alone, because its just way too complex and so many things need to be taken into account and everything is interconnected ,so you need all people's or most people's full contribution and collaboration in order to actually maintain systems and to develop and to fix things. Also, as I layed out in my previous responses and above, a dictatorship can't last long and it is determined to be taken over and eventually to be destroyed and you can't even make people to fully contribute to your system (they will contribute as much as they need to not get punished too much, but they won't give their full capability and power, because of reverse incentives and because of moral disagreements vs in a Daniel Schmachtenberger kind of democracy they will contribute with all their will and knowledge, because they will be incentivised to do so and they will know that their values will be taken into account)

This was summarized by bing AI, and I have no idea how much of this is made up bullshit, because I haven't read this giant book.

A brain has its own brain (on the right side), now thats a metabrain or something. Jumping back to philosophical convos - Lets you could actually hack yourself in a way, where your brain would grow 4-5x the size compared to its current size, but you would immediately become 4-5x more emphatetic as well. Would you go with it, or would that destroy your ability to conquer this world?