zurew

Nilsi will turn into a butterfly in front of our eyes, by experimenting on himself with gene editing.

I only heard one good argument against antinatalism (that is working within the antinatalism philosophical framework, but paradoxically still makes them to be pro life for a random period of time). Ultimately an antinatalist wants to reduce the overall suffering in the world, if we start with that axiom, then we could argue that right now you can't kill all sentient life (that is capable of suffering or feeling pain). The goal for these people would ultimately be, to kill all life (not just sentient life, because evolution will eventually produce sentient life from life) and to be able to do that, you need an incredibly advanced tech for that. Right now, we don't have such technology and trying to kill all life on this Planet would just cause unnecessary suffering, because you wouldn't be able to kill all life and sentient life would eventually develop again. Therefore, an antinatalist right now should do everything in their power to help human development is such a way that we achieve the necessary technological development the fastest way, to be able to kill all life (at least on this Planet). Not having children and advocating for everyone not to have children would ultimately cause more suffering down the road compared to being okay with having children and helping humanity to advance technologically the fastest way.

I disagree with that, because that would open up a bunch of bullet bitings, that I wouldn't be comfortable with philosophically.

Depends on what development stage we are talking about. If there is no formed brain or central nervous system what makes you think that the baby can feel or be consious of anything? - We know for example, that if parts of your brain isn't working you can't feel pain.

I don't think thats the answer, the answer is that they still somewhat feel that they can have an effect on the system and they have a say in the system and not totally excluded from the choicemaking process. If people think that democracy is failing and that there is no way to have an effect on a system you would see a lot of justifications for killing, burning down things, and overthrowing the government. Why would people not do it, when they feel there is no other way to change the system but other than a revolution? - what you want is a system that either gives people the ability to have a direct effect on the system or you need to give people the feeling that they can have an effect on the system. People's morals can't be overwritten or be sedated by entertainment. You used the current times as an example, if we go with that time frame and take a look at US politics we can immedately see that this is not true. George Floyd riots, January 6 United States Capitol attack, and much more examples could be given.

We should probably talk about the axioms that we think are necessary to have a long lasting , flourishing society (don't have to lay out all of them, but mention some of them). I will start first, and you know probably all of these, because all these came from Daniel: 1) The Incentives are need to be aligned (because if they are not, your system won't last long, and if it won't last long, then you can't achieve long term development), 2) There needs to be collective sensemaking (This can only happen, if the first axiom is already in place), 3) Collective choicemaking (everyone's values need to be considered and taken into account) I think there is a big difference between getting entertained, and getting your deepest values protected or satisfied. I think this is probably where one of our biggest disagreement lies and where your system's foundation is, so lets talk about this in more depth. You are basically saying using entertainment can overwrite gametheory or at the very least, make it much less important. Can you give me a example that demonstrates this? I think what you wanted to say is not just entertainment, but more like people getting whatever they feel they need. But even that position is problematic, because true satisfaction can only come through having deep meaning to your life, unless people strongly feel that their life is meaningful I believe you will have problems with game theory + I would add that if people deeply disagree with the ethics of your system, you will eventually have problems no matter how much entertainment you will provide.

We still don't know much what makes people exceptionally good at certain things and how much of that is inherent to their genes and how much of that is being in an exceptional environment and having access to exceptional teachers almost 24/7. what I think would ideally needs to be done, is the creation of a system that recognises the talent in people at an early stage and then is capable to give all the necessary tools to all these people. I don't think you can have a long lasting dictatorship ever, where the incentives are not aligned and people feel like their deepest and most cared values are not taken into account. Even if you put the most conscious people there, they will probably get corrupt but even if they don't, there will be millions of people who will strive to that consious person's position and the system start to get rigged very fast and start to fall apart very fast. Why would people go along with a system where they feel like and their perception is that they are getting fucked, because their values are not taken into account?

What I meant, is that in the context of governance, you would always prefer a system that is the most effective to get things done compared to other systems.

Philosophically you are all for effectiveness, right?

Then I misread.

@Nilsi Thats not what Daniel was talking about, Daniel said that he would want an advanced AI (and not GPT 3 because that AI is incapable to do this task and so far there is no AI that could do this) to take into account different kind of valuesystems and people's deepest values (conservative , progressive) etc and create such plans that would include both and would not hurt neither of them too much, basically somehow creating some kind of synthesis from seemingly opposite valuesystems. He didn't say, that the AI would do all the governance , he said, we would use that AI in a way where it would inform people and give people ideas about governance and about certain plans and then people would choose from those ideas. He is against totally automatizing an AI overlord, because that has its own problems.

This is probably part of it and the other part of it is that anything that he says is automatically considered as a teaching by some of the guys here, which is a bullshit and simply not true and is also dangerous. If we consider what one of the main mods @Inliytened1 said here, that "if you disagree with any of the teachings then you are out" , then if we combine that with "everything what he says or posts here is a teaching", then no one can disagree with him about anything, because that would automatically mean, that that guy is disagreeing with the teachings, but this is bullshit, because not everything what he says is a teaching. The "everything is a teaching" is just weaponised and is a cope to avoid criticism and pushback. If the defenders acknowledge that not everything what he posts here is a teaching, and some of it is just unhinged, impulsive or even troll behaviour, then you have to accept that in those cases, he was just an asshole. If you don't acknowledge that not everything what he posts here is a teaching, then I am very curious about the argument that would establish, why it is necessary to behave the way he did. Imo, a very weird thing to do is to take all the cases where he was offensive towards a forum member, and in some cases dehumanizing (by for instance calling a member a rat) and then try to defend all those cases by putting the label "teaching" on all of those to be able to handwave away everything. Its interesting though that only @Gesundheit2 was the one who tried to engage with some of the criticisms here without changing the goalpost or without pivoting to a totally different point or discussion. Almost no one made any counter arguments about any of the criticisms. Then we obviously agree on that point. I haven't made any point that would have directly targeted his teachings, I only targeted his methods of teaching and the fact that sometimes he seemingly acknowledge a bad behaviour and then immediatelly make a rationalization and an excuse to why he was justified or why is was in the right to do what he did + he weaponises the Absolute and his teachings every time he is cornered with anything. Saying stuff like "you just don't understand" and similar things are used as a justification for his bad behaviour, and a sneaky way to change the goalpost (when at first and from the beginning it was about his methods/delivery of teaching and not about the substance of his teachings) Whats the best way to handwave everything, and to never engage with any arguments or criticisms? Say that all of that is relative therefore don't hold any water and then with that indirectly justfy all your bad behaviour this way. The phrase "absolute love" is also used in a weaponised manner, where it is just assumed that everything what he does comes from the place of Absolute love and therefore considered as a teaching and by that he basically can't do anything wrong or criticised for anything , and that is a super scary position to have and to defend someone with. You guys need to take a position or at the very least contemplate on what is a teaching and what is not a teaching and on what comes from the place of Absolute love and what comes from the place of relative love: 1) Everything what he does comes from the place of Absolute love therefore it is justified all the time 2) Some of his behaviour comes from the place of relative and selective love, therefore not everything what he does is necessarily justified. If you take the first positon, then you basically assume and say that he is in God mode 24/7, which is imo a very silly, and delusional position to have. This discussion is almost never about the main or important part which is this (that no one , not even one mod have answered yet): Where do you draw the line, when it comes to the ethics between a spiritual teacher and his members? What do you allow Leo to do and where is the point where you say that this is not okay and open your mouth and talk about it? Thats the logical extension of all the justifications that some of the guys made here. (like: 1) everything what he does comes from the place of absolute love and is just a teaching, 2) everything is relative anyway guys, so because nothing could be considered objectively bad or wrong, none of your criticisms hold any water [basically putting him on a pedestal in a way, where no ethical standards could be applied to him], 3) he did so much good and give us some many things for free, that you guys shouldn't criticise him or be ungrateful [which said alone makes it so, that as long as he delivers valuable content he can do basically whatever he feels like]) Honestly the biggest problem here is not just him saying some bad words here and there, but more about the process how those things are justified and what those justifications entail and about what principles it shows behind all those words. I described above what justification were used and why those are super problematic and how those justifications if accepted could also be used to justify much much worse behaviour as well. So far the justifications that were used by Leo and by the mods either shows an ethical system that is very prone to abuse or it shows that neither Leo nor the mods have thought deeply about the ethics of the"relationship and allowed behaviours between members and the spiritual teacher".

Thats the best formula to make this place a cult (ignore and not just that but ban everyone who has even a slight disagreement about Leo or about his teachings). It seems that you really quickly changed your position on this, because in the other thread you were making some criticisms yourself. Its pathetic to say that this forum is about self development and about growth when criticisms can't be made or are not even considered and handwaved away with spiritual excuses and other bullshit. Also notice that most of the criticisms here are not even about his teachings but about his methods, and about how he delivers those teachings and not just about that, because most of the comments that we have issue with aren't even teachings but random unhinged emotional comments targeted at members (that some of you consider as teachings, and that is obviously bullshit, because those cases he is just being in a triggered state - calling someone a rat and stuff like that) .

Its interesting that on one hand, you defenders look at him as God (so he can do whatever the fuck he wants and he is absolved from any ethical standard) and on the other hand, when he clearly loses his temper and acting in an egoic and impulsive manner, then he suddenly lose his god status and he become a little human who was hurt by trolls on his forum or in other words by just petty human shit (and by that narrative you try to justify his actions by stating, that he is just a normal little human just as anyone else). Don't just randomly change and pick and choose what standards you apply to Leo based on what kind of argument you want to make or defend. You either choose a God standard where he is all powerful and he never lose his temper ever or never get triggered by anything because he is that much in control of himself and everything , and every action of his is 100% conscious; or you acknowledge that he is a human just as everyone else, but by that you have to accept all the negative and hard baggage that comes with a human standard (you can't do whatever the fuck you want to do anymore, and you are not absolved from ethics and now you need to be conscious how you act and what decisions you make) and we are not talking about a basic human standard that is applicapble to everyone, but more about a teacher and more specifically a spiritual teacher standard. If you choose the "God standard" for him, then you can't use the "he lost his temper, because he is just human" excuse anymore, and if you still genuinly believe and give a "God standard" to him where is absolved from ethics, then I would say that you are delusional, and you shouldn't give anyone that much power over yourself. If you believe in the "don't be so soft" narrative, then you should use the same standard on Leo as well. Why is he get triggered by some trolls on this forum, why can't he handle it? Is he so soft that he gets hurt by criticism or by just words on the screen? Any argument that you make to create the "you guys are just soft and this is just a forum" all of those could be applied to Leo as well, so be careful what logic you guys want to use here. About the arguments of "but he did so many great things and we shouldn't criticise him , because he gave a lot for free and his work is so valuable" you are essentially saying that he can do whatever negative things he wants and you will endure it, without saying a word about it, because he contributes some positive things to your life - in other words, you are essentially justifying almost every abusive relationship. The conversation about this particular issue should be more about where do you draw the line, or is there any line for you? Becuase if there isn't any line, then thats concerning and you are basically just a blind follower, who doesn't have a healthy self-esteem. Also I still haven't seen any coherent argument that would have actually justified why it is necessary to act the way Leo did. All of attempts to make that argument were just coping and even the attempts Leo made were really hard coping and couldn't construct any coherent argument why it is necessary for him to act the way he did. The fact of the matter is that acting that way is not necessary but just an option, but if its just an option, then drop all the cope and just say that you like that style of teaching and don't cope with it being necessary or with other excuses like that and just own that you want to be an asshole without a particular necessity for it or actually ancknowledge that you were wrong in those instances, and don't try to defend and rationalise them afterwards. I could easily make arguments why it is not necessary to act that way, and not just that, but given what kind of audience he attracts and has - it is often times counterproductive to teach that way.

The title of the article is very clickbaity, but essentially it is mentioning one relatively high ranking person and one scientist , who both believe, that there were two artificially created objects that visited Earth or were very near Earth in the past. One thing is clear( to my knowledge) that those two objects were indeed close to Earth, but it is not clear if they were artificially created or not. No evidence is mentioned in the article that would prove the main point, (that those two objects or even one of the objects were artificially created by aliens).

Its insane how much we will be able to automatize things and to make things 100x more productive.

This is some really insane shit

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/11sfqkf/gpt4_day_1_heres_whats_already_happening/

Yes I am biased towards survival , just as you and just as everyone else, who is here. The word "better" have to be shaped by a finite context, if you remove all context the word "better" doesn't really mean anything. When I say the word "better" it is given in a very specific context (in the context of survival) and it is not intented to be an ultimately objective sentence (when you remove all finite contexts). We can take any finite set of metrics (for example who is a faster runner or who is stronger or any other finite metric) and then we can compare two person and we can find out who is better at those things. This is false, and here you are making valuejudgements in the context of finite metrics and now we can objectively evaulate your claims. If I get tortured by the most horrific methods for weeks, that will objectively bring more pain to me than somebody shooting me in the head.

You are not even trying to engage with my point. In the context where a person wants to survive (which I clearly stated and you deliberately try to miss it) it is indeed worse to get shot in the head than dying by old age. But notice that you made a valuejudgement by saying that dying by old age is worse than getting shot in the head. By that statement you showed that you are just as biased as everyone else and you have no high ground here and you are not participating in any "I have no bias" kind of bullshit. The fact that you are alive right now, shows that you are biased towards survival ,and no fancy philosophy or thoughts will get you out of that. You are that hippy kid who recognized that ultimately everything is relative and now incapable to engage with any topics, and you think that you are more intelligent and conscious than everyone else - not realising , that everyone else had the same realisation years ago. The fact is that you are not revelaing anything new to anyone here, the only thing you are showing right now,is that you lack the ability to properly weight variables and things in a given context.

The concept of advantage and disadvantage can only make sense in the relative world. In the relative world, there are necessary tradeoffs, because of the limitations and if someone is for example is biased towards survival, we can use the variable of survival as a context to evaluate certain things. Getting shot in the head is bad, if you are a jew and a nazi party is on the rise thats extra bad for you and increases the chance of you getting killed (threataning the variable [survival], that you care about). Going from that, not voting on a nazi party is good, doing certain things that will avoid the nazi party to get elected is good, God doesn't care about any finite set of metrics, only a human care about finite metrics. But if you do care about a finite set of metrics, then you can use those to evaulate situations and things in the biased context of your own survival. God doesn't care about your survival more than about anything else, but you do. You keep talking about bigger pictures, but humans don't have the capacity or the intention to always care about the bigpicture. If humanity care about survival, then God killing all humans on this planet would be bad for humans, but it might be good for this Planet overall. You can keep changing the frame and about how meta you want to go, but as long as you acknowledge that in God's eye humans are not on the top of the value hierarchy (because everything has the same value), you need to acknowledge, that there are things that could be considered bad in the context of "humanity surviving" or developing.

Its still from human general intelligence, so its unlikely, but when it comes to optmizing its own code, thats much more likely. But maybe if its somehow good at manipulation and at how to fake things, then it might be actually able to make people to do things for itself.

I tested it how much it understands concepts like synthesis and synergy, because both of those are very useful to understand and both of those concepts could be applied for a wide variety of topics.

Because that would require a perfect understanding of its own self and knowing how to code is necessary but far from being sufficient. Thats like saying "dude , you know how to use a pencil and draw lines with it on a paper, why can't you create a perfect drawing of myself or of nature?"

Creating an ego that revolves around "I am being anti establishment" makes it so that you won't be able to accept and stomach and acknowledge, when the establishment is right. Besides these very vague and general statements, what tangible things or criticisms do you have that couldn't be applied to the anti establishment crowd if the same standards are applied?