zurew

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?

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".