zurew

Just to be clear in my vocab being sentient and conscious are related but different. Being sentient means being able to experience feelings. Being conscious means, being able to experience feelings and having some level of agency/creativity/free will. I agree with you, that from an Absolute Pov everything is consciousness or in other words, God. From the finite ego's pov it seems like there are beings and things that seems to be conscious and there are other things that doesn't seem to be conscious. We are basing our judgement on 'seemingness' . From the finite pov, generally speaking, we would consider certain beings conscious , if we think that they have some level of free will. So if we think that certain beings have some level of agency, then generally, we would consider them to be conscious. [ I know about the free will vs determinism debate, but in order to have this convo, we have to assume that free will exist (even from the finite pov), because if we don't, then we cannot continue this convo] How do we decide, if a being has any level of agency? I think we decide that based on how complex that being is cognitively and also based on how creative it can be and how unpredictable it can be. If that being gives the exact same responses to the same inputs, then we wouldn't call that being conscious (generally). So based on those things i gave, i can't see how a complex enough AI wouldn't be considered as conscious?

Do you use the word 'sentient' the same way as 'conscious'? If you do, then we are basically talking about ego. What would be the difference between a biological ego and a mechanical ego?

The thing is with AI, that there is a point where it can simulate sentience so well, that we might mistake it as real sentience. There is no way, we can actually distinguish between the simulation of sentience and real sentience. From a practicality standpoint, i don't know if it matters or not, but its still an interesting philosophical question, for sure.

@Scholar I think even though the perception would be different the desire would still be there. I think that if the concern for something outweighs the temptation or the desire, then that particular action most likely won't be taken. I think the 'concern' part can be affected by internal and external factors as well. For instance, using your rape analogy, you could say that you wouldn't rape that particular person, because of your perception of them and because of your internal moral system. But thats just the inner part, there is an external factor to this, because there are laws. Other external factor could be friends and culture. But of course the culture part is almost irrelevant here, because most people eat meat so the culture part just makes it harder. Your internal moral system and how you view things internally of course can be affected by external factors. I think most people who eat meat wouldn't eat it, if they had to the butchering and killing themselves, because they actually somewhat recognise that some animals seem to be conscious. But even though they recognise that, they still eat meat, because there is a system that does the heavy lifting of butchering the animals and providing them consumeable products. I think you are totally right ,when you say, that the perception part is the most important part here. Because there are arguments on the meat eater side like (but meat is more cheap | meat is more nutritious | based on these 2 articles a human must consume meat, because if they don't , then they won't be healthy | only eating vegetables won't give me enough energy | The place where i live, i can't access enough vegetables | meat is more delicious | vegetables nutritional value is declining rapidly compared to the past, so i have to eat 9 orange now, to get the same nutritional value, that i got from eating one orange in the past|etcetc) even if you were to debunk all of those above, most of them would still eat meat, because of the perception part . There might be a small number of people who would change their mind based on your debunking of those arguments, but most of them wouldn't. Because of this, i think the most you can do is to target the younger generation who are open enough to change their view on animals or open and receptive enough to create a more righteous perception of animals. If you want to target adult people, then the question is, how could you give them the desire or a reason, to be willing to change their perception of animals. I think that particular desire will have to be greater than the desire to consume meat. Without giving them the desire to change, i think there will be no change, unless you can do it in a sneaky way.

Yes, its good to know why we want to do what we want to do. I think its this. A TOE wouldn't be practical, but just for the sake of understanding it would be good. If you are somewhat biased towards understanding , then it could be good for you, but if you don't care about understanding stuff just for the sake of understanding them , then i don't see what you could gain from it.

Yeah, then my bad, i projected my assumption on this thread.

Yeah , thats why i said that no matter what position one take we will have to eat some heavy bullets. I bet you care on a political level , if your position on abortion would be used on a societal level. It boils down to subjective prefences and metaethics. Its not more true to say, that abortion is right or to say that abortion is wrong, because ultimately its based upon subjective grounds. Generally, we debate or talk about these topics and arguing because we assume, we can change the other side's mind about their position. If we assume, that the other side won't change their position at all, then the only point to continue talking about the topic is to be able to understand why the other side they think what they think ,and why they take the position what they take, but other than that, not much value you can get from the discussion.

Its irrelevant for the sake of abortion discussion. We could reason why he is or why he isn't a sociopath but the conclusion won't change any abortion position here, so i don't think its relevant to argue about it. Pro lifers will be able to attack your position and say, why do you justify killing a human life, by saying that that human life might grow up in a poor environment. Pro lifer could say, why shouldn't we kill then other poor children who grow up in a poor environment? Your other argument was (correct me if i am wrong) that "people should be forced into having children if they are not ready". Pro lifer would argue, why should that statement hold more weight compared to a human murder? I am pro abortion and I think, if you are pro abortion you can't take the stance that you think that human life begins from pregnancy, because it will be almost impossible to defend. Its impossible to defend, because anything you will say will have to hold more weight than a human murder.

Generally speaking we would want to get down as deep as we can, to see what you value and why. There is a reason to get down deep, because the other party might change its position if he/she hears a sounding argument in favour of your position, but if you start on the ground of "common sense" then no one will change any positions and noone will be convinced of anything. But we don't need to continue this,if you don't want to, but you have to be aware, that the other party who will argue againts you can use the term "common sense" as well (because you are using it too) as they like and whenever they like without needing to justify or further elaborate why they think what they think. Using the word "common sense" is begging the question and implies that we didn't really think through our position why we think what we think and why we value what we value. Its irrelevant for the sake of this discussion if he is a sociopath or not. Of course i would just use my assumptions, just as you. So if a mosquito put its needle in you and suck your blood and you kill it, regarding to this framework it would still be considered murder, because you intentionally killed it, just to be more comfortable and to not feel pain. Or if you kill a fly in your home, just because you got annoyed by it , it would still be considered a murder, and if you use this framework the only justification you can use is that, "it annoyed me , so i had to kill it " but of course that will be very weak to justify murder. So according to you , from where human life begins and why there? Also, why should we value the potentiality of a life the same way as an already developed life?

If you want to take the position that consciousness is not necessarily related to the brain, then you will get into a weird position which will be really hard to justify. We would get to a place where killing any small bacteria or life should be considered a murder because generally speaking what we actually value is conscious experience. Also, generally speaking we definitely value consciousness over potentiality, so how do you go around that? Just as he said, we can keep a body alive, but we no longer consider him conscious (if he is braindead) . I don't think you value 5 braindead bodies the same as 5 healthy person with healthy brains Also, he can use the "from where do you consider the fetus a human" argument as well. He can say that it isn't a human before 6 weeks and that way he can justify abortion. Its subjective where someone draw his/her own line. He is not a sociopath. He was a pro lifer some years ago, but he changed his position. I think he is giving pretty sounding and rational arguments most of the time. There are no common sense distinctions in morality debates. You need to bite some heavy bullets depending on what position you take. Its the nature of moral arguments that you need to justify everything. No matter what positions you will take ,you will have to eat some heavy bullets, the only question is, with what bullets you are okay with.

Destiny is laying down a strong pro abortion position here. It starts at 1:19:31 .

that "pay me for my nudes" is really strange if she is interested in you for real. She could be a desperate hooker or idk lmao. But i mean, you can test her and that will tell which assumption is true. If you really want to, you can keep on chatting with her and see where it goes. If she is not interested in you, she will stop chatting with you, if she is interested, she will stay around more, but who knows. Or it might be the case ,that she really is a hooker, but she is interested in you, and testing you if it would be okay if she was a hooker. But of course this is just speculation.

I think she was pretending to be into you in person. Hookers and bitches can play like that . First try to make you horny and try to play it like they are into you and then they can use the buy my nudes card or to fuck me for money card or to get a bj for money card. Also girls can pretend to be into you , just to get drinks for free. 100% agree.

I think you need to work on your embodyment, and your ego is fragile. You are getting overrun by your emotions by a pretty basic everyday situation. In the future, you will bump into a lot of cold and provocative people and they will be much more triggering than the one you interacted with. That being said, i agree ,that there is a subjective line for everyone ,where they will decide to kill someone. That line is being drawn at different places depending on the person. But i think your tolerance level is way too low. If you got so triggered by this situation , that you started contemplating about killing other people, that means that you have work to do, and you are dangerous. You need to figure out why you get so bothered by basic life situations. You may need to go to a psychologist or a psychiatrist to work on yourself and on your ego to be able to tolerate more shit. Your ego will be shattered by other much more serious situations. I don't think so. Even if a cop kills someone who is dangerous, he doesn't want to kill that person but he doesn't have any other option. He doesn't do it because he wants to, but he hast to. There is a big difference between wanting to kill and when there is no other option, but to kill. (In the first you have other options, in the second you pretty much ran out of options) If you get satisfaction by the thought of killing other people you have something seriously fucked up in your mind and you should go to a psychologist or a psychiatrist. But to be more charitable to you, there are exceptions of course. For instance, if a pedophile would rape and torture my kid ( I don't have any but if i had ) i would probably want to kill that person because of the emotions. But that is a pretty exceptional situation and not some basic everyday situation that can happen on a regular basis. My tolerance level is pretty high, i try to avoid and do everything before things get physical. Even if i was to get attacked there are a number of things i could do, before i would get into a fight.

It might be, but not necessarily. Lets take spirituality, you can get the big picture pretty fast using hardcore psychedelics, however to get the details and the connections between the parts and how it really works is much more harder imo. The problem with only focusing on the parts is that you study them in an isolated way, and your understanding of them will be limited. You can put those elements/parts into a different system and see how they will work (That way you can understand even better what the purpose of those parts why they work differently in different environments and structures, and you will know what are the aspects that are unique to those parts, regardless of what system you want to put them into.) Of course focusing only on the big picture has its own limitations too. But i think you are right , that you don't necessarily need a TOE to be more practical. TOE would be more about understanding than being practical. If practicality is your main focus, then TOE won't be interesting to you. A theory is pretty strong and not just speculation it is based on data. Of course that doesn't mean that it can't be faulty, but a theory is "stronger" than a hypothesis.

If you want to develop you own way of thinking , you will have to read or absorb information, because what you will consider your own system/idea chances are high, that it won't be in any way unique to you. If you read a lot, and you know how others thought about stuff, and if you can understand their thinking process and why they thought, what they thought, you could start to agree or disagree with their ideas and eventually develop your own new stuff. Career wise there are different roads you can go down. You can become a teacher, lawyer, system thinker, system improver [you can find lot of fields here, you could improve these things on a systemic level: education, politics, law, ethics, science, epistemology etc ], you could become an analyst at different companies (here obviously philosophy won't be enough in an of itself, you will need other background as well like business or compsci or other), you could also become a writer or you could be a person like Leo who share his insights using a medium like youtube. You could get into Datascience, you could create softwares that are related to philosophy and some level of truth etcetc. You could express your thoughts/ideas in countless ways. You will have to find what medium resonate with you the most. You can read, think , question, contemplate and repeat that process. Or you could question your own ideas about reality, yourself , about systems, whatever you want to question. Ethics could be an interesting road to go down or epistemology. Imo, the most exciting would be to question how science works and how its framework could be developed and show what the blindspots are. That would be one of the most difficult jobs to do, but also the most exciting one as well. Providing better tools and frameworks to research, explore with. Whatever you will do, you will have to deal with a lot of criticism, especially, if you decide to go down the "questioning science" road.

If you have a model that can describe reality in an accurate way, that means that you can use that knowledge to do practical stuff and to manipulate reality. Understanding the whole, can improve your knowledge about the parts. Knowing how different parts connect to each other, can help to understand those seemingly separate parts better.

Yes, and also it could work as a hive mind. All the self driving cars would know all the other self driving cars location and where they want to go, so they could find the best and most fast ways to get to their location. Also parking wouldn't really be that much of a problem, because that self driving car don't need to stop anywhere, it could detect the least occupied places and go there without blocking anything or any other self driving car's way. Also as time goes on, more and more things can be done from home. There will be a point, where you won't really need to leave your home for almost anything. If one thing that we could learn from this covid pandemic, is that we can make things manageable from home. School can be done from home, most work can be done from home all the other stuff can be done from home. Soon drones will be used to deliver a lot of different kind of stuff, so because all of those, there will be a lot less reason to go out and to occupy roads and sidewalks. The more worse the traffic gets, the more reason we will have to make everything manageable and accessible from home. The future is here. California allows driverless taxi service to operate in San Francisco: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/03/california-driverless-taxi-cars-san-francisco

He couldn't argue why Leo's points about quantum mechanics are incorrect, but he made it look like Leo's point was incorrect. He doesn't really attack any of Leo's ideas, not even try to understand any of them, rather he goes into personal attacks. He is taking things out of context and try to present a picture about Leo in an obviously bad faith way.

How would you verify if there is anything outside of you? You can't, its impossible, but just because something is impossible, it doesn't mean it can't be true. Basically unfalsifiable, unverifiable.

Lets not forget to mention the risk part too. If you are able to double your money every year ,that basically means that you literally gambling with your money and you get really, really lucky. (Even if you have a very successful company, doubling your income cannot be maintained) Just because sometimes you can make some lucky guesses, that doesn't mean, that suddenly you know how to invest. When we are talking about big rewards we are talking about big risk. When we are talking about big risk, we can know that one of the biggest success factor will be the luck part. Don't make it look like you are a God investor who knows with a very high certainty, how to constantly make a lot of money. There is no way, that you know with a high certainty, how the market will behave and even if you knew what will happen and how people will react, there are unknown unknown factors that you are not calculating and you cannot calculate. Just simply mention, that you got lucky a few times and thats it. Be honest about it, and don't mislead people.

Nah, there is truth to what he is saying. We can talk all about these issues, but they will never get solved, if we can't get the incentives right. If there is no incentive to stop polluting, then why would anyone stop it? If there is no incentive for companies, to stop polluting (because in most cases, polluting is more profitable compared to not polluting) ,then why would they stop? They won't stop just because we make a moral argument, most comapnies won't give any fuck about morality, but they will change , if they can see that not polluting is more profitable than polluting. On an individual level, why would anyone stop polluting? Why would anyone invest time or money or any effort solving this issue, if they don't gain almost any personal benefit from it? From their perspective ,it looks something like this: " So, i need to make a significant sacrifice right now, to reduce the global pollution by 0.0000000000001% later, and i know that i won't get any special reward for it in the short term, and i won't get any personal reward for it in the future " This is the core question: Why would anyone or any company or country stop polluting ,if in most of the cases, polluting is more profitable for them than not polluting? Talking about moral arguments won't cut it, talking about saving the World won't cut it either. I think that money is a core driver here. We can say here, that the incentive would be, that if we change, then we can live longer on this Earth, but that reasoning won't cut it because of countless reasons) Not everyone agrees that there is a problem When we are talking about a problem like "carbon emissions" we aren't talking about just carbon emissions , because there is a system behind this problem and thats why its occured in the firstplace. If we really want to solve such problems we have to take a systemic approach. People who recognize that there is a problem, don't want to make any sacrifice, because they don't see how one individual polluting less will make any significant global change In most of the cases, the first who make sacrifice, will lose the most in the short-term. Almost no one wants to optimize themselves for the longterm, because all our systems are rewarding in the short-term. If you lose in the short-term you can lose the race because others will tear you down (in this age, obviously there is a rivalous dynamic between us) Lot of people think that this issue is too complex so they are freezed and they feel hopeless The reward can only be seen in the far future. Humans are not optimized in this age, to do tasks to get rewarded in the far future. We are optimized to get immediate rewards for our actions. etcetc Yeah, i agree 100%.

Yes thats true, however, the big difference is that we can choose what we want to consume and how we want to consume it. When we are talking about morality, we assume some level of free will or agency and using that agency you can choose between taking action a or b or c. Thats why it is a moral issue, because we have a choice. As we develop technologically,cognitively and spiritually etc the way we operate and how we view the world changes. Back in the day, rape and murder were okay, now they are not. Also beside the moral side of it , its an environmental issue as well. So its a multifaceted problem, that needs to be looked at and thought about.