zurew

It could be though. With enough statistical data, but that statistical data would have to be collected first. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is sort of tangible, you could make some hypothesis about the levels and then test your theory if it applies or not. Even if we are not able to make a perfect hypothesis about it, we can at least point to a range of things that is required to achieve certain levels.

But the goal matters, why you want to use a certain substance. When the shaman says that "he doesn't need it anymore" so he won't take it that has a certain context to it. You can use psychedelics to just fuck around you can use them for healing purposes, you can use them for spiritual purposes etc.

Thats one good way to summarize it. The only thing i would add to this is that intentionality doesn't necessarily matter ,only the outcomes ( we can think about karma just like we think about physics). And one plus thing is that we tend to think about karma from the finite ego's perspective. Some people tend to make an argument that this and that murderer killed x many people and after that they killed themselves, so they succesfully escaped the potential "punishment" or "justice". That would be true, if we would be only looking at it from an individual's perspective. Because everyone and everything is you, the consequences of your actions will hit you back. We don't necessarily need to add things like rebirth here to explain these things.

I guess its totally depends on the person and on how much you dissolve your ego when you have that realization. Having a solipsistic experience without an ego is easier to stomach than when you are maintaining a finite ego. Because when you think you are finite and you experience that you are all alone, you think you can't survive and thats why it gets super scary i guess (sort of like the ego thinks how the fuck am i gonna survive, if there is noone to help me?). Also having a solipsistic experience while you are maintaining your ego is problematic ,because you recognize that you are all alone, but you still don't necessarily recognize that you are the one who is responsible for reality and for your experience. So there is a hopelessness that can potentially come up.

I think this is sort of true. Becuase of our advancements in technology we lost the need for meaning and intuition. Everything now is about being certain and about science. Everything is about the objective and the subjective lost its own value (I used subjective and objective in normal terms not how we use it here). This is why spirituality and other practices are not common nowadays.

One of the biggest problem with this, is the same problem with motivational speakers. They are good at manipulating your emotions making you feel excited and motivated and making you feel like you are strong and smart. Being able to manipulate your feelings like that, these people can do with you whatever they want. In this case, they can easily trap stage blue people to believe that democrats are evil.

That ground doesn't exist independent of your mind. Thats the point, the ground itself is part of your imagination. Everything is mind. When you say that distinctions depend on reality. Reality itself part of the distinction making, thats basically the most meta distinction you make in your mind, thats why you are able to separate yourself from the world . But that distinction only exist in your mind. Notice that you can create a million different kind of scenarios to explain reality and yourself. But where are those philosophies and explanations comes from and where they exist? They all comes from your mind. Everything is grounded in your mind. Lets assume there is an independent physical reality out there. Even if thats the case you can only experience your own distorted version of it. When i say own distorted version of it, you have your own biased way to make sense of that physical reality. You don't talk to me, you talk to an idea of me. Your mind generating me. Your mind generating your room. Your mind generating yourself. If you want to take a position where you make the least amount of assumptions you naturally arrive at solipsism. The only thing you can verify in your direct experience if you destroy all the layers , is that everything is consciousness and you are constantly experiencing your own mind no matter what. When you say "but there is a physical reality out there" thats an instance where your mind trying to ground itself in itself. The notion of physical reality only exist in your own mind. You can't access any independent physical reality, and even if you do, you can only access your own biased version of it. And that biased version is generated by your own mind. Every idea, philosophy, explanation is ultimately coming from the mind. No matter what philosophy you want to use, we are always coming back to the mind. But this is all just intellectual talk, you should be able to have an awakening experience and verify all the things we have said so far. Further intellectualizing won't help you to come closer to any truth.

Tell me in a PM. I don't have this figured totally out. I think this should be experimented with and figured out through experience. There are really clear instances where there is misinformation about certain events, where all the factual information is already known. Misleading with information is a much more tougher thing to figure out, and i don't think we could set up a system for that. The goal would be to at least agree on the factual things. But, constantly posting conspiracy theories about events and saying stuff that can't be falsified and saying it in a manner where you don't have any evidence to support those claims and you make serious accusations about stuff, then i would say that shouldn't be allowed. Misinformation is an information that is factually not true. When there are events that can be explained rationally using the least amount of assumptions, then we should do that. But most of the conspiracy theorists won't do that, they will make a grand narrative, where they will cherrypick data for their claims and when you actually start to analyze their claims you can get through each and every one of their claim and you will realize that most of those are false and they are basing their theories upon a million different kind of assumptions. Unfortunately, most of the people nowadays are very prone to get trapped by these conspiracy theories and that really weakens democracy. How can you have democracy if most of the people are misinformed and no one can agree even on what happened. Being able to start convos and debates from a factually correct ground would be massively helpful to have fruitful convos in the future and to be able to find solutions for certain problems.

Those things that you can explain have certain elements to them , that people can relate to (becuase they have had some kind of an experience related to atleast some specific parts). For this reason, you can't explain sight to a blind person, you can't explain color to a color blind person, you can't explain music to a deaf person. If i want to explain to you a new thing , and lets say i have to use 10 words to explain it , you have to understand most of those words to be able to grasp what i am talking about. If there is a very significant amount of words that you don't understand and can't relate to (that are part of my explanation) then you won't be able to understand what i am talking about. The reason to use words and explanations is to try to put parts of reality into boxes. There is a limit to using words and using a certain grammar system.

I haven't heard any good arguments from the 'free speech' side just complaining why they can't say whatever shit they want to say. "ohh i can't share misinformation, ohh i can't shit on these people, ohh i am seriously not allowed to mislead people?" Yes, the regulation can be misused and overused but the question is not that if there could be a regulating system that is 100% perfect. The question is what is more beneficial overall for society, without damaging individual freedom in any significant way? Having all the idiots say whatever they want (misleading people, pumping innumerable amount of misinformation, hate speech) vs having very few amount of examples where people were regulated in an unjustified way + regulating most people in a clearly justified way. Those people who want to have good faith conversations , those can find their way to have it. Most of the pro free speech people want to make it look like it is impossible for them to have convos about certain topics. For the pro speech brigade: what are the things that you can't say, that would be so valuable for you or for the world ? Or what are the valuable functions that are being lost by regulating free speech on certain sites ? OR i could ask the reverse, what are the most negative outcomes that are coming from moderately regulating free speech on certain sites?

One selfish calls the other one selfish,its a judgement coming from another ego. We can phrase selfishness in a different way though: We are not selfish, rather we are expressing God in our own unique ways. You are phrasing this in a way, where there is no room left for free fill. God is everything all the good and evil combined, there is nothing that is not God. Being in a certain way is not selfish its just Is. The value judgement can only come from a finite being (ego). Judgements can be practical sometimes but they aren't universal and you don't have to take them seriously even if they come from Leo. By definition having a finite ego, you can't live up to God's standards because you are limited to a certain structure and you can't express Absoluteness as a finite ego. You can work on being less selfish and getting closer to God, that would be the point of spirituality and this is what Leo is pointing to when he is calling you selfish. He is selfish as well, but he wants his viewers to do the work and to embody love and spirituality as much as they can. Although, on the other hand you can realize your True nature and understand yourself and the world fully, but at that point, there will be no one else to judge because you will realize that you are Everything.

I think the only other option we can speculate about is China. But if its not China then i don't see how most of those UFO-s could be explained rationally. If anyone have a better story that could explain any of the new UFO cases i would be curious about those takes. However, i am not really interested in takes where the arguments come from a very biased place and really hardly trying to ignore other possibilties. For instance (1)watching a video and assuming its a bird, then trying to cherrypick data and trying really hard to make your argument stronger ( I think this attitude is dishonest and biased) vs (2)Watching the video, collecting all the facts and then trying to explore all the possibilities. in the (1) that particular person immediately jumped to a biased position and was trying to backfill his claims with rationality (and didn't start from an unbiased position and tried to use rationality to arrive somewhere or to explore all the possibilities) in the (2) that particular person was coming from an unbiased positon and didn't come to any conclusions until he really explored all the possibilities he can, and he would not exclude any possibilities until he is proven otherwise. Saying that they are 100% not aliens with a very high confidence is really dishonest and biased just as saying they are 100% aliens. Just because aliens can't fit in your worldview that does not mean, that you are right. Reality doesn't revolve around your beliefs about reality.

https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/vasectomy-side-effects#shortterm-effects

Your description and the story sounds interesting. What are the top 5 anime in your opinion?

God still can't check outside himself. He can only check on himself.

Could you please describe, how that system works and looks like? Yes i sort of agree, but i wouldn't necessarily choose dictatorship over democracy. In a hypothetical i might choose a dictator if that dictator would be a highly conscious dictator, otherwise i would stay with democracy. But if we are talking about a hypothetical scenario where i could choose between good democracy vs good dictatorship, then i would choose good democracy for the reasons i gave @itachi uchiha.

I see, so you value efficiency over individual freedom? Good example for you would be China, i think.

Showing off the good genetics

Now we are talking, and yes you are totally right. If you want to use that to justify your position thats fine. But i am not convinced yet about your position. Right now our 'debate' is about this. You prefer individual freedom over another potential kids life , who will be miserable and will die young (who will have an incurable disease, and will live with it in his/her entire [short] life). ---> that is a position that you are fighting for right now. I gave a silly hypothetical to see if you draw your line somewhere, not necessarily to trap you. I know this is not necessarily going to happen in real life (however we can't know, but it is sure an unlikely example). The reason for the hypothetical to test your moral system in practice, and for me to see what your position is. If you would have asked me my own hypothetical my answer would have been ,that i would only regulate other people life in this instance, if i would knew 100% beforehand that their child will inherit a deadly disease that i know beforehand is incurable. In other cases i would not regulate anything about it.

Yeah i know that, i know the limits and the consequences of a democratic system where people are polarised and when corrupt people in power. However the question was, why would you prefer a 'good dictatorship' over a 'good democracy'? Lets say both systems outcome is the same, i would still prefer 'good democracy' for the reasons i mentioned above.

Basically the consequence of your moral system is that people can give birth to children who they know beforehand 100% they will have deadly diseases and they will suffer those consequences and will die young. That is okay in your moral world. If your are totally okay with that , thats fine.

We were talking about a moral system, you gave your justification. Using that justification to justify your moral system comes with consequences that you should be able to defend.

I see, so there is no line. So killing rapeing robbing torturing is allowed in your system, because everyone will die and suffer anyway.

I see, thanks. That was an informative video.

That looks rough. If i were a local car mechanic i would pay for the road builders not to repair any road, because more cars will be fucked up as time goes on and they will come to me and i could earn more money. But jokes aside, why those roads are not being repaired at all? (is it because those roads are not that freqently used, or for other reasons)?