zurew

Do you hold the same position as Rokazulu, or you can imagine a circumstance where you would say that it could be justified?

Not just that, but lets say you know 100% that they will die and suffer because of that inherited disease. Even in that case would you still say, that according to your morality that particular person should be allowed to have his/her own children? (testing where your line is, because you said, that there is no circumstance that could justify Eugenics.)

Its a moral question, would you be okay with a society where it is allowed for people to have children even though you and they know from the get go that that children will suffer and die from the disease This was a hypothetical and in this case there was no cure, to test your morality.

@TheWatcher It would depend on the context, but in the vast majority of the cases i would say that they should be allowed to reproduce, especially as we get more and more advanced medically. There would be a few exceptions, but they can't be justified because we don't have the ability to determine the % of the chances. For instance if we would be able to determine that your children will inherit a deadly disase (that we can't cure) from you with above 90% chance, then i would say you shouldn't have children.

Lets test this. If we could say that your children will inherit cancer 100% and we don't have any cure for cancer. Would you still say that that particular person can have his/her own children?

Why is good distatorship is better in your world than good democracy if the outcome is the same? The difference between good dictatorship and good democracy is that in good democracy all the good results are produced what you mentioned but there is a plus. The plus is that individuals have their freedom. Also, another big difference between the two is that a really good functioning, productive,happy society under democracy implies that, that particular society is highly developed, they are able to work with each other, they are able to agree on things, they aren't highly polarised, they are highly educated, they are intelligent and being able to make hard and difficult decisions for themselves without the need for and outsider 'mother' who will force them to be and do everything in 1 particular way. So in my world good democracy > good dictatorship for sure.

Not just you, this is a really fair critique. Always reducing everything just to "imagination" have its own limits, and sometimes doesn't really make any sense to bring it up in conversations, where the question doesn't necessarily points to anything absolute, but requires a relative answer. By reducing everything down to just imagination we are losing all the nuances , and the questioner won't be able to make sense of our answers. Asking for definitions or giving our own definitions from the get go can really help to make the conversations more fruiteful and productive. I think that most of the misunderstanding in this forum comes from the fact, that we don't use the same words the same way and we give different meanings to different words. The other big problem i see is the content vs structure problem. Some people ask about a problem or question that is related to a content, and the answer that will be given will be structure related. This is okay, when someone can give an advice to a person to find the root cause to a problem, but in most cases the advice won't be usable at all because that particular person either craving for attention and not for answer to solve the problem or that person craves for a usable productive answer that can be utilized, and not for answers like "you just imagining your problems" or "just wake up and you won't give any fucks anymore". A newbie who comes here, will use the word 'imagination' a lot differently than how we use it. Even when they hear the word 'consciousness' they don't necessarily refer to the same thing as we do. Most of our convos should start setting/clearing the foundation up , and then we can start to debate or have conversations but if we miss that, there is a high chance that we will misunderstand each other even though we might agree about everything or on most things.

Sure, but why the consideration matters, if given the right set of conditions they will always choose 1 thing over another.

Just because it would be harder to predict how animals would do in certain situations that does not mean it isn't possible to predict their behaviour 100%. This convo going to a determinism vs free will debate

How do you know that? How do you differentiate between a tree choosing to move to the sun vs an animals choosing what to eat?

I don't think its totally spontaneous. Even what seems spontaneous doesn't necessarily spontaneous. Also why these masters teach meditation yoga contemplation etc, if they think / know that it is spontaneous? It doesn't really make sense why would Peter teach about contemplation and enlightenment, if he really thinks that it won't help at all.

Would you say, that you can be really highly conscious, when you are really drunk (when you are so drunk that you can barely speak)? Also, i would say that even if what you are saying is true (that we can make a really clear distinction between states and levels of consciousness), there seems to be limits to certain states how much consciousness you can hold. I wouldn't say, that you can hold the same level of consiousness being really drunk compared to being sober or being high. So being in a certain state seems to determine how conscious you can get.

You don't know that. Maybe its totally random , but maybe not. If it would be totally random ,then why most spiritual teachers doing decades of spiritual work before they get enlightened? Also why some people say they get instantly enlightened after they are doing psychedelics? Just because Peter Ralston says something , that doesn't mean you have to take it for granted or as truth. Saying that relative stuff doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment would imply that there is no reason to do any yoga, contemplation , psychedelics or meditation or other spiritual practices. Or if you want to say, that even though they don't produce enlightenment, they can make it more probable, then we go back to the same debate, which method is the best or what methods are the most effective.

How?

What you don't yet understand is that your dream is made out of consciousness and you are too. Thats why ultimately speaking there is no difference between the things you are talking about because the "bulding blocks" of you and your reality is consciousness. Both "fantasy" and "reality" is made out of consciousness. It doesn't matter if right now you have the ability to change the dream or not. Because its still inside your consciousness, and its still made out of consciousness.

What would limit God to make Absolute copies of itself ? You are totally right in the 'you can imagine them into reality'. Thats true. However, we are talking about someting that is outside of your imagination. Basically something that you are not conscious of. You are 100% conscious of your solipsistic dream, you can create whatever you want, you can be whatever you want to be. I know, that nothing can be outside of my imagination/consciousness because i can't stop imagining, and thats the point, that from God's viewpoint nothing can be outside of his consciousness, because he is unable to stop imagining. He cannot escape his imagination. He cannot be aware of anything that is outside its own dream. The only thing that could be separate from God is an exact Absolute copy of God. Being Absolute comes with this cost, that you can't be conscious of other Absolutes and you can only interact with your own dream. These bubbles would be separate. They would be separate, because each God could do whatever he wants to do in his own solipsistic bubble, and no other God could intervene his dream. This is the Absolute power, being able to clone your Absolute self an infinite number of times. Each and every God could create and do whatever they want by being and doing their own dreams. Each and every God would be able to imagine an infinite other number of Gods in their own dream, but that still wouldn't change that possiblity, that other God's actually existing that they wouldn't be aware of.

He is not getting bamboozled. He is right. You can't leave your absolute solipsistic bubble. Anything that would be potentially outside of your solipsistic bubble you cannot possibly know anything about. We are talking about a claim, that cannot be verified. --> so the conclusion should be 'I don't know' not 'There isn't any'.

If we want to be reductive we can say that consciousness has its own levels, because even the mind is consciousness. But i can see why you are making a distinction between the levels of mind and consciousness. It maybe more understandable for some people.

There is no difference structurally speaking between your definition of real and imaginary thats the point. Using your ego as a standpoint you could experience your definition of dream or your thoughts different from your definition of reality, but thats doesn't change the fact that you are in your dream, and every part of you and your dream is made out of consciousness. you can call this dangerous or you can label it any other way, but that won't change the fact, that the structure of you and the structure of your reality is made out of consciousness. How you experience it, doesn't really matter in this case. THe same way, when you go to sleep, the same goes down. You are in your own dream, you are a dreamcharacter, everyone else is a dreamcharacter, every part of your dream is made out of consciousness. You can experience pain, sorrow, sadness or joy or ecstasy . But that doesn't just the fact that it is a dream. What you are doing is making distinctions. Making distinctions is practical and good for survival, but what we are talking about is Truth. If you want to talk about survival its great, you can make as many distinctions as you want, because it will be beneficial for your survival.

I know, but he uses dream and awakening and hallucination differently. So i tried to engage with his way of thinking and tell a question according to that.

So in the case of awakening, practically speaking, would you be able to distinguish between a hallucinated and not hallucinated awakening?

? Personally, I don't trust the word of drug users, they're often delusional, have poor judgement, and are mostly projecting their shadows onto reality. More importantly, their realizations and breakthroughs seem to always be tainted by their backgrounds/beliefs, so they're not very reliable. If you read the bible and took psychedelics, you're likely to see Jesus, etc. What is a difference between hallucinating an awakening vs having an awakening? The same line can be used for all the other spiritual techniques including meditation , contemplation and yoga. Like "what if that was just placebo, what if you were just hallucinating?" The problem with such questions is that it doesn't really help to investigate the underlying problem because none of them could be falsified. These things can be investigated with what i mentioned in my previous post. This is not about our personal preferences, this is about knowing what method can work and what method work less or not work at all. Not just a claim, this is the actual case. What is/was outside of your consciousness? The answer is everything is inside your consciousness, you are in your own dream.

Everything is part of the dream. Meditation, yoga, contemplation is part of the dream too.

People who say there shouldn't be any moderation at all, i don't really believe them, because if i were to ask them these questions most likely they would backtrack. The question are: Would you be okay if people would be allowed to share without any penalty: Your medical informations (including all the medical procedures you went through, all the surgeries, all the medicines that you need to take etc) Information about your private life (Your address, images about your home, images about yourself when you are inside your home, information about your sexual life [for instance porn sites would be allowed to share all the data they gathered about you], information about your private documents like [driving license, identity card etc] Videos and images about rape, murder, torture etc. Sharing private information about business products and services (like passwords, and information about the products, and sharing content that should be paid for) With that being said, most people don't agree with where the line is being drawn. Debating about where the line should be drawn is necessary to really drop all the unnecessary rules. However, when debates like that happen, we should be able to look at this problem not just in terms of our own individual lense (what we want ourselves to be allowed to do), but what society in general should be allowed to do on that particular platform. These rules should be based on principles. Why principles? Because we can't make an infinitely long list about what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do. There could be an infinite number of edge cases, where the line isn't clear, and if there isn't any direct rules for that, then we can't solve any of those cases). This is why strong, clear core principlesrules should be made and we should build on those. Debates about morality happening the same way. There are principles, and we compare those principles (with principle x what are the worst case that can happen and what are the best ways that can happen, the same goes for principle y). Then we can debate why principle x is worst or better than principle y. We can think about principles like we think about a system. We drop certain inputs into that system, and it can evaluate in our cease, if we should be allowed to say it or not. But the system should be very clear and understandable. Also we can't forget why that particular platform was created in the firstplace. Different platforms with different goals require different set of rules.