Scholar

I can't think of a line of development in which woke people would be more developed, but I don't have all of them in mind right now.

Just because many hippies were undeveloped doesn't mean the average hippie wasn't more developed than the average woke person today.

It's also important to consider that the monks who attempt to raise awareness or protest through self-immolation, do so in a context in which there is no other means of protest. In Tibet, for example, the Chinese government is undemocratic and oppressive, there is no way to protest in China. This of course still makes self-immolation even in that context naive and harmful, and it seems to be the case that self-immolation actually leads to worsening conditions for the populations in which it occurs, but it further shows how immature the attempt to glorify this type of behavior in the context of an american mentally diseased individual is.

The average hippie was far more developed than the average woke person.

As I pointed out in my first post, the reason why Buddhist monks in the past burned themselves wasn't as an act of mere protest, but as an act of raising awareness to a problem that wasn't widely in public consciousness. It still was extreme controversial, and I would say the overall consequences of this were negative (it didn't really change anything but caused many people to imitate this type of practice, achieving equally as little). But to compare this type of self-immolation to a mentally diseased anarchist communist who suffered from white-guilt and apparently had a child and a wife, who had never practiced ego death of any kind, and whose political aim is targeted around an issue that is already in the public consciousness far more than it deserves, is just childish and irresponsible. Even if you would view self-immolation as some sort of valid form of protest, it should obviously be done by people who are prepared to do so, who do so from a perspective of wisdom not mental disease and political radicalization, and who will not cause complete unnecessary suffering to their surroundings. And it should also be highly likely that this type of action will actually make a significant positive impact. With most self-immolations, this is simply not the case. They are done by mentally ill people, people who are radicalized in unhealthy ways and people who are simply delusional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation_protests_by_Tibetans_in_China In Tibet alone we have had 160 self-immolations in the past 15 years, you know nothing about any of them. Nobody does, and nobody cares. It's a completely futile suicidal knee-jerk reaction that was started by some delusional monk who was warned that he would encourage countless others to do the same.

He will live on as a permanent reminder of the suicidal martydom cult that is the free-palestine movement.

By the way, just to contextualized the sheer stupidity and idiocy of condoning this act: Self-immolation as done in the past by some tibetan monks had the function of bringing awareness to an issue that wasn't known on the world stage at all. Burning yourself to death as a way of protest is the dumbest shit you could possibly do, especially when the biggest international issue and the hottest topic everywhere is the issue you are trying to "protest". And it sets a bad precedent. Since the first self-immolation, hundreds of people have burned themselves to death in tibet. Women, children and so forth. You don't even know it happened, because nobody cares, because it's not really effective in any meaningful way in most contexts.

His alleged reddit account, complete brainrot, and racism: https://www.reddit.com/user/acebush1/

Predictably, the guy is becoming an icon for the complete insanity of the #freepalestine movement. Well done.

Quack, quack!

He didn't stop shit. I have the right to judge because I have an IQ above 80.

They aren't raising awareness of it, they are the consequences of it. When someone kills himself, you don't call them a hero, especially not when it is a last ditch expression of narcissistic personality disorder. I personally know individuals who wanted to do the same thing, and almost did. They aren't heroes, they are children who have no purpose in life and want to be viewed as the most important thing in the universe by trying to attach themselves to some nonsensical social cause. And you are enabling it, like a child.

He is not a hero, he just traumatized a few people for life, for nothing. I don't have to say anything to change what he is, because he isn't a hero. People who view him as such suffer from permanent brain damage induced by social media consumption. You are basically cheering on someone who killed himself, for nothing, which ironically probably makes you less worth as a human being than the guy who set himself on fire.

I don't consider these folks heroes, but setting yourself on fire to a delusional cause certainly is nothing akin to being a helpful member of society. This guy was likely a suicidal narcissist, that's it.

He is not a hero, he achieved nothing other than encourage more insane people on twitter. People who think this is heroism have the level of consciousness of Al Capone.

Obviously mentally ill, and you guys are obviously mentally ill too. The consequences of social media.

Yes, give them your notes for free.

People are outraged because this is the take Gemini gave on whether or not pedophilia is wrong. Gemini is 100% correct about it's evaluation, and it is ironic that it predicts that nuance is a requirement to understand this topic, which people obviously lack. Now here comes the dangerous part. Apparently, as a result of this controversy, Google adjusted their model to now give the unnuanced take: Pedophilia isn't "child sexual abuse", that makes no sense, considering pedophilia simply describes a psychological condition. But of course, the mindless crowd got it's way. Discriminatory attitudes against afflicted individuals are perpetuated because the bigoted crowd is captured by their own moral outrage, which prohibits any kind of reasonable or rational engagement with this topic and will therefore prevent measures that will actually reduce child abuse. It should be very obvious what types of dangers this dynamic could pose for the future of human development, especially as we become more reliant on AI to come to conclusions about reality. It should also make you understand that these systems aren't designed to give you truthful or accurate responses, but simply responses that will fit whatever is on the current agenda.

Individuated consciousness.

In a way it does: The only AI that will survive the competition will be the one that will be monetizable.

The fundamental problem is that these LLM's are being advertised as "AI", whereas they are just pattern-replicators. They sell it as a calculator, when it is more like if your calculator was doing math based on intuition and giving you nonsense sometimes that you can't distinguish from the rest of the answers.

The brain-experience relationship is direct, certain shapes within the physical nature of the universe, which the brain might maintain are related directly to certain other states of existence like redness. I already explained taht as far as metaphysical relationships go, there is no reasonable causal mechanism, it isn't possible. But that would require a deeper insight into the nature of Creation, which you seem to lack. I don't think there are any empirical contradictions. Because you made the assertion that a reasonable causal mechanism is necessary to consider something causative. At the root or most basic level of existence, relationships are directly asserted into reality, there is no causative mechanism, the relationship itself becomes the causative link, in that sense. That's why I made that point. If you understand Creation on a basic level, you would understand how silly it is to demand a causal mechanism between physicality and other types of existence. You also lack understanding of what causality is. Physicality, which you might simplify as something like movement in space and time, or mathematical descriptions, in the most basic sense, is causality. Physicality, in this sense, is logic itself. For physicality to be illogical, would be like saying colors would be unvisual. In a logical or physicalist sense, you will not be able to ever understand the brain-experience relationship in the sense of a semantic causative proposition. Remember, experience just means aspects of existence which are not physical, which are therefore not causal. The relationship between certain physical shapes and other aspects of existence, like color, sound and so forth are fundamentally mysterious. Mysterious here just means that they escape causation, physicality. They necessarily do so, because a relationship between two different aspects of existence cannot be established by one of those aspects of existence. You can never describe a color using math, you can never have an equation that will lead to redness. You will never get an arrangement of physical states and conclude redness from it. The relationship between redness and physicality cannot be grounded in physicality, in "mechanism" or "causations". The relationship exists in and of itself, like all of existence does. It is instantiated directly through Free Will. To ask for a causative relationship for why a certain shape within physicality leads to the color red, would be like asking why certain sounds lead to the color red. It simply makes no sense to ask that question. You could ask, what causes 2+2 to be 4? Well, this question is misleading, because it misses the point of what it means to say 2+2. 2+2 simply is another way of describing 4. There is no causation there, 4 is simply instantiated into existence, as part of physicality. It wouldn't make sense to say "But what if 2+2=5?". At that point, it's like saying what if the color red was yellow? It simply isn't how reality is instantiated, and to even pose the question implies a deep delusion about reality, in that, anything but itself could be anything but itself. The truth is, 4 simply is. It simply is this relationship. Causation simply is our way of understanding all the relationships that are instantiated into reality. These relationships aren't "caused" by mechanisms. Mechanisms themselves are just a way to look at relationships which exist in reality, in particular physical relationships. (math in this case is part of physicality) In essence, nothing causes anything. There are just relationships, and those relationships are directly instantiated through the Causeless Cause, the Groundless Ground or Infinity. The brain is just a way to look at physicality. I can equally say that the reverse shape of physicality is what is "causing" what you label as experience. In the same way as, when you cut out the shape of an elephant out of a piece of paper, you can ask yourself, what is causing the shape of the elephant to exist? Is it the paper, or the hole? This question is misleading, and misunderstands that the relationship between the paper and the hole is what the elephant is. Trying to understand reality on a fundamentaly level through causal mechanism is as fruitless. The irony is, you will understanding nothing of this, because you are a physicalist, like Kastrup is. You just don't realize how trapped you are. If physicalism is saying the shape of the elphant is caused by the paper, your version of idealism is like saying the elephant is caused by the hole. You are doing the same thing without realizing it.

I rarely hear people doing that, but could there be benefits to this? Maybe different proportions of different psychedelics could yield different types of experiences/be benefitial for different things?

I have not, I knew the reports were questionable before I posted it, that's why I used the term "apparently". It's not important whether or not it is true in this case, but I liked using this example because it showcases pedophile derangement syndrome. I wouldn't be surprised if Google has a team that will non-stop monitor social media in hopes of catching stuff that could cause a PR disaster. Specifically with this technology that would probably be wise to do. I'm not familiar enough with how safeguards would be implemented or how long they would take to implement. I described the danger in the first post.

It's important to note what that means, however. Unbiased here simply means they will derive the statistical average of the given relationships found in the data that is provided. It's not truth seeking, it is pattern recognition. I'm not naive at all. These LLMs are provably trained to not give certain answers, you can see this with ChatGPT when you ask it about any controversial topic. You are naive if you think that the LLM somehow naturally come to have the tendencies they have. Even if this particular instance is not necessarily an example of this, it illustrates the point well enough.