Scholar

Consciousness expands from the point of individuals, and these conversations are part of that. The motion of history is embodied through the actual progression of individual actors, this is how Divine Will manifests and evolves. Forcing things is part of the motions of nature, and must be accepted as such.

From what I know the "male" tournaments are basically open, so anyone can participate. It's just that women have a specific seperate protected category. But the same is true for the men. If you look at the graph, men will also dominate in the most disadvantaged group, namely people with very low IQ. Sure, the world is unfair in that sense, but I would say being a human in general already is such a privilege in most cases that the difference between male and female are basically negligible. You have to remember, you are basically just arbitrarily looking at this in terms of male vs female, but you can subdivide groups of individuals into infinite categories, from which then you can evaluate which one has it worse than the other.

The longer this is going on the more my BS-spider-senses go off.

Well, let's assume for a second that this was true and due to biological factors: And let's say this translates to games like chess. If this was the case, would that bother you? If so, why would that bother you? And then, why does any of this even matter that much? If it was true that men are more likely to be in the lowest percentile of intelligence, but also in the highest percentile of intelligence, do you think that would be bad?

Somebody like Leo will not give a shit until things start affecting him, which is unlikely to happen with his wealth.

Firstly, I have no idea why it matters what "anybody" complains about. Secondly, do I really need to explain to you why mass extinctions are not something that should just be ignored?

Every country in the world mass rapes, tortures and murders animals in a way that is worse than the holocaust. If this was happening to human beings, people would riot. Most people have so little concern for non-human individuals that if they had that little concern for human beings, the only plausible explanation would be racism or sociopathy. You cannot actually reverse most ecological destruction because it leads to permanent loss of biodiversity.

This is unlikely if women and men actually are on par cognitively speaking. The pool of transgender individuals who play chess is far smaller than the pool of female chess players, therefore if both are on par, it should be very unlikely for transgenders to outcompete females.

Roy can you give us a summary of specifically what your position is? I think instead of arguing, it can be helpful to actually ask yourself "Okay, I believe this, what premises do I accept that lead me to this conclusion, and what leads to me to accept those premises?". Then there can be clarity around what people disagree about. Because right now, everyone is just stating they don't agree, and pointing out how much they don't agree, but there is no investigation from where that disageement stems and therefore we can't really discuss the actual thing that would change people's minds.

I just found out about Bernardo Kastrup, very interesting. He comes to a lot of conclusions I myself have independently arrived at as well.

Welcome to a world where the mega-corporations extract all economic value from the population and gather them in their super AIs which of course only they will be able to construct and compute.

Then we wouldnt be able to post Leo's content

That's how chimps work, not intelligent species, lol.

What do you think is going to happen. People are so lazy, of course they will replace their own reasoning capacities with a technology that gives you the illusion of doing the same. Have none of you seen Wall-E? That's exactly where we are heading.

It's the guy who said it's completely morally permissible to rape and torture puppies and kittens alive for pleasure, and who recently said that if it was the case that infants had animal-type consciousness, that it would also be permissible to do the same to them. The guy is obviously a sociopath, he just maxed out his charm and therefore seems like a normal and reasonable person. Destiny's lack of care for anything but himself is his greatest asset. It's the reason why he can be so objective, because he genuinely does not care about any social cause. It's just an extention of his own need to be rationally self interested. You should have known this much sooner because, especially in the past, he explicitly described what kind of person he is and how adept he is at manipulating others.

She is basically like "I don't like this!", and that's it for the most part. I'm sorry to say but academics are infested with moralistic brainrot, and this is just one example of many. This model is much better to frame as evolutionary rather than linear stage development, that is true. Evolution obviously is not random and is subject to certain dynamics resulting from the metaphysical nature of the universe, and in the same way human development, both in terms of individual and collective minds evolving throughout time, will be subject to certain dynamics which will yield predictable patterns. What is true in my view is that you cannot really have "one" model that describes human evolution, because the dynamics change via environmental inputs. So, really, spiral dynamics described human evolution in a particular context, which only seems universal because of how prevalent that context is. The internet alone has changed that context, so we already would require new models to adjust to the new flow of human evolution. It could be the case that in the current environment, complexity cannot be sustained at certained levels.

I remember you once were talking about how the essence of categories in and of themselves exist. If so, what would be your critique of nominalism? How would you contextualized Hegel's triad of Universality, Particularity and Individuality?

But Leo, what if they are sadistic pedophiles who want thrive on consuming our suffering?

Dude looks like he has dementia.

Your libertarianism is getting cringe. "Oh let AI do anything it wants, FREEDOM!"

Selfishness is unsustainable at a certain point of technological development.

I don't find this line of argumentation very convincing. My people reading skills, which are inhumanely good, just tell me this guy could easily be full of shit or delusional. We are talking about the US government here, lol. The David Frevor case is far more convincing.

You can watch this video and once you have done so, you should realize that this is nothing compared to what awaits us in the next years and decades. I believe it will not take long before these issues will seem like childs-play, and we will wish that we could have forseen what was inevitable. There is a simple reason for this, that will also seem obvious once the issues become more glaring. The reason is that this is the first technology in the history of mankind that actually is not designed by human beings. This technology is designed by evolution itself. Human beings are not engineering these systems, they are engineering the environment which allows for evolution to take place. These systems simply exploit the intelligence inbued into the mathematical structure of the universe, the same intelligence which self-perpetuate and constructs life in all it's diversity and complexity. The same mechanism that lead to the development of all non-individuated consciousness systems is also allowing these technologies to emerge. This means everything, from viruses, to bacteria, to all plants, fungi and all biological systems. The only thing it excludes is individuated consciousness, depending on the actual parameters under which individuated consciousness is maintained. Human beings can now create technologies that are as intelligently constructed as biological structures. This is machine life, machine evolution and some day possibly machine individuated consciousness. This is the level of complexity we are talking about: Again: The inherent intelligence ingrained in the mathematical underpinning of the universe is the same intelligence that is used in machine learning. You can look at the types of technologies human beings, with their chimp minds, have created in the past, and how fast these technologies have progressed. You can see that we are not remotely mature enough to integrate these technologies in ways that allow us to use them responsibly as they progress. Now, this new mechanism, which is inherently what spawned and developed all life on earth, will create technologies far beyond what human chimp minds could have ever hoped to develop. There is a real chance that our species will not be able to adapt to this development. What you must understand is the following: The less likely you believe that chance to be, the more likely it is that humanity is fundamentally not suited to survive this type of technological evolution. You are showcasing the precise lack of wisdom that will make catastrophy inevitable. If you were wise, you would look at this technology and instantly realize this is more significant and dangerous than nuclear weapons, and that deep fakes are the very least of the challenges we are about to face. We, a species barely more evolved than chimps have just received piece of divine intelligence on a silver platter. And now watch what we will do with it, because this will be the measure of our species and whether we are worthy of continuing to contribute to the process of evolution. On the other hand, there is hope that the divine was intelligent enough to forsee this type of development, and that the universe was constructed in a way as to limit the intelligence of evolution in such a way that, once a self-aware species arises, it would not destroy itself once it unlocks these powers. However, usually such thoughts are more fueled by huberis than anything else.

Timestamped. You know, we all might have thought we were long past this point, but here we are. Spiral Dynamics is really something. Depending on how long you have known about this model and have integrated it, you will have probably noticed it unfolding in society like some sort of prophecy. And in a decade or in a century, we will look at societal progress and scratch our head how we could have been so blind: Of course evolutionary forces apply to society! There are dynamics that lead to certain human behaviour which then create new dynamics which once more create new behaviours! And yes, those dynamics have certain patterns, how could it be otherwise. You have probably noticed people like Andrew Tate growing in popularity over the past months. We kind of observed all of this starting with Jordan Peterson, which indicated a lack of healthy stage blue integration in society. Because these types of things are not being facilitated by society, and individuals who do try to facilitate it tend to not fit into the stage orange-green paradigms, we basically are observing a splintering of society, one which is regressive while the other is developing into an evolutionary dead-end due to lack of lower stage integration. A lot of this dynamic is fueled by social media algorithms maximizing engagement, which leads to maximization of fear and moral-outrage based dynamics. The result is a lot of unhappy people in society and no real way to get them on a better path, which makes stage orange attractive specifically because it is an individualist, self-centered type of approach which tracks with reality. With stage orange, everyone wants to be the top G, and everyone thinks they can be the top G, but of course, the vast majority of people by definition cannot ever be top Gs. The system is rigged, yet because everyone is so desperate to be the top G, the system is maintained. Because of certain dynamics playing out the way they did over the past decade, I believe we will see the most toxic side of stage orange yet. And what is the solution? Suffering, so much suffering that people will be open minded enough to move beyond their current identities. But that always is dangerous, as it equally opens people's minds to dangerous ideologies. The only solution to people like Andrew Tate society has conceived of is basically playing whack'a'mole, which of course shows you that we still live in the dark ages. We are like ignorant childen standed on an island, we have no clue what we are doing. You think Jordan Peterson is bad and cancel him, and then you get Andrew Tate. Where do you think this is going? Whatever you are doing, it is having the opposite of the intended effect. In a century, we might look at social media and realize "Of course this lead to world war 3... how could they not have realize that? It's so obvious, the signs were everywhere!". Humanity is still at a stage in which it is completely shaped by the forces of nature. We are as unaware of those dynamics as ants are. We are so ignorant, it takes us literal centuries to just to become aware of these things. We are just stupid, we are barely more intelligent than chimps. If you look at a savant genius, the only reason why that is special to us is because of how mindblowingly stupid the rest of us are. And even the geniuses are barely functional. I am saying this because I want people to realize that this particular evolutionary pathway is not at all guaranteed to be successful. God is perfectly willing to wipe humanity from the face of the planet in the blink of an eye if that is what the dynamics of evolution dictate. In fact, God is willing to wipe out the entire planet and all life on it for the sake of the greater movement of consciousness evolution. If all life on Earth has to go extinct so that the laws of nature can allow some other civilization on the other side of the universe to succeed, then so be it. I find it very likely that most civilizations in the universe wipe themselves out, until one out of thousand, or a million, will actually go beyond some critical hurdle of evolution. Maybe it takes trillions of universes with trillions of civilizations to get one that will get to a stage that is sustainable and wise. If you think that's absurd numbers to get to that point you have not studied evolution. And you think that's cruel, but it's not. That hurdle is just as necessary as the asteroid that wiped out most dinosaurs. Maybe, if we are lucky, the descendants of dolphins will claim the lands and some day recover the remnants of our civilization, with the hope that they will learn from our mistakes.