Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Xonas Pitfall]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

One can have a truthful desire to abuse a child, however, if one cared about truth, one would also realize that this is incoherent, a double-standard, because one would not want to be abused in kind.

The desire to abuse others is incompatible with a commitment to truth, because then you have to lie about the abuse, try to hide it.

Caring about truth leads you out of these problems. For example, a truth-loving person would never become a con-artist or groomer or CIA agent in the first place.

You can't become Jeffery Epstein if you care about truth. Everything he did was based on lies.

Gotcha. But how do you reconcile classic "moral" questions with this approach? For example, take a lion that wants to hunt a gazelle in order to eat, and a gazelle that runs away to avoid being eaten. Is the lion being “untruthfully truthful” here? Should a lion somehow become vegetarian, even if that goes completely against its nature?

It seems like, as long as you have finite creatures with finite resources and finite ways of keeping themselves alive, some degree of conflict or apparent hypocrisy is bound to happen. That’s why I originally said I’m not sure truth is the main issue here. It seems more like a question of incentives and social structures that shape survival and behavior.

And again, just to clarify, I am by no means trying to justify any abuse. Trying to think it through.

[Joseph Maynor]

Just now, UnbornTao said:

The original sin of self. Repent now!

I don't know but something lol.  Haha.  Something.  

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

So we agree.

There's a painting of Diogenes looking for a truthful person with a lantern in an Athens supermarket, if I recall.

I suspect the subtext is that, ultimately, no one is - except perhaps Diogenes himself.

Of course.

The sage/saint is supposed to be the only one above corruption because he lives a life of truth.

Of course even sages are corrupt in practice, just relatively less so.

I am still corrupt, but much less so than most people would be in my position.

[Joseph Maynor]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

The sage/saint is supposed to be the only one above corruption because he lives a life of truth.

Of course even sages are corrupt in practice, just relatively less so.

I am still corrupt, but much less so than most people would be in my position.

I would look at this one.

[UnbornTao]

41 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I don't know but something lol.  Haha.  Something.  

What?

[Joseph Maynor]

3 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

What?

Whaat?

[UnbornTao]

52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

The sage/saint is supposed to be the only one above corruption because he lives a life of truth.

Of course even sages are corrupt in practice, just relatively less so.

I am still corrupt, but much less so than most people would be in my position.

I see. We could think of sages as just people - obvious, perhaps, but it keeps them from being idealized too easily, even when their wisdom is recognized. And as Diogenes may have learned, there aren't that many, I'd say.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

And as Diogenes may have learned, there aren't that many, I'd say.

Of course, humans who know Truth is the rarest thing. That's why they are regarded as saints and mystics.

But in practice Awakening is not enough to rid oneself of all corruption. That is a superhuman feat.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course, humans who know Truth is the rarest thing. That's why they are regarded as saints and mystics.

But in practice Awakening is not enough to rid oneself of all corruption. That is a superhuman feat.

We should all start with a barrel and a lantern.

[Joseph Maynor]

Seems like there's an inconsistency with how philosophy is being used.  

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

How can we verify the corrections are right? 

I always think on this when using ai for any contemplation. It makes me aware I could be outsourcing authority.

By not being passive. By interrogating and being critical of the output. It's a reasoning instrument, not an authority. 

The most powerful use of AI is interactive interrogation.

The very fact that everyone is asking "How do we know if we can trust it?" means the idea of epistemic responsibility has gone mainstream. Humans will adapt, just like how they stopped trusting the first answer they saw on Google.

AI will eventually normalize interrogating answers. If that happens, it would be one of the biggest shifts in the epistemic environment humans have ever experienced.

[Yimpa]

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

For example, take a lion that wants to hunt a gazelle in order to eat, and a gazelle that runs away to avoid being eaten. Is the lion being “untruthfully truthful” here? Should a lion somehow become vegetarian, even if that goes completely against its nature?

Animals are survival machines. They don't know anything about truth. No other possibility exists for them. But you are not an animal.

Quote

It seems like, as long as you have finite creatures with finite resources and finite ways of keeping themselves alive, some degree of conflict or apparent hypocrisy is bound to happen.

Yes, all finite beings are limited. A finite being cannot be perfectly God-like. But also that is not needed. The point is that humans can become more God-like through truth-seeking.

Some degree of hypocrisy is acceptable in mortals.

Quote

That’s why I originally said I’m not sure truth is the main issue here. It seems more like a question of incentives and social structures that shape survival and behavior.

Truth IS the main issue. You're still not understanding how deep the connection between Truth and Good goes. Contemplate the connection deeper.

Good is not a social structure. Good is Truth itself.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

By not being passive. By interrogating and being critical of the output. It's a reasoning instrument, not an authority. 

The most powerful use of AI is interactive interrogation.

The very fact that everyone is asking "How do we know if we can trust it?" means the idea of epistemic responsibility has gone mainstream. Humans will adapt, just like how they stopped trusting the first answer they saw on Google.

AI will eventually normalize interrogating answers. If that happens, it would be one of the biggest shifts in the epistemic environment humans have ever experienced.

Do we know how it is programmed?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

just like how they stopped trusting the first answer they saw on Google.

Ahahahahah....

[Joshe]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Ahahahahah....

Progress has been made. Gotta start somewhere.

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Progress has been made. Gotta start somewhere.

The first answer now on Google is AI, and people read it and believe it.

Zero epistemic process there.

[No1Here2c]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Animals are survival machines. They don't know anything about truth. No other possibility exists for them. But you are not an animal.

I would argue that I am more like an animal than I am any sort of "being of Truth"

I know for myself, that I am often pulled along like a marionette by the instinctual drives and intuitive functions which keep me alive. This is mostly animalistic behavior. Animals tend to be very opportunistic. As am I. My ability to formulate Deep Strategy and Tactical Navigation of Life is hindered by Reactivity and Unconsciousness.

This is highly problematic in regards to the work we do here.

I am swept away for days at a time into Unconsciousness, only to "Come To" and Find that I have been Lost the entire time. 

And the scary thing about this is even when I feel to be at my highest Clarity, it is merely an Illusion of Context relative to my previous states. 

I know this Sense of Clarity could be Overshadowed in Totality by a subsequent change in perspective/state.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

I would argue that I am more like an animal than I am any sort of "being of Truth"

That's why I say most humans are animals.

But if you follow my work then you should aspire to something more.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[No1Here2c]

@Leo Gura

How to Solve this problem Once and for All?