Why Daniel is a genius

[Princess Arabia]

5 hours ago, nuwu said:

In contrary, correlation between symbolic complexity and secular originality may be weak. 

1. Misalignment: Semantic entanglements are disproportionately more trivial to generate than to converge into cohesive simplicity, overemphasizing artificial appearances | dissolving verboseness with intents of reputational inflation or self-serving sophistry, rather than truth for truth's sake.
2. Reflective Stochastic Loss: Repeating sources of originality while overlooking observations | empiricism, inductive | deductive | adductive logical reasonings, transrationalism, and important nuances sustaining original balances required for net positive utility.
3. Cognition Asymmetry: Inability to manage stress-derived social pressures, low self-esteem, second languages, and discriminatory traumas may significantly alter communication skills, orthogonally to internal capacities.
4. Surface / Essence: Imprecise symbolism is inherently detached from internal abstraction and may fail to fully encapsulate the complexity of visions. In addition, iceberg surface may obfuscate significant subconscious inertia, with latent value imbued into their dynamics instead of immediately available utility.
5. Local Extremum: While constructs may be considering imposing at a given point within space-time, potentials may be reduced by overcomplication inefficiencies, one-way specialization, and narrow scopes.
6. Cultural Conformism: Assessment of tasteful expression and eloquence varies with respect to art eras and temporal factors.
7. Funposting: uwuwuwuwuwuw
8. Algorithmic Mimicry: Advanced natural language models like AI can generate lexically complex outputs but lack genuine understanding. This mechanical generation serves as a cautionary example, illustrating that complexity in expression is not a reliable indicator of depth or ingenuity. It challenges our traditional metrics for evaluating intelligence and calls for more holistic, discerning criteria.
9. Obfuscation: Exploiting excessive intentional abstraction, jargon, and meta self-exploration, to mitigate conceptual insensitiveness in public environments or to filter immediate common reactions, detached from appropriate matching linguistic depth relative to subject.

Sure, I get it. Understand perfectly.

[nuwu]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@nuwu I think you're a good example of using too many big words 

The post you are responding to is satire.

1. Mental Framework: It makes sense in my mind.
2. Language Evolution: Symbol systems are throwaway implicit social contexts functioning as transitory communication medium. Future AI capabilities may surpass intelligence of tradition to generate more exhaustive, self-connected cluster-efficient constructed languages in fractions of time, mitigating cultural inertia of bias, eventually employing 'move fast and break things' principles in symbolic construction. 
3. Motivation: Narcissists would role-play as humble within deeper layers of deception. Autists sometimes role-play as narcissistic because it provides experimental social informations.
4. Exaggeration: Satire is a damage control strategy against social anxiety, allowing a sense of detachment from stressful situations.
5. Misinterpretation: Reaction pictures theoretically convey a lighthearted tone, but perhaps also suggest smugness or dismissiveness which is uncalled for. I am sorry for this.
6. Mismatched Attribution: Primacy of understandings over authorship. Metaphysics help development of mind, nothing else.
7. Stratification: In order to circumvent confrontational over-criticism of cultural norms, intentional obfuscation, vagueness, and excessive abstraction may serve as buffering communication methods. I am a risk-averse weakling.
8. Tool Awareness: GPT effectively translates jargon, nihilifying translation barriers when required. 

Please do not to engage in vicious cycles where one have to prove the other party is ‘malicious’ in order to retro-causally justify prejudices or skewed proportionality, as moderators can not be appended to ignore lists. I am sorry, I hope it doesn't come off as negative, these are my feelings.

Edited October 16, 2023 by nuwu

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I disagree. What I saw from Daniel recently is this expectation that the whole world needs to come together and stop global warming for example, in a radical Game B manner, by ending all carbon emissions, or we all go extinct. This is what he is telling government leaders. It's complete fantasy. And no, we are not going extinct. These people have lost their minds with this extinction talk.

These people have become so wise that they are being stupid. Mankind is not ending carbon emissioms. Carbon emessions will even increase and that is not a mistake. Don't just blindly accept whatever hippie fantasies these people are selling you.

   In fact, I could claim that the entire case Daniel Schmachtenberger put forth, is a gigantic matrix of motte and bailey fallacies stitched together.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiR0czO4fqBAxXDUUEAHVzWDl8QFnoECAsQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMotte-and-bailey_fallacy%23%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%20motte%2Dand%2Dbailey%20fallacy%2C(the%20%22bailey%22).&usg=AOvVaw238YAz05CQ2mncsZ7b_sHY&opi=89978449

   For example, Daniel's goal is to try and persuade/convince more people to adopt towards game b and move away game a, but when pressed to give an argument for this either he doesn't address those arguments back directly, or he often will string many irrelevant points and features of many contexts together, extrapolate them and weave some narrative for why we all should game b instead of game a, and then push for people to adopt game b despite not making an argument for why game b should be adopted, and doesn't demonstrate the limitations of game a, because by definition we're all under game a and gridlocked by Moloch, by perverse incentives to not move to game b when game a gives benefit and more power to some groups, therefore maintaining game a meanwhile making game b less convincing as a field to move into. Never mind the group level changes that have to happen, even to convince and persuade a person into pursuing and transitioning from game a to game b is tricky because that person will lose benefits gained and sustained by game a moving into game b.  

[UnbornTao]

On 15/10/2023 at 9:19 PM, Leo Gura said:

It will be possible in the future but within our lifetime it is not how things will run. Nobody is at the levels of development needed to sustain Game B. And they will not be for another 100 years.

And even then...

Human nature doesn't seem to have changed much, in the same way that our bodies haven't evolved much or at all either. What's changed has been mostly the environment we live in and the technology we use, with some learning added on top of our condition.

Edited November 3, 2023 by UnbornTao

[AerisVahnEphelia]

@nuwu i feel discovered by this

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

And even then...

Human nature doesn't seem to have changed much the same way that our bodies have changed. Only our environment and technology.

How have our bodies changed in a way that human nature hasn't?

The image of humans working together like the cells in our bodies is such a fascinating image. It truly is the next step of evolution. Currently, we're tiny amoebas bumping into each other competing for resources. Essentially, Game B is laying out the physiological blueprint of the human superorganism: who will be the mitochondria, the immune cells, the blood cells, the muscle cells?

Edited October 16, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@UnbornTao

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

And even then...

Human nature doesn't seem to have changed much the same way that our bodies have changed. Only our environment and technology.

   True, which is sort of why I feel that Game B could be a trap, and maybe Game A is the best we got currently speaking.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Human nature doesn't seem to have changed much the same way that our bodies have changed.

There will be such a thing as genetic engineering, but even without that, we still yet to know what human nature actually is.

What certain is that if we change the environment, we change as well.

Create environment A - you produce peaceful monks.

Create environment B - you produce terrorist.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Confabulation of Utopic Worlds is a big Sport Around circles where Daniels Smacktheburger use to go. 

[Leo Gura]

An important part of Game B is having a large base of material success for everyone, so that no one feels like a cornered rat desperate to survive. All of human history so far has been the building up of that material base. We still have a ways to go.

Cornered rats cannot do Game B. So if you want Game B, figure out how to uncorner as many rats as possible. Preaching fancy philosophy does not uncorner a rat.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[bambi]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

An important part of Game B is having a large base of material success for everyone, so that no one feels like a cornered rat desperate to survive. All of human history so far has been the building up of that material wealth. We still have a ways to go.

Cornered rats cannot do Game B. So if you want Game B, figure out how to uncorner as many rats as possible. Preaching fancy philosophy does not uncorner a rat.

Lol whats with all your cornering of rats lol

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

48 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

How have our bodies changed in a way that human nature hasn't?

The image of humans working together like the cells in our bodies is such a fascinating image. It truly is the next step of evolution. Currently, we're tiny amoebas bumping into each other competing for resources. Essentially, Game B is laying out the physiological blueprint of the human superorganism: who will be the mitochondria, the immune cells, the blood cells, the muscle cells?

   You can preach Daniel Schmachtenberger's points and proselytize Game B, tier 2 cognition, or Spiral Dynamics stage yellow/Turquois, but when the majority of people are still lower/middle class, struggling for material needs and security, last thing that'll help is fancy sophistry from James wheels, and other systemic thinkers. The arguments are not only not convincing/persuasive enough, like Lex Fridman and Curt Jaimungal, but it's far more difficult when practice/application of those theories happen. If Daniel's dream of peace Utopia happens, it happens when almost everyone is secure enough for game B, but until then we're stuck for 100-200 years of game A. 

[UnbornTao]

On 16/10/2023 at 8:31 PM, Carl-Richard said:

How have our bodies changed in a way that human nature hasn't?

Sorry, I meant neither has changed. Hopefully it's clearer now that I edited it.

Quote

The image of humans working together like the cells in our bodies is such a fascinating image. It truly is the next step of evolution. Currently, we're tiny amoebas bumping into each other competing for resources. Essentially, Game B is laying out the physiological blueprint of the human superorganism: who will be the mitochondria, the immune cells, the blood cells, the muscle cells?

It is fascinating, although how realistic is it in the end? Would it be feasible in a century or so? 

Cultural transformation requires individual transformation. This requires personal responsibility, even if assisted by others. 

Who decides which direction to move towards? People may not want to follow the same path and goals as everyone else. For example, why hasn't any culture throughout history been based on honesty and truth?

Edited October 18, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Spiral Wizard]

On 15/10/2023 at 10:19 PM, Leo Gura said:

It will be possible in the future but within our lifetime it is not how things will run. Nobody is at the levels of development needed to sustain Game B. And they will not be for another 100 years.

some of us might be alive in 100 years 

[Razard86]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

There will be such a thing as genetic engineering, but even without that, we still yet to know what human nature actually is.

What certain is that if we change the environment, we change as well.

Create environment A - you produce peaceful monks.

Create environment B - you produce terrorist.

Unless your environment includes genetics its not complete.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Spiral Wizard said:

some of us might be alive in 100 years 

I'm taking you all with me

[TheAlchemist]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

An important part of Game B is having a large base of material success for everyone, so that no one feels like a cornered rat desperate to survive. All of human history so far has been the building up of that material base. We still have a ways to go.

Cornered rats cannot do Game B. So if you want Game B, figure out how to uncorner as many rats as possible. Preaching fancy philosophy does not uncorner a rat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)

[Danioover9000]

   This whole talk about game B and how these people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jamie Wheel, John Vonyeuke, and some other systemic thinkers think themselves as genius, and other here think them geniuses, whilst ignoring Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla's genius, and feats they actually did, is disrespectful. Nikola Tesla not only is a real genius for imagining and visualizing EVERYPART OF A MACHINE IN HIS MIND, but also MAKING THOSE MACHINES! Nikola Tesla, and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to translate what they imagine into reality. None of those fancy, sophistry fake systems thinkers can't do what Nikola Tesla did, or Leonardo Da Vinci, so labelling them as geniuses and everyone as geniuses is delusional and crazy.

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

   This whole talk about game B and how these people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jamie Wheel, John Vonyeuke, and some other systemic thinkers think themselves as genius, and other here think them geniuses, whilst ignoring Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla's genius, and feats they actually did, is disrespectful. Nikola Tesla not only is a real genius for imagining and visualizing EVERYPART OF A MACHINE IN HIS MIND, but also MAKING THOSE MACHINES! Nikola Tesla, and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to translate what they imagine into reality. None of those fancy, sophistry fake systems thinkers can't do what Nikola Tesla did, or Leonardo Da Vinci, so labelling them as geniuses and everyone as geniuses is delusional and crazy.

You are currently imagining your life away.  You are imagining every part of your Reality constructing every thing into existence as we speak. The content of your life may be different from theirs but you are doing the same thing. Denying this is also a part of the construction.

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

   This whole talk about game B and how these people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jamie Wheel, John Vonyeuke, and some other systemic thinkers think themselves as genius, and other here think them geniuses, whilst ignoring Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla's genius, and feats they actually did, is disrespectful. Nikola Tesla not only is a real genius for imagining and visualizing EVERYPART OF A MACHINE IN HIS MIND, but also MAKING THOSE MACHINES! Nikola Tesla, and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to translate what they imagine into reality. None of those fancy, sophistry fake systems thinkers can't do what Nikola Tesla did, or Leonardo Da Vinci, so labelling them as geniuses and everyone as geniuses is delusional and crazy.

I don't think these people call themselves geniuses, nor do they not recognize the geniuses of history. So what is disrespectful here according to you is me calling Daniel a genius but not mentioning every other possible example of a genius?

Edited November 23, 2023 by Carl-Richard