Leo Gura

Wally's just playing an extemely long trap game. Biding his time to sntach one of those kids. I'm onto you, Wally.

Yes, of course, every human mind makes use of some informal logic. But that stuff cannot be formalized. Yes, it can be spelled out more, but I myself don't know all the logic that goes into my understandings. It's way too complex and abstract to spell it all out in some linear sequence. Impossible, really. Yes, I make a lot of very clever inferences. That cleverness is the magic sauce which I could not explain even if I tried.

What is the actually statistic of the percentage of buildings in Gaza destroyed? A source would be nice.

As long as I get to keep my private jet, no worries.

That is true, however I think it is a higher quality plastic. Keep in mind, your bottled water probably also came from an RO system. I wonder if industrial RO water is plastic or metal or what? It would be cool to find an all metal/ceramic RO system. But that will be expensive. It tastes perfect. Best water, zero weird taste.

But here you are exaggerating. Israelis are nowhere close to bombing everything in sight. They could bomb every house in Gaza but they do not. Yes, they bomb excessively, but your characterization of it is very exaggerated. You don't need to exaggerate in order to make your moral case. Adding falsehood to it doesn't help your moral case. The straight truth should suffice.

Yes, but the moral questions are all about where you draw your lines. I'm sure that as they are bombing Gaza the Israeli leadership are telling themselves: "The only way not to harm anyone is to be dead." But then you look at that as an outsider and are horrified at the net result. It's easy to find ways to create all sorts of blind externalities. Which is why I framed my defintion of morality as such: All of morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes others.

The suffering has to not be traumatic, crippling, and experienced with a degree of consciousness rather than avoidance in order for it to be beneficial.

The stuff I talk about is too subtle, abstract, and experiential to be formalized with logic. No amount of logic can get you to see features like holism, recontextualization, higher consciousness, or just a new distinction. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I posted a link of my fave RO models on my blog some time ago.

That's pretty good. But how would you apply that in complex situations such as: Driving your car kills bugs Driving your car adds to climate change Buying cheap products supports slave labor Using fertilizer to grow you fruits kills animals and pollutes the water Getting your electricity from wind trubines kills birds Consuming porn might contribute to exploitation of women in that industry Etc Genuinely curious how your system handles that.

@Water by the River You are engaged in the reductionism of Consciousness through your Buddhism. If you do that hard enough you will succeed. But that is a limited thing you made of it -- through your self-brainwashing. None of that grasps the higher nature of Consciousness.

Surprisingly, this question might take your contemplations on this topic further: If you just took a wild guess, where would you say you're most wrong? And then just observe your intuition very carefully.

My RO system has a remineralization stage. It doesn't cost much extra.

Good stuff

Well, when you find him take a pic and send it to us.

I had a profound awakening into the nature of time. The explanation is so profound and unique that I decided to save it for an advanced course.

Quality, not quantity

That doesn't stop Hamas

Still higher consciousness than a barbarian rape horde.

Everything is about you. Just keeping it real.

Titles are a trap

If you actually discovered an inconsistency in basic arithmetic you would win a Fields Medal, which is harder to win than a Nobel Prize. The crazy stuff I say cannot be formally proven, which is why I can get away with it. But if you say crazy things about formal systems like arithmetic, you're in trouble without proof because all of math hinges on formal proofs. In order to criticize math, logic, and science effectively you gotta call meta aspects of their work into question, the psychology of their paradigms, not their content. Because the content of math is quite solid. For example, you can criticize math for being too reductionistic and too formal, or too narrow to capture reality.

1) Don't forget that it could always be worse. If Israel was Red/Blue they would do a lot worse. 2) Hamas' actions are very calculated. They gave their terrorist militia guys maps of Jewish kibutuz to attack on Oct 7th. It wasn't spontaneous. As bad as the bombing is, Israelis are not invading like a barbarian horde and executing every civilian in sight.

I drink my water from public urinals with a bamboo straw. Very sustainable.