zurew

Based on the info you gave so far, it seems that your main value/purpose isn't really fun/enjoyment, but the state of mind that can provide you with the feeling of fun/joy. So coming back to the "decision making" point, whatever can help you with optimizing your mind towards experiencing more joy/fun will point towards your main bias(es).

I see it this way: we have some level of free will/agency, but we lose that agency if our survival is greatly threatened. The time when we can start talking about decision-making is the time when we have already taken care of our survival. After taking care of the basic survival part, we can start talking about morality, and we can start to build and analyze our decision making process/processes. So generally speaking every bias is built upon the bias of survival. Even if we say that your intuition is whats in complete charge when it comes to your decision making, you could still analyze what decisions you made in the past. Based on your past actions and based on very serious self reflection, you can figure out what core biases you have.

Okay so the "fun" part isn't relevant to this discussion because it doesn't have any weight on what activtiy you will end up doing according to you. So the question is this: How do you decide what you want to do? Is it random, or something impacts your decision making? I didn't consciously contemplate it, but i ended up doing things that were fun to do. Whether I did that consciously or unconsciously doesn't really matter, because i was still somewhat biased towards fun, although i would definitely say, that my bias towards survival is greater/upper on the hierarchy spectrum.

@Devin Whats your thoughts on this?

Jesus wasn't biased towards fun. Jesus was biased towards Love.

Okay, so whats relevant here is avoidable death. This question will decide if you really value fun over survival: Lets say activity X gives you the most enjoyment so because you are biased towards fun, you are doing that activity. However, there is a twist, because you know that if you do that activity you will end up being dead. So the question is this: Would you choose to do that activity, even if you would know beforehand, that if you do it you will end up being dead? Also notice this: being biased towards fun still contains the bias of wanting a certain outcome. Why? Becuase, you will end up doing things that will give you the most enjoyment (which is still a certain outcome). If we want to look at it from a different perspective, you will try to avoid anything that gives you little or no enjoyment at all.

Whats your definition of fun? An activity, that makes you joyful? Btw, you can't escape the bias of survival, because If you wouldn't be biased towards survival, you would have been dead a long time ago. Your ability to have fun is resting upon your survival, unless you have a belief that after your physical death, you can still have some fun.

@Devin So if you are biased towards survival, you by definition have to value utopia over dystopia, so at the end of the day you are at the same page as all of us.

Sure, but if your are being biased towards fun, and you still end up doing everything just to survive, then basically we can say that the bias of survival is contained within your definition of fun.

You are still biased towards a certain outcome, you are just putting it behind a different bias in a sneaky way (this time you use the bias of fun in order to rationalise why you want a certain outcome)

Its relevant, because you said, that acceptance should eliminate bias.

So we end up being biased towards "fun" then. You can't really escape bias.

Without a desired outcome, why would anyone do anything? And again, having a desired outcome doesn't necessarily indicates that you haven't accepted the opposite.

One can accept death and still try to maintain survival. Acceptance doesn't mean that you won't be biased towards something, so because it doesn't necessarily change your biases, it doesn't necessarily change your actions. Everyone is biased towards survival except suicidal people.

I don't think you can separate those two in a meaningful way. For example if you want to create a framework for a fruitful civilisation you necessarily need to avoid civilisation collapse. The video you saw was focused on the problem part, because without addressing that problem we can't start talking about the positive parts. Your argument boils down to negative vs positive motivation, but I don't think that you can separate those two in a meaningful way (it will be dependent on the perspective),also I am still curious about how you could approach the problem of cilivilisation collapse without it being fearful in your mind.

Nope, like what is specifically that makes you think that he is afraid (you have to make a point that is not about mentioning the problem ,because we established that mentioning a problem doesn't necessarily indicates that you are fearful)

Okay, the only thing thats still unclear to me, is that how can you be confident about what motives he has based on the information you have? Like for example how do you know with a high confidence that he is approaching it with fear?

Okay, so in practice how would you approach complex problems without talking about it or mentioning it. Or if you fine with the mentioning the problem,then what would you do different?

I don't want to derail this thread, but these clips are funny.

You can turn off the sink, but if its a complex problem which requires global engagement and not just a person or just a group, then mentioning a problem and outlining it and giving frameworks is completely reasonable imo and not fearmongering at all.

Prove nothing, i was just mentioning it. Yes, if you are critiqually engaging with conspiracy theories, then yeah you could say that you are doing "truth seeking", but most of the time people who are deep into conspiracies , they are using selective scepticism. They are very sceptical about any mainstream narrative or news, but they often easily buy into the alternative media, alternative narratives and sources just because those are not mainstream and they are not using the same standards for both. But here is a question for you @Raptorsin7 If TJ Reeves is a truth seeker according to you, then why he isn't open to criticism and disagreement? Also its really funny, that he was talking about the problem of censorship in one of his videos, when he is doing hardcore censorship as well.

Lol, this guy is balls deep in conspiracy theories. Lmao, Wtf

How? If i want to buy something from for example amazon, then i know exactly what item/service I will get for what price. On the other hand Tate literally and directly promoted a service and the customers didn't get that service and didn't get any repay at all. There is a difference between using the capitalist system and the necessary power dynamics that comes with it vs using the capitalist system and adding intentionally scammy stuff upon it. Also even if i were to give you for granted, that all giant companies lie, that still doesn't make Tate's case any better (if we are talking about integrity).

You don't need to hurt other people in order to learn fighting. Yes there are jails and courts but those are useless if you get attacked and you can't run anywhere. Doing fighting will make you more respectful and you get humbled. Most people nowadays have a fall sense of confidency and they don't really know that they can be in real danger if they are not respectful. I wouldn't say that learning fighting is a necessity nowadays, but why wouldn't you learn it if you can get a whole pack of all the goods?(learning discipline, getting humbled, learning self defense, getting more confident etc) Because of all that, I would argue that learning to fight is one of the best things you can do, because you get the whole pack by doing one activity.

@Oeaohoo Whats your main critique about this forum, what do you think we are missing on?