Scholar

You are pointing to something important, and in essence why ideology exists in societies. Most people lack the capacities or skills to navigate the uncertain epistemic and moral landscape that would need to be navigated if you were to fully decouple yourself from contemporary ideologies. Ideologies serve a few functions in human society, but mostly: They give individuals something they can orient themselves towards (a value hierarchy), a shared understnading of the world. The more you decouple yourself from society, you will notice the more challenging it becomes to orient yourself towards something and to navigate the world in general. Morality is an easy example: It is much easier to just real a religious text and be given instructions for what is important in life and how to achieve it, rather than work from first principles and rational consistency. People are highly biased and lack reasoning skills, so if you give them "free reign" in regards to their orientation in life, many of them will mess it up terribly. Often they will not improve on the ideology, and rather just embrace more and more of their own biases, until they are so lost they will become highly susceptible to be captured by a new ideology. And in the end it's just easier to go along with whatever society has prepared for you in terms of ideology. You will be in line with most people and therefore reduce social friction, and you will not run risk of stumbling into a dangerous aspect of the unknown. That is what you do when you let go of societal ideology. You open yourself to the unknown, and traversing the unknown is very dangerous. It requires significant sophistication to be able to do that on your own, the further you venture, the more difficult and dangerous it becomes. In the end, exploring the unknown is a collective process. A lot of people have already thought about many of the things you will come to conclude to yourself, so it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel.

I don't think limitations in regards to how the physical universe behaves will exist the way you think of them right now. Reality is fundamentally infinite. There is no fully understanding it, unless you yourself are infinity.

Limitations are necessary for existence. But to you it will appear limitless. Your mind right now is too limited to even fathom the limitations of future minds. Understanding the physical nature of the universe will not be one of them.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by macroscopic levels of rationality? What is the process of abstraction and how do you define rationality? Do you recognize rationality as a form of existence?

At some point we will transcend our biological limitations. Understanding the universe will be a non-issue. Our concern will be about exploring infinity.

They are examples for things that contrast rationality, namely things that construct function through evolutionary selection within a field of complexity. It demonstrates the limits of rationality, because linearlistic processing could never arrive at functions that require the level of complexity necessary to achieve something like visualization or replicating the relationships of a language. LLMs are precisely not the result of human rationality, that is why they are so good at what they are doing. They are only a result of human rationality insofar as humans having constructed the conditions necessarily for evolution to allow the functions they sought to emerge through selective emergence. The researchers of AI have no idea what they are doing, most of them are highly specialized baffoons.

You should re-read my post because you seem to have misunderstood. I never made the claim that LLMs are rational. They are fundamentally intuitive, that was the whole point my post. Rationality is a function of individuated consciousness.

Large Language Models are a perfect example of the limits of rationality, and so is evolution. The most significant limitation of rationality are actually it's metaphysical limitations. Rationality is a particular form of existence, namely concepts-symbols and their relatively simple relationships to each other. Rationality is fundamentally linearlistic and linguistic and that comes with obvious limitations as far as Creation goes. A rational mind can create a complicated machine. Machines, like computers, are a perfect example of how rationality functions and how it constructs functionality. Namely, each component in a machine relates to another component, but usually how many relationships each component has to each other is very limited. It works more like A -> B -> C -> D, in a very complicated way. That is in essence what processing is. If you compare this to a complex system like the human body, you will notice that each cell is in relationship to every other cell. Everything inherently affects everything else. A rational mind could not possibly arrive at a system of such complexity because its' linearlistic nature is too limited to take into account the amount of relationships you would need to hold in a given space (consciousness) to recognize it's functionality. In fact, sufficiently complex systems are not only impossible to construct within a rational space, they are also virtually impossible to understand and grasp. Even if scientists would understand the function of every single molecule in the human body they would not be able to predict the holistic motion of the body, simply because the functions as they relate to each other create such high complexity that new, metafunctions would emerge that would be impossible to predict via a linearlistic framework. A rational mind has to basically process any complex problem by putting it into a linear language that it can grasp and process. In essence, this is an attempt to translate complexity into complicatedness. "Part A does X, therefore if Part B does Y the resulting interaction will be Z." There will be no rational mind that will ever truly "understand" what a Large Language Model does when it is constructing an image or intuiting the shape of our language and collective understanding. And no rational mind could have ever constructed a machine that would have achieved what a Large Language Model does. A neural network fundamentally achieves what a complicated program or machine cannot achieve in the same way, and that is the emergence of true complexity. A large language model is not understanding what an image is and how to create an image, and then recreating an image. No, what a large language model is, is a neural network that literally is the function of what it means to imagine an image. It doesn't need to understand itself or it's process, because it's very nature is the function itself. It literally became function, whereas rationality attempts to imitate or grasp functionality through linearlistic understanding. This hard limitation cannot be overcome because it is actually metaphysical. This is the same way evolution functions. We look at evolution and we think of how impossible it is that such complexity could exist. How could we possibly ever understand the human machine? But this is flawed thinking. The human body is not a machine, the human body is an organism. It is not imitating function, it literally is function. And the forces which allowed the complexity of the human body to emerge were not limited by linearlistic processing. The universe doesn't have to think in "If A, then B, then C.", because the universe in it's very nature is complexity. It is every single interaction and their infinite relations to each other. This is why, given the right conditions, it is utterly effortless for the universe to construct life from dead matter, to have it self construct itself in the oceans and eventually evolve into all the diversity we are seeing today. There was not a single rational thought put into any of it, and no rational mind could ever hope to imitate this kind of complexity. For that, it would require a creative mind, a mind that that can become Complexity itself. In other words, a mind that can Imagine. In the future, we will create a Non-Machine Machine, whose very hardware will be organic, meaning it's components will have truly complex relationships. Today's machines will seem like a simpletons invention in comparison. It will not be processing, it will be doing what the human brain does, in which billions of components relate to each other and create an emergent function. This will be simulated using computer processing, but the very nature of computer processing is linearlistic and laughably limited for the reasons explained above.

Because it can always get far worse than it currently is. There are no experts on psychedelics.

Be warned Leo: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1fumstj/ranton_recalls_his_miami_podcast_experience/ lol

The problem is that I only feel well when I do take iodine, but only for a period of time until the thyroid gets inflammed, which is most often a few days or a week until that occurs. The thyroid does need iodine to function. Do you take no iodine at all? To me it seems like levothyroxine does not completely replace what the thyroid is doing. I read that there is a problem with the balance between T3 and T4, or whatever, and the one levothyroxine replaces is not as effective as the secondary type the thyroid produces. And it seems to me like taking levothyroxine itself, especially at like 100mcg-1250mcg rate, has it's own side effects, like increased thirst and heat intolance, despite my blood not showing that I would have too much hormone.

"Poland is save" my ass. What is this insane propaganda. In poland hooligans chops each others hands off with machetes. Try walking around in most cities at night and you will feel anything but safe. Poland is an incredibly violent culture that is highly underdeveloped. They are highly dogmatic and religious. Sure, you won't get immigrants messing things up, but the polish people are more than sufficient to do that themselves.

Spiral Dynamics is just describing the path of least resistance as far as societal and individual evolution goes. Given that the limitations of Stage Yellow have not manifested yet, because Stage Yellow is in no way prevalent in society, we simply do not yet know what the "path of least reistance" is going to look like for the next evolutionary step. Remember, Spiral Dynamics is not some preset way of how human societies necessarily evolve. A society, albeit it probably is less likely, could evolve completely different. Rather than stage blue, it could have an entirely different system and therefore the entire evolutionary pathway will look different. This is just less likely to occur given that all societies are connected to each other, and given that certain pathways are just much more likely to occur.

I tried various diets, but I'm limited to plant based.

I already know all of this I was hoping someone here had some deeper insight.

What I need to provide is a referral to a psychiatrist with some medication on top. I genuinely recommend you get some help because this is a serious issue. People in here are arguing with you as if it was a debate, but it seems very likely to me like you are on the verge of slipping down a very dark path that will cause a lot of unnecessary suffering. You are probably suffering from some form of autism and you are consuming too much toxic social media content, warping your view of reality completely. This is the incel version of you: https://archive.org/details/thecaseofalekminassian Watch this video with attention and you will learn a lot about yourself.

There is not such thing as "religious people". You are treating them like some sort of group that actually exists in the world. There are people who are have religious viewpoints, some of them more dysfunctional than others. But if we wanted to eradicate individuals who are potentially harmful to society, it is potential future mass shooters like you that we would start with. But our society is so liberal and tolerant it will not institutionalize individuals like you, even though you are probably psychotic as we speak. That should give you to think.

You use Hitler as your role model my friend, there is nothing that needs to be proven here, you are doing the job yourself.

You are in the most essential sense a religious person.

Reading this makes me think you went through lots of suffering lately.

When did he say that?

If you have a democracy, and there are so many of those religious people that they would threaten to become their own regime, or whatever, then you can't just take their voting rights away. The entire system depends on everyone agreeing on the principle of democracy, otherwise you can't have a democracy. You can't just pick a group you don't like and tell them they can't vote. In that case, why would the participate in democracy at all? You will just cause civil war.

Would be interesting to see Leo discuss IP conflict from a moral perspective with Destiny, because I honestly can't see where they would disagree and how the arguments would play out. But at the same time it would be wasted time to have them discuss politics like that.

The point of that question was to engage with the hypothetical such that I understand your position better. The problem is that I do not have a burden of proof. When you justify maintaining discrimination, rights violations and stigmatization of innocent individuals on the basis of a theory you have, you better have good grounds to support that theory rather than just assumption that cannot be disproven either way. The reason why this is important is because otherwise we can perpetuate discrimination forever without ever feeling compelled to advocate for the acceptance of minorities. I just showed you a video that demonstrates how a large majority of people actually react to this topic as you would expect, with empathy and reason. Nobody is confusing pedophelia with child predation. This asymmetry is not relevant to the comparison. The comparison was in the lack of validity in the reasoning provided, namely slippery slope fallacies and just a misunderstanding of societies transition from discriminatory stances to basic acceptance of certain minority groups. This is just a baseless assertion. I already provided reasoning for why this is a flawed argument. Lesser developed stages will not, and do not accept such things either way. The point is to create a space, even if it is just in the context of stage green, for acceptance to occur and be perpetuated into the future. Every individual, including both of us, are part of this unfoldment. Nobody is arguing for rushing anything, whatever that would even mean. This conversation is the process of unfoldment which is precisely how these taboos are de-tabooified. There is no taboo, other than the incest taboo and prohibition, that is even remotely as harmful to innocent individuals as pedophelia-discrimination. And this is not merely a taboo, pedophiles are fundamentally dehumanized as a result of the way they were born.

I've recently been trying to advocate for the most hated individuals in our society. Given that I personally know people who are in an incestuous relationship, that is something I have been focusing on. Given the stigma around incest, there already is a significant social cost associated with advocating for their rights and acceptance. However, in the case of pedophiles, this is cost is even greater. I don't feel as compelled to advocate for their acceptance because in general, they are not legally persecuted (unlike incestuous couples are), but I still feel compelled to speak up when I see blantant dehumanization of such individuals. Obviously there is no context in which a sexual relationship between a child and an adult is appropriate, but in the case of pedophelia, we are not talking about individuals who prey on children, but rather individuals who were born with the affliction of feeling an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. Such individuals obviously ought not to be outcast from society, as that increases the likelihood of them developing depraved moral stances and makes it less likely for them to actually get psychological help. All of this actually increases the likelihood of children getting abused, rather than decreases them. In a mature society, individuals would be able to openly share these feelings and get the social and psychological support they need, to develop healthy moral and psychological attitudes. But as soon as you talk about this topic and attempt to bring nuance to it, individuals generally will accuse you of being a pedophile yourself (they also do this when you advocate for incest). People are so adamant about their judgemental positions that they would rather engage in witch-hunts than actually decrease the instances of child abuse. How exactly would we go about speaking to the general public about issues like this? Can it only happen in specific spaces, where individuals are ready to hear and discuss such things? Does society need to grow to be more mature? The unforunate thing is that, over the past decade, there has been a clear reversion in the sophistication in the discourse on these types of matters. People seem to be less mature than they used to be, and more inclined to fall victim to peer pressure, given just how much social cost there is today when you speak against the grain in any meaningful way.