Scholar

From what I have picked up, Natanyahu was criticizes for a lack of response and a kind of degradation of the IDF? From what I understand this might have been one of the reasons for this strike, the perceived weakening of the IDF.

It's backwards thinking because it is way too moralistic. What HAMAS did will not help palestinians at all, it will just lead to more death and misery. You can argue that what Israel does and did in the past was unjustified, but that doesn't justify blind terrorism. From the perspective of Israel none of this is as simple as it seems. 80 years ago a holocaust was committed, which of course motivated them to seek their own national identity, and of course they were willing to forgoe moral idealism to achieve that goal. They are still existentially threatened by nation-state actors around them, and so naturally will seek to secure more power within their own region. If the european settlers were being hunted by the europeans, and found a foothold in the america's, where everyone around them wants to murder them, I would have much more sympathy for the americans if they decided to occupy a strip of the US the way the israeli's do. Stop thinking about this in terms of morality, and look at it from the perspective of self-preservation. You have it easy because you don't have to make such choices. If you are going to talk about moral ideals the way you do, you could justify occupying the whole of arabia because of their systematic rape and murder of women. This is a game that has no end. In fact, by your logic, any vegan is justified to go on a killing spree to kill meat eaters, or go and kill slaughterhouse workers. Because, if you believe you are morally superior to the israeli's as a non-vegan, you are kidding yourself. It's completely self-serving. In fact, even if you are vegan, your consumption of luxury goods requires the deprivation of land, the murder of individuals, and all to serve a completely trivial function, your own satisfaction, that you could gain by other means. I can understand the palestinians, I can even understand HAMAS, even if they are utterly delusional and far less developed than even the Israeli right wing is. What I am disappointed in however, is that people in here have such a flat, black and white view of this. The world is not as simple as you would like it to be.

This is backwards thinking. None of this will help anyone, especially not palestinians. HAMAS didn't do this to help palestine-israeli relationships, they did this because they are ideologically motivated to eradicate all jewish people from israel and probably being used as pawns by larger actors like Iran. There are actors who are unlikely to allow actual peace to happen. There is a reason HAMAS is being funded by foreign nations. Realistically, these types of prospects are pipe dreams.

There is reportedly footage of dead naked female soldiers being paraded around by HAMAS and palestinian civilians.

Interestingly, some say the coordination required for this attack could have not been performed by HAMAS alone, and that this could indicate involvement from Iran, who are not happy about recent Arab–Israeli normalization deals. The aim would be to basically provoke and force a response from Israel that will set the progress back and leave Israel more vulnerable in the long term.

You can dislike something about someone without disliking them as a whole. I agree with Kastrup on the irrationality of materialism, and I like some of the ways he frames idealism. I don't think he quit because of some greater realization. He just got offended and his ego got in the way. The fact that I can exist and engage outside of that framework. You will not witness that because when I engage with hyperrationalists I must speak their language.

I'm not so much emphasizing my superior cognition as a lack of cognition in you hyperrationalists. If you didn't love condescension you wouldn't be a moderator on this forum.

I don't think it is necessarily ineptitude, although communication on a forum is harder than it is in face to face interactions, simply because you lack most social indicators. This is why online interactions tend to make people more autistic-brained, including me. Notice that this type of conversation would have never happened in voice communication. IRL, I would have just dismissed your cheeky provocation and moved on, and in the forum I feel like I can expand on my thoughts more, even though I know none of this will reach you at all. Forest is an interesting case because he has a very impersonal communication style, but I do get the sense that behind that is a sensitive soul. So you could say I was inept in the sense that I was not aware enough of this when I made the honest comment about how I perceive him. But notice that I did apologize to him and clarified that it was not a personal attack, without any direct prompt. The immature thing would have been to crybaby like Kastrup.

I don't have the sense that Forestluv doesn't like me, we have a long history of going back and forth in the way we did in our past interaction. In fact I am surprised that he did like me enough to give me advice, as our interactions always tend to end in that way. I am aware of how I come across and you are correct that it could be emotionally cutting. I usually adjust my communication style to the person I am communicating with, especially logic brained people like you I tend to handle this way. Riling you up is part of my communication strategy.

I did engage in logic-brained rationalizations, and it's interesting that once I did provide one you did not actually respond to the substance of what was being said, and started making a general vague point about multiperspectivalism. You just do the switcheroo whenever it fits you. But like I said, none of this should even require much logic. The fact that logic is required here means there is a lack of competency in regards to social dynamics. It also is an indicator that logic is being used to simply confirm ones own bias, as Kastrup did in his explanation point. You can rationalize all of this away, but the reality is pretty simple, and most people immediately will recognize it because they don't suffer from autism.

It's not about how serious you take it, but how logic-brained your approach here is. It's just silly because we are talking about basic social dynamics. To me, this is completely obvious, the reason why I am engaging in logic-brain myself is because you are so trapped in it you won't take anything else seriously. Well, if we agree Kastrup it an immature crybaby who was stuck up in his own ego during the interaction then I don't have much more to argue about.

I agree with much of what Kastrup is saying, I don't dislike him at all. I am just objective about him being a crybaby and stuck in his own ego.

It absolutely is different. But even if it was the same, just because some people don't react the same to your provocation does not mean you should be surprised when eventually someone does. You, similar to Kastrup, are way too logical about this, and you are just missing how human beings work, it's just completely obvious if you are not so stuck in your mind. The hypocrisy is, if you are going to be so logic brained as to not admit to the obvious thing that is happening here, then you can't also at the same time be an emotional cry baby whose voice shakes from anger because the other person reacted in an arrogant manner. If you want to be the hyperrational robot then at least be consistent about it, otherwise you just seem childish. Leo is also provocative with his speech, but imagine if Leo were to debate someone, make the statements he usually does, and then get completely furious at his opponent at the first glance of hostility. That would be mindblowingly immature. What Kastrup did was socially clumsy even if nothing had happened. Kastrup, if he had sufficient emotional maturity, could have easily laughed the arrogant response off, and cheekily apologizes to calling his opponents position groteqsue and moved on. If the other person were still this upset, he could have at some point said "Okay we clearly are not able to have a conversation here anymore, I don't know if it makes sense to continue.". But his ego got so riled up he immediately locked up and even refused any sort of explanation or attempt of reconciliation, even though the other person attempted to do so once he realized how absurdly upset Kastrup got, trying to explain himself "I only did this because you started it with the insulting language!". The mature thing at that point is to recognize the miscommunication and try to move on, instead of being a stubborn crybaby. The reality is, Kastrup takes himself way too seriously, he has a huge ego, and the sad thing is people even encourage it in him, praising him in conversation as if he was the second coming of Christ. The guy is not that special, he is arguing against an untenable position. This isn't the type of thing that requires genius.

I don't think this is true. Divine Intelligence is far more sophisticated than Leo seems to assume here. He believes that because it's so sophisticated, that it could not possibly be through lucky concidence. But, the intelligence and ingenuity of the universe is so sophisticated, that it actually is lucky concidence and random mutation. The very metaphysics of the universe, and math itself, is designed such that through put freedom, pure random chance, all of this will self-construct itself into existence. That is the genius of creation. There is nobody guiding it, all of that is already embued in the very nature of math itself. This is why MLA work and give such sophisticated results, through simple evolutionary chance mechanism. Divine Intelligence is so genius, it's intelligence works through dumb and random chance. Imagine coming up with a system where all of life on this planet and everything beyond will necessarily happen as the result of simple mechanisms and random chance. That's the miracle of existence.

To be fair though, Bernardo has a passive aggressive arrogance about him that can be more infuriating than someone being openly mocking. It's mockery veiled as civility, pretending to be noble when it is just as demeaning.

This does not surprise me considering your main cognitive mode.

Right, and say this does not increase murders overall, and by locking people up you will also not decrease murders.

Your understanding of randomness, and therefore freedom, is the problem here. This comparison is not even worth engaging in. In your world, there are no degrees of freedom, there is no potential in anything. Infinity cannot possibly express itself other than in a rigid crystallized manner. That's not how life works, life is free and organic. Just because your ego doesn't like the idea of it doesn't make it untrue. You are just scared of lack of control, which is precisely what freedom is.

Well, of course, it's free to imagine itself confined. I don't think the symbolism is misleading. Consciousness is another word for existence, and anything that exists constitutes existence.

I never called the whole process random, I am saying randomness/freedom is a necessary component to the overall dynamic. The nature of self-discovery is a maximization of variety, and this is only achieved through degrees of ontological freedom.

An interesting question to pose here: Say we reduce criminality to a certain point where we no longer see any signs of it ever getting even lower. And say that we have a system where basically, if you murder someone, you go take therapy for two weeks and you can leave and be free. Say that by increasing sentencing or locking murderers up we would not decrease criminality at all, there would be not benefit in that regard ata ll. Would you be in favour or against locking murderers up to penalize them?

Because mathematicians are not as intelligent as god. The genius of the universe is that it is constructed such that freedom and function can both prosper, and in fact, as I pointed out, this is the only way it could work. So, the odds of it happening are actually 100%, that's how the universe is designed. The fact that mathematicians do not know this just shows how little they understand about reality. A stupid person will think "Oh, no way randomness could allow for something like life to self-construct!", but that is because of a lack of imagination. They cannot fathom that the system is so sophisticated, that it is not just construct life despite randomness, but using randomness in it's favour to achieve completeness.

If you do that long enough, it will happen.

Imagine playing a tabletop game without dice. Without dice, reality would not look the way it currently does.

What i am describing is a relative perspective. Randomness doesn't really "cause" Infinity, rather, Randomness is what infinity looks like from the perspective of manifest existence. Imagine infinity as a branching tree, an infinite branching tree, each branch being one possible way reality could be. Now, from the point of view of infinity, there is no time, no casuality, it all simply is, a singularity, and complete oneness. However, to be truly infinite, each branch has to have it's own existence. It's not seperate from the Infinte, not really. However, from the perspective of any given branch, at each next point of potential, manifestation can only continue on one of the branches, or in other words, to be a branch means to be only that one branch. So, in physicalist terms, as the universe unfolds, from the manifest perspective of a singular universe, the potential at any given degree of freedom will manifest randomly. This is how the infinite is manifested, how potential is crystalized into particularity. So, this question is misguided, it is using a linearlistic framework, but reality is not linearlistic. The bottom is always the Causeless Cause. Conscious selection is not the source of structure and intelligence, it is what structure and intelligence is, and vice versa. You are applying a linearlistic framework to notions that go into the post-rational. This is why you are having problems understanding. The incompatibility you speak of is illusiory, a result of logical rigidity. Reality is not bound by logical rigidities as your mind is. See my answer for point 1. Randomness is what Completeness looks like from the perspective of the partial. There is no unit of randomness, randomness is what infinity looks like from the perspective of the manifest. The infinite is the tree, the manifest the branches, and randomness is what it the junctions look like from the perspective of the branch. There is no "cause" to why a branch is one or the other branch. It is simply is Freedom. You cannot reduce it, and it certainly is not contained in the branch itself. It is deeper than that. I don't know what you mean by "fundamental" here. You will not get an answer to how Freedom/Randomness works, that would defeat it's own nature. This is as absurd as asking what color the sound of a barking dog has. I don't see how these questions are even relevant. You can just look at and study nature and find out, because nature contains degrees of freedom. You are creating problems where no problems exist. There is no such thing as a random state, that doesn't even make sense. Do you mean an unmanifested potential? When a potential state is not yet collapsed, from the perspective of manifest existence, then all it means is that it did not yet reach the junction point where the degree of freedom is present. Once it reaches that point, it will simply collapse into one of the potentials, and this collapse will be Free. From the perspective of the Infinite, all the branches always simply exist, they are never collapsed, they just exist as the potentials, eternally.