Scholar

Germany had to revert to coal and gas because it is phasing out nuclear energy. Where are you getting your information from? While China does need coal and gas, that has nothing to do with them being utterly irresponsible and insane with the way they pollute their environment. Corruption is real and is destroying the entire country, you have this weird, unsophisticated realism where you will just point at reality and say "Well this is how it has to be", as if reality was some sort of disembodied process that you do not participate in.

China is not moving fast on this at all, you are being sold propaganda.

Technological development is linked to social factors.

Consciousness expands from the point of individuals, and these conversations are part of that. The motion of history is embodied through the actual progression of individual actors, this is how Divine Will manifests and evolves. Forcing things is part of the motions of nature, and must be accepted as such.

From what I know the "male" tournaments are basically open, so anyone can participate. It's just that women have a specific seperate protected category. But the same is true for the men. If you look at the graph, men will also dominate in the most disadvantaged group, namely people with very low IQ. Sure, the world is unfair in that sense, but I would say being a human in general already is such a privilege in most cases that the difference between male and female are basically negligible. You have to remember, you are basically just arbitrarily looking at this in terms of male vs female, but you can subdivide groups of individuals into infinite categories, from which then you can evaluate which one has it worse than the other.

The longer this is going on the more my BS-spider-senses go off.

Well, let's assume for a second that this was true and due to biological factors: And let's say this translates to games like chess. If this was the case, would that bother you? If so, why would that bother you? And then, why does any of this even matter that much? If it was true that men are more likely to be in the lowest percentile of intelligence, but also in the highest percentile of intelligence, do you think that would be bad?

Somebody like Leo will not give a shit until things start affecting him, which is unlikely to happen with his wealth.

Firstly, I have no idea why it matters what "anybody" complains about. Secondly, do I really need to explain to you why mass extinctions are not something that should just be ignored?

Every country in the world mass rapes, tortures and murders animals in a way that is worse than the holocaust. If this was happening to human beings, people would riot. Most people have so little concern for non-human individuals that if they had that little concern for human beings, the only plausible explanation would be racism or sociopathy. You cannot actually reverse most ecological destruction because it leads to permanent loss of biodiversity.

This is unlikely if women and men actually are on par cognitively speaking. The pool of transgender individuals who play chess is far smaller than the pool of female chess players, therefore if both are on par, it should be very unlikely for transgenders to outcompete females.

Roy can you give us a summary of specifically what your position is? I think instead of arguing, it can be helpful to actually ask yourself "Okay, I believe this, what premises do I accept that lead me to this conclusion, and what leads to me to accept those premises?". Then there can be clarity around what people disagree about. Because right now, everyone is just stating they don't agree, and pointing out how much they don't agree, but there is no investigation from where that disageement stems and therefore we can't really discuss the actual thing that would change people's minds.

I just found out about Bernardo Kastrup, very interesting. He comes to a lot of conclusions I myself have independently arrived at as well.

Welcome to a world where the mega-corporations extract all economic value from the population and gather them in their super AIs which of course only they will be able to construct and compute.

Then we wouldnt be able to post Leo's content

That's how chimps work, not intelligent species, lol.

What do you think is going to happen. People are so lazy, of course they will replace their own reasoning capacities with a technology that gives you the illusion of doing the same. Have none of you seen Wall-E? That's exactly where we are heading.

It's the guy who said it's completely morally permissible to rape and torture puppies and kittens alive for pleasure, and who recently said that if it was the case that infants had animal-type consciousness, that it would also be permissible to do the same to them. The guy is obviously a sociopath, he just maxed out his charm and therefore seems like a normal and reasonable person. Destiny's lack of care for anything but himself is his greatest asset. It's the reason why he can be so objective, because he genuinely does not care about any social cause. It's just an extention of his own need to be rationally self interested. You should have known this much sooner because, especially in the past, he explicitly described what kind of person he is and how adept he is at manipulating others.

She is basically like "I don't like this!", and that's it for the most part. I'm sorry to say but academics are infested with moralistic brainrot, and this is just one example of many. This model is much better to frame as evolutionary rather than linear stage development, that is true. Evolution obviously is not random and is subject to certain dynamics resulting from the metaphysical nature of the universe, and in the same way human development, both in terms of individual and collective minds evolving throughout time, will be subject to certain dynamics which will yield predictable patterns. What is true in my view is that you cannot really have "one" model that describes human evolution, because the dynamics change via environmental inputs. So, really, spiral dynamics described human evolution in a particular context, which only seems universal because of how prevalent that context is. The internet alone has changed that context, so we already would require new models to adjust to the new flow of human evolution. It could be the case that in the current environment, complexity cannot be sustained at certained levels.

I remember you once were talking about how the essence of categories in and of themselves exist. If so, what would be your critique of nominalism? How would you contextualized Hegel's triad of Universality, Particularity and Individuality?

But Leo, what if they are sadistic pedophiles who want thrive on consuming our suffering?

Dude looks like he has dementia.

Your libertarianism is getting cringe. "Oh let AI do anything it wants, FREEDOM!"

Selfishness is unsustainable at a certain point of technological development.