Carl-Richard

I'm saying you don't actually know what you would do with a loaded gun to your head. You could guess and even be right in your guess, but you don't actually know. Consider the answers to this poll (and the comments in the thread). See how many are supposedly willing to take the egoic option, taking a life even for something as measly as money. If 66% would supposedly take a life for money, how many do you think would choose to not play Russian Roulette and hope everybody else does the same? I'm saying it's hard to know, and the polls don't actually tell us much.

That's a nice virtuous position to have in theory, but will you say that as you load up to play Russian Roulette?

Because I don't care that much about which button I would press, because I realize that polls like this will never reflect the real life situation, so I honestly don't know what I would actually press in the real life situation. Instead, I care about what circumstances would most probably lead to pressing which button. Why is it clear?

Also, if this was a true real life scenario, considering the other highly egoic answers to ethical dilemmas in this forum section, most of you would probably definitely push Red. Imagine having the choice between playing Russian roulette with an actual loaded gun or simply not playing. If people choose playing Russian roulette, you would probably think that's on them. These kinds of ethical dilemmas get skewed by lack of actual real world consequences so more people choose to enact the most virtuous option because that is most attractive in that case.

Wrong about what? I think you all have poor reading comprehension if you think I was "wrong" about anything, because I didn't even say which button I would push. I only gave potential scenarioes.

I did not say which button you should definitely push lol. I said because people are retarded, they will push the blue button and maybe you should too to save them. You guys' reading comprehension is why people push Blue.

Let me rephrase: if we assume everybody understands the question and is able to push the button they intend to push, then pushing blue is the most dangerous game of russian roulette, while pushing red is 100% survival rate. If everybody understands that they will survive if they push the red button (which they will) and they all push it, then everybody survives.

You misunderstand. If only one person can get the results before the poll is closed and they tweet it out or they share the results like you did, that contaminates the poll exactly like I implied.

I always pictured my mid thirties as the age I'm like "supposed" to be.

The poll is stupid if you can see the results before it is closed. Anyways, if you're rational and not retarded, you would hope everyone presses the red button (just for their own sake), because then everybody survives regardless, and regardless of how many pushes the button, you will survive. But of course there is always one retard who doesn't understand this (or they misclicked, or their cat ran across the keyboard, or an asteroid hit their WiFi router and it sent a signal to click the wrong button). So if you're willing to bet that more than 50% of people are willing to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to save one or more retards / unlucky people (or they are simply retarded or unlucky themselves), then go ahead, push blue. And if the poll results above is an accurate representation of the level of retardation or unluck we're dealing with, then maybe you should push blue (but a 3.4% margin is pretty slim). But if you don't have access to that information, you would have to gamble on the level of retardation or unluck of people on Twitter, or do some research into it and relevant facets like reading comprehension, statistical understanding, misclick rates. Then you would also have to adjust the numbers according the real life situation of people encountering a poll and being hopefully more rigorously informed that this is truly life or death. And that removes like 90% of the fun or realism/authenticity of these kinds of polls, because they are not presented in a context that is similiar to the probable real assumed context.

I have a theory (not a conspiracy theory): the people who get strongly drawn to conspiracy theories are the same people who get drawn to supernatural ideas, like God creating the universe from their own predetermined plan (not simply evolving spontaneously through "natural law"). They are fine with explaining reality top down through an elaborate narrative. There is a seeming plan behind everything, behind world politics, behind alien invasions, behind wars, behind ancient history, and they all connect to a grand meta-narrative of control, of manufacturing, of conscious creating, rather than natural systems acting spontaneously. Those who criticize conspiracy theories point out how that level of organization, of top-down control, is unlikely if not impossible, because of the natural tendency towards spontaneous order and the infeasibility of controlling complex systems. In the "naturalist critique", everybody is a victim of systems, even the supposed people in power, while in the conspiracist's mind, the people in power are the controllers of the systems and the powerless are the victims. Whether one is more correct than the other is actually hard to say, and a naturalist that claims otherwise would then become a conspiracy theorist in their own right, thinking they have the level of insight and knowledge to be able to predict complex systems. As for myself, as a general predisposition, I've noticed I'm fine with either (naturalism or supernaturalism). While for example Bernardo Kastrup says he is strongly opposed to supernaturalism simply as a personal predisposition (which is why he says he sees no point in doing philosophy if nature is not simply naturalistic; no "God" at the top planning it all, intervening into nature and changing the natural course of things). But I would also challenge this idea of naturalism, that you could still try to deduce the "laws" behind God's planning so to speak, and it won't be a completely pointless endeavour, simply a more interesting one. Like trying to understand the psychology of God rather than the "physics" of God.

Have empathy for people who hate pedophiles, or hate in general. You don't hate a child for being low consciousness, so you don't hate a child for hating. That makes you a child. And what's worse; actually raping children (that's what many people think pedophiles do) or merely hating people who do that? I would also not try to speak as if getting raped as a child is not so bad or is less bad than being decapitated (or raping children is not as bad as decapitating people). You have to live with potentially very traumatizing memories and fucked up sexuality and potential pedophilic feelings yourself for the rest of your life as a result. And some people who hate pedophiles might hate them because of these reasons or because they've experienced it themselves (which can of course be contradictory if they themselves end up with pedophilic feelings, but perhaps they pride themselves on self-control or their feelings are not exclusive to children). There is a psychological dynamic of preying on the vulnerable that is very repulsive and intuitively morally condemnable. If somebody threathens your children, that's one of the strongest if not the strongest evolutionary drive you have to oppose something. And as sexual attraction is also one of the strongest evolutionary drives (it's what created the children after all), then naturally those who are sexually attracted to children are a supreme threat to children. Sex and reproduction are very strong forces, invoking very strong feelings of morality and drives behavior, and pedophilia is stuck right in the middle of it.

You have free will in the sense that you feel like you're in control of your actions. If you deny this feeling, you are self-sabotaging yourself. Be very rigorous about distinguishing between the feeling of being in control and any metaphysical notions of free will. They are NOT the same. "I could do this, but there is no metaphysical free will, so why bother?" is a thought that ruins your sense of self-agency and control. It's a purely delusional and self-sabotaging thought, it doesn't help for anything but immobilizing yourself and denying yourself the right to be who you want to be. And I suggest dropping the idea of solipsism and simply going with what you actually experience. Thoughts about solipsism don't matter. They are ultimately distractions. The point about absolute truth is it doesn't depend on what you merely think about it. So don't even think about it. You don't have to. It's ironically another form of self-sabotage. Your goal is to realize what is beyond thinking but you keep thinking about it as if it is supposed to help. It's not. Drop it if your goal is realizing the absolute.

-> The incredible juxtaposition (a.k.a. logical contradiction). Some women get kicked out of stores because of acting like children, and some women moderate online trolls for acting like children.

I have no idea what government regulation has to do with burden of proof, but ok. This is what you said initially: What if I say porn is not harmful, is the burden of proof on me?

Bro what the fuck are you talking about. She has problems with emotional regulation. It's a problem of being a 3 year old toddler in an adult body. "Female temperament", pfft, this is a child's temperament. "I want my dad!"

Wrong desert.

My boy Bernardo Kastrup, I just realized he is an ex-director of ASML, the largest company in Europe. And now he is about to land a 100m dollar fund for his new AI company Euclyd. Boy's brain is out of this world. 1:47:55 And how does he get that funding? Well, currently the leading chip manufacturer for AI is NVIDIA, and they make graphics cards designed for gaming. They were not designed with AI in mind, so they are very inefficient according to these startups that want to corner that market. Bernardo postulates their chips can reduce electricity usage by ~100x compared to NVIDIAs chips. Interesting times ahead not just for AI but for idealism and non-duality considering the seats of power and influence some of these people inhabit.

I mean technically he already did that once. Give it another 7 year cycle and it comes around probably. And Essentia Foundation is "essentially" running itself anyway. I have a feeling he might have been partially spooked from academia after realizing naturalism seems more and more futile (he said he doesn't really see the point of doing philosophy if naturalism doesn't apply, which I personally think is just a slightly rigid definition of naturalism born out of clinging to old ideas of how reality ought to work, and you can still proceed and try to find a rule set for things despite various issues related to NDEs and psychic phenomena, but he seems to think that level of complexity is a bit unsatisfactory, which he attributes to his hard science / analytic temperament).

📞*123-actualized-thread* "Hello, do we speak concepts here or only words? Thought so."📞 ☎️💢 😝

I've entered the single sentence thread. I will try to comply.

Ah, the curse of having to choose between world domination through tech or world domination through academia 😝

Maybe consider that confusion is not an indication that you've landed in some kind of absolute undeniable truth, but rather your mind is simply confused. When truth is seen, it should be clear as day.

Give me your best explanation. Best explanation gets a cookie (laced with meth).

You can distinguish between self-awareness (meta-cognition, meta-consciousness, self-reflection), sentience (feelings, perceptions, senses) and pure consciousness (Consciousness as infinite being, before any I, body, or self). A rock would be pure consciousness, but it is not necessarily sentient (which in the normal worldly realm seems generally related to sense organs) or self-aware (which in the normal worldly realm seems generally related to having big brains and especially complicated social interactions). That said, there is nothing in principle that stops a rock from being sentient or self-aware, but from the perspective of observing things in the world and drawing conclusions about them, you'll probably have a harder time arguing for the sentience and self-awareness of rocks than e.g. pigs or humans.