Carl-Richard

If you get sick, less thinking going on, but you may also be in pain and you may think about that. If you can get through the pain and sit in a restful posture so that you no longer care about the pain or the pain dampens, then you could enter a state of less thoughts, but you could also do that while not sick (i.e. meditation). When you're not sick, its easier to get lost in thoughts because you are able to think and move around and do stuff all day, while when you're sick, you have to sit down and rest more.

What about Ted Bundy?

These are the most intense and immaculate and terrifying black metal vocals you will probably ever hear in a high-fidelity format:

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

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

Never ever take seriously a layman using the words "ADHD" to describe someone casually in a conversation. If you have no problems in your life, don't create problems by thinking you have some. There is "ADHD" and then there is ADHD. The former is a label you put on people who are hyper or high energy. The latter you label people who struggle deeply with various things and with getting certain things done. And even if you get a diagnosis, there can be a lot of bullshit around it and you might be not as bad off as somebody else with the same diagnosis. Some people hunt down an ADHD diagnosis to get a drug prescription because they have simply convinced themselves they fit the diagnosis and they think it will make their life easier when in reality they are more likely simply unhealthy or broken in other ways.

You are asking people to gamble their lives on a coinflip. That's not overthinking. No, you might die if you press the button. Everything won't be fine then. And the other button won't necessarily fuck everything up. It will only affect those who do not push that button, which is indeed a horrible fact considering how many are apparently supposedly willing to not push that button. But I will repeat that people may not be good at judging how they would act in a real life scenario when it's life or death from the perspective of merely thinking about it. And people are also horrible at probability calculations and statistical dependencies (forget reading comprehension). And the situation itself is highly unrealistic and hard to translate into a familiar situation. So all in all, these kinds of polls are not very insightful or useful for anything but indeed virtue signalling how good you think you are or want to perceive yourself to be in a fantasy world where you are a perfectly moral superhero where you care only about what is perfectly moral for all people at all times and your own personal life is only an afterthought or an inconvenient plot hole in the story. What you can be sure of is you live day to day self-concerned, and these philosophical ideals of "higher consciousness" and "moral actions" are most likely things you merely think about on a Sunday afternoon. If you are truly self-sacrificing, show me any tangible evidence of that in your own life. How much do you work to help others, tangibly, goal-directedly, intentionally, not merely as a biproduct or happy accident? How much of your spirituality is practiced and not just on paper?

Easy, solves world hunger (jk). You know, Marvel made a movie about this once, and the villain who pressed the button was not too uncommonly sympathized with. If half of your family necessarily gets wiped out (and it's not simply dependent on the larger Earth-wide calculus), you're kind of defeating or devaluing the point by making it personal. It's not maximally virtuous if it necessarily involves saving some of your family instead of just some random people.

Let's say porn not being harmful means porn is consistent with people being well-functioning and healthy. Is "porn is consistent with being well-functioning and healthy" a positive or a negative claim?

If you want to be real here, ethical altruism and donating all your savings to malaria prevention has something to say to you. Maybe self-preservation in a local sense is something people do all the time anyway while people die around them and they could make meaningful changes in that direction and either refuse or they already are in their own way (e.g. by providing value in their local society in other ways). In the real world, we do assume some basic level of self-preservation, that's how we survive as an individual. Questions about morality, meaningful ones, come on top of that. Engaging fancy hypotheticals about self-sacrifice and epidemiological calculus is just autistic fantasizing about things that matters to no one and changes nothing. It's virtue signalling people do on Twitter to cheer on their political Red and Blue team. Those who made the question possible, and those who enforce it, those are the evil ones It's like if somebody threathens your life, and the lives of millions of people, is that now on you to save yourself and the rest, or is it maybe on them to not threathen you? Maybe a responsibility is created in that situation, but the ultimate moral blame, that lies elsewhere.

If you push Blue and 50% of people don't, you die, along with everybody else who happened to also push Blue. If over 50% of people push Blue, everybody lives.

Here is an alternative version (it makes it simpler by removing the percentages and making the consequences more absolute and less reliant on chance): "Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If everybody presses the blue button, everybody lives. If somebody presses the red button, those who press the red button live, everybody else dies. Which button would you press?" In this alternative version, it becomes increasingly clear that clicking the blue button is not just a horrible gamble but a completely stupid move and that clicking the red button is the only reasonably safe option. In the original version, you're just making the gamble into a coinflip, which is not exactly good either. Like, why would you gamble your life on a coinflip just to contribute a fraction of a percentage to potentially saving other people who do the same? Is the gamble worth it just to contribute a fraction of a percentage to potentially saving some mentally challenged people (and presumably millions of young children)? And this version makes it clear that it's not so much the fault of the person taking the egoic and safe option, but it's the fault of the question. It's an evil question to be presented with. So maybe if you refuse to answer the question with a definite answer, maybe it's not you who are evil, maybe it's those who do who are evil.

You know, it's one thing to have a discussion about something with an open mind and coming from a place of curiosity and trying to approach a difficult question and it's another to be emotional and trigger-happy and shaming people for opinions they don't even hold. If you think you can accurately assess what you would do in a situation where there is a literal gun pointed to your head just by thinking about it, then sure, believe that all you want, but I don't think that is usually how psychology works.

That's what I'm saying. They are retarded. They are not able to think. So you would maybe take that into consideration. Yep, again, people have poor reading comprehension, we know that. Notice again that I never said you should pick any button. I said this is a scenario that would happen if everybody is rational and not retarded. They are not, which is what I continued to explain afterwards. You had an emotional reaction to me merely entertaining as a hypothetical that pushing the red button could be the most rational thing given a certain scenario, and now you assume I want to push the red button. That's again not true, I said I don't know what I would push given the real situation.

YouTube videos that have misleading titles are useless.

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.