Why Daniel is a genius

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

And even then...

Human nature doesn't seem to have changed much the same way that our bodies have changed. Only our environment and technology.

How have our bodies changed in a way that human nature hasn't?

The image of humans working together like the cells in our bodies is such a fascinating image. It truly is the next step of evolution. Currently, we're tiny amoebas bumping into each other competing for resources. Essentially, Game B is laying out the physiological blueprint of the human superorganism: who will be the mitochondria, the immune cells, the blood cells, the muscle cells?

Edited October 16, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@UnbornTao

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

And even then...

Human nature doesn't seem to have changed much the same way that our bodies have changed. Only our environment and technology.

   True, which is sort of why I feel that Game B could be a trap, and maybe Game A is the best we got currently speaking.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Human nature doesn't seem to have changed much the same way that our bodies have changed.

There will be such a thing as genetic engineering, but even without that, we still yet to know what human nature actually is.

What certain is that if we change the environment, we change as well.

Create environment A - you produce peaceful monks.

Create environment B - you produce terrorist.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Confabulation of Utopic Worlds is a big Sport Around circles where Daniels Smacktheburger use to go. 

[Leo Gura]

An important part of Game B is having a large base of material success for everyone, so that no one feels like a cornered rat desperate to survive. All of human history so far has been the building up of that material base. We still have a ways to go.

Cornered rats cannot do Game B. So if you want Game B, figure out how to uncorner as many rats as possible. Preaching fancy philosophy does not uncorner a rat.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[bambi]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

An important part of Game B is having a large base of material success for everyone, so that no one feels like a cornered rat desperate to survive. All of human history so far has been the building up of that material wealth. We still have a ways to go.

Cornered rats cannot do Game B. So if you want Game B, figure out how to uncorner as many rats as possible. Preaching fancy philosophy does not uncorner a rat.

Lol whats with all your cornering of rats lol

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

48 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

How have our bodies changed in a way that human nature hasn't?

The image of humans working together like the cells in our bodies is such a fascinating image. It truly is the next step of evolution. Currently, we're tiny amoebas bumping into each other competing for resources. Essentially, Game B is laying out the physiological blueprint of the human superorganism: who will be the mitochondria, the immune cells, the blood cells, the muscle cells?

   You can preach Daniel Schmachtenberger's points and proselytize Game B, tier 2 cognition, or Spiral Dynamics stage yellow/Turquois, but when the majority of people are still lower/middle class, struggling for material needs and security, last thing that'll help is fancy sophistry from James wheels, and other systemic thinkers. The arguments are not only not convincing/persuasive enough, like Lex Fridman and Curt Jaimungal, but it's far more difficult when practice/application of those theories happen. If Daniel's dream of peace Utopia happens, it happens when almost everyone is secure enough for game B, but until then we're stuck for 100-200 years of game A. 

[UnbornTao]

On 16/10/2023 at 8:31 PM, Carl-Richard said:

How have our bodies changed in a way that human nature hasn't?

Sorry, I meant neither has changed. Hopefully it's clearer now that I edited it.

Quote

The image of humans working together like the cells in our bodies is such a fascinating image. It truly is the next step of evolution. Currently, we're tiny amoebas bumping into each other competing for resources. Essentially, Game B is laying out the physiological blueprint of the human superorganism: who will be the mitochondria, the immune cells, the blood cells, the muscle cells?

It is fascinating, although how realistic is it in the end? Would it be feasible in a century or so? 

Cultural transformation requires individual transformation. This requires personal responsibility, even if assisted by others. 

Who decides which direction to move towards? People may not want to follow the same path and goals as everyone else. For example, why hasn't any culture throughout history been based on honesty and truth?

Edited October 18, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Spiral Wizard]

On 15/10/2023 at 10:19 PM, Leo Gura said:

It will be possible in the future but within our lifetime it is not how things will run. Nobody is at the levels of development needed to sustain Game B. And they will not be for another 100 years.

some of us might be alive in 100 years 

[Razard86]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

There will be such a thing as genetic engineering, but even without that, we still yet to know what human nature actually is.

What certain is that if we change the environment, we change as well.

Create environment A - you produce peaceful monks.

Create environment B - you produce terrorist.

Unless your environment includes genetics its not complete.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Spiral Wizard said:

some of us might be alive in 100 years 

I'm taking you all with me

[TheAlchemist]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

An important part of Game B is having a large base of material success for everyone, so that no one feels like a cornered rat desperate to survive. All of human history so far has been the building up of that material base. We still have a ways to go.

Cornered rats cannot do Game B. So if you want Game B, figure out how to uncorner as many rats as possible. Preaching fancy philosophy does not uncorner a rat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)

[Danioover9000]

   This whole talk about game B and how these people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jamie Wheel, John Vonyeuke, and some other systemic thinkers think themselves as genius, and other here think them geniuses, whilst ignoring Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla's genius, and feats they actually did, is disrespectful. Nikola Tesla not only is a real genius for imagining and visualizing EVERYPART OF A MACHINE IN HIS MIND, but also MAKING THOSE MACHINES! Nikola Tesla, and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to translate what they imagine into reality. None of those fancy, sophistry fake systems thinkers can't do what Nikola Tesla did, or Leonardo Da Vinci, so labelling them as geniuses and everyone as geniuses is delusional and crazy.

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

   This whole talk about game B and how these people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jamie Wheel, John Vonyeuke, and some other systemic thinkers think themselves as genius, and other here think them geniuses, whilst ignoring Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla's genius, and feats they actually did, is disrespectful. Nikola Tesla not only is a real genius for imagining and visualizing EVERYPART OF A MACHINE IN HIS MIND, but also MAKING THOSE MACHINES! Nikola Tesla, and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to translate what they imagine into reality. None of those fancy, sophistry fake systems thinkers can't do what Nikola Tesla did, or Leonardo Da Vinci, so labelling them as geniuses and everyone as geniuses is delusional and crazy.

You are currently imagining your life away.  You are imagining every part of your Reality constructing every thing into existence as we speak. The content of your life may be different from theirs but you are doing the same thing. Denying this is also a part of the construction.

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

   This whole talk about game B and how these people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jamie Wheel, John Vonyeuke, and some other systemic thinkers think themselves as genius, and other here think them geniuses, whilst ignoring Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla's genius, and feats they actually did, is disrespectful. Nikola Tesla not only is a real genius for imagining and visualizing EVERYPART OF A MACHINE IN HIS MIND, but also MAKING THOSE MACHINES! Nikola Tesla, and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to translate what they imagine into reality. None of those fancy, sophistry fake systems thinkers can't do what Nikola Tesla did, or Leonardo Da Vinci, so labelling them as geniuses and everyone as geniuses is delusional and crazy.

I don't think these people call themselves geniuses, nor do they not recognize the geniuses of history. So what is disrespectful here according to you is me calling Daniel a genius but not mentioning every other possible example of a genius?

Edited November 23, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

None of those fancy, sophistry fake systems thinkers can't do

Where is the sophistry?

I have never ever seen from literally anyone before making as deep and as coherent of an analysis of our structural and systemic problems before as Daniel and as other game B people did. Never seen anyone laying out the concept of moloch and the multipular trap problem etc, all I have seen is certain people and experts giving incredibly naive and reductive solutions to problems that they don't even understand in depth and breadth themselves.

I have also never seen anyone as passionate about trying to understand and solve these problems as Daniel is. He is paying a lot of money hiring teachers that can help him understand certain facets and aspects of the problems, he is hiring people for certain positions , he is networking incredibly hard to connect to as many relevant people as possible to elevate his understanding and to make the collective intelligence network constantly bigger which also entails connecting the right people to each other.

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Where is the sophistry?

I have never ever seen from literally anyone before making as deep and as coherent of an analysis of our structural and systemic problems before as Daniel and as other game B people did. Never seen anyone laying out the concept of moloch and the multipular trap problem etc, all I have seen is certain people and experts giving incredibly naive and reductive solutions to problems that they don't even understand in depth and breadth themselves.

I have also never seen anyone as passionate about trying to understand and solve these problems as Daniel is. He is paying a lot of money hiring teachers that can help him understand certain facets and aspects of the problems, he is hiring people for certain positions , he is networking incredibly hard to connect to as many relevant people as possible to elevate his understanding and to make the collective intelligence network constantly bigger which also entails connecting the right people to each other.

   I'm reacting to @Razard86's over generalization of genius. I'm just concerned that most people look at these few brilliant thinkers, and just blindly believe them without also doing their own contemplation, meditation, independent thinking and so on to verify. It's a more subtle form of armchair philosophy of just fantasizing Game B without attempting to try to embody Game B. If Daniel did all that networking and action, that's fine, just recognize he's in the minority while the majority will take the complacency and mediocrity over pursuing Game B and some complicated Utopia. Thinking that everyone's a genius, and everyone can be just like Daniel Schmachtenberger, devalues Daniel's uniqueness as a genius, don't you see?

   It's like this logic puzzle problem of taking a value hierarchy, any hierarchy you want to insert here as a constant factor, then if all else equals we flatten your chosen hierarchy, what happens? What just happens is that we severely devalue your chosen hierarchy, for the sake of example your hierarchy is doujinshi drawings, and you have a ranking and metric that says you like doujinshi with big boobies versus big booties, and feet are definitely more lower in ranking. Maybe another hierarchy of best to least favorite hairstyles in drawing, or another hierarchy of best to least erotica. well if all else equal and we flatten your ranking down, you literally cannot distinguish, differentiate, and make distinctions between which one is more your favorite versus a least favorite, or a greater versus a lesser than. SO...coming back the genius, if we did all that to geniuses you have, from most favorite to least favorite, flatten this hierarchy you have, well, it equalizes the rankings to equal zero, as you'll treat your favorite geniuses as one value with no distinguishable differences.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't think these people call themselves geniuses, nor do they not recognize the geniuses of history. So what is disrespectful here according to you is me calling Daniel a genius but not mentioning every other possible example of a genius?

   My beef isn't with your parse, it's with @Razard86 flattening the beef of importance of what a genius really is, because a genius cannot by definition be the majority otherwise it looses it's rarity and uniqueness, just like if everyone has filet mignon then filet mignon won't be that special. What made Jesus Christ the son of God is his god gifted powers of healing, and other supernatural powers. If everyone's Jesus Christ, who'd care about the one that can super heal and walk on water? If @Razard86 is right, then nobody has a favorite porno, there'd be no more best porn to worst porn. That's why I'm picking on him for, making the language muddy. That's the part that's disrespectful, just flatten everything and equalize values till all is zero worth.

   However, it's cool you have Danial as a role model or at least follow him, I do like him. the crowds a different story.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

 I'm reacting to @Razard86's over generalization of genius.

Ohh okay, then thats makes it much more clear.

[Bobby_2021]

• When we identify as evolutionary, we obsolete the need for paid as a driver. Emergence through emergency is a low-quality, and slow way for growth.
• We can contemplate how we are participating in the evolutionary process and even work to boost the evolutionary process.
• Universe is selecting for more diversity and differences at the same time.
• We develop capacity for abstraction so that we can think of the future as good or bad. Abstraction is a newer set of emergent properties.

Incredible.