> Not Russian.

Is that knowledge, or merely belief? (I couldn't resist.)

> I see a lot of people who behave badly on Reddit get banned and come back with new accounts. It makes me wary (and weary if I'm honest) of anyone who's account is less than 3 years old but also participates in political or philosophical discussion.

I heard a rumour once that people sometimes get their Reddit accounts deleted for discussing "non-sanctioned" topics. No idea how true it is, but the manner in which freedom of speech is implemented on Reddit and social media in general is....interesting.

> I think this is patently obvious to the most casual observer. Unfortunately most people are stupid and easily manipulated. One of the easiest things to convince people of is that they're smart and hard to manipulate.

Fair enough....but all the people? Like, why does there seem to be nobody that is interested in doing something? Is this not weird on its own, let alone in an environment where most people are involved in doing things at least 8 hours per day, 5 days per week? At the very least, is the dearth of novel ideas in this particular area not rather inconsistent with the whole?

> There are still a bunch of governments and cultures competing on Earth.

A weird detail in itself, from a more absolute perspective anyways.

> The suggestion that they should just "give up" and start working for global good, while all Star Trek universe greater good and all that, is unrealistic.

Give up? Star Trek? Sir: are you referring to something I've said? Because I certainly don't believe in anything like that.

Not only do I not peddle false dichotomies, I am a bitter enemy of them - if I had my way (could you imagine, lol), I would ban them from being used at all!

> Governments, economic systems and cultures compete.

An extraordinarily (I kid, I kid) nice way of looking at it!

> In fact, if they didn't, humanity wouldn't prosper; at least this version of humanity.

Perhaps. But then simultaneously, have we not also been instructed that cooperation is, in fact, The Way to Go? (Well, at least abstractly instructed.)

> Governments are not moral entities.

No argument here! 😂

> Not to say that they cannot act morally or immorally, but a government has a responsibility that surpasses individual morality.

I suppose - but then: by what methodology are the lines drawn? And, do you and I get any say in this, really?

> You, can individually make a decision to give up your lunch to a stranger who has nothing to eat. You cannot morally decide to give up the lunch of your children to a stranger who has nothing to eat.

Are morals objective? Or worse: what is the nature of their existence, in fact? What if morals are mostly just more stories we tell ourselves so we can "make it through the night"?

Also: how well does this methodology scale? To what degree is it optimal? Has it been decided upon democratically (I'm using an extremely literal sense of the word here, not the more popular colloquial meaning)?

> When you MUST SURVIVE (and governments must, foremost, survive)....

Seems reasonably accurate.

> ...and further you must aim for the benefit of the largest group...

This seems....less so, to the degree of wandering into not just wrong territory, but backwards.

> ...it isn't a morality that guides you, but principles of success.

Is "success" objective? Do you and I get any say on the algorithm that calculates "success"? What about dying babies, do they get any say (or, their parents, since babies are typically too dumb to have a substantial opinion, even leaving aside that the babies in question may not being operating at peak cognition, what with their caloric deficit, combined with the fact that the brain consumes ~20% of the body's energy)?

> There is room for morality only when there is surplus.

I suppose. But then: what if humanity never reaches surplus, or is unable to realize (lack of training?) when they have? I mean: do we even have a way of detecting that state? Do we even have a definition?

> We create feeling machines all the time. Sex is a pretty messy manufacturing process, but on the plus side it feels great.

Is this a reference to sex toys? Those can certainly make a person feel things, but the toy itself is inanimate and non-conscious....at least I think so!

> Biotech has already started to encroach on this process. You don't need sex anymore, and fertilization can happen outside of the body. We still need a womb, but the road to an artificial womb seems pretty well-paved.

Sure, but also not feeling, or conscious.

> I do think there's an open question of how much we'll be able to wrap our arms around the process, and how fast we'll make progress. There's also a really interesting question around embodiment: do you have to make feeling machines out of meat? Or can you make them out of wires and metal?

Good questions. Some other good questions: Can it even be done? What even "is" "it" that we are creating? Has that question been worked through to conclusion yet? From my vantage point, science seems to be not so interested in those sorts of questions, if not even sometimes downright hostile to them! I am surely biased, but that doesn't nullify the question.

> Since we're in r/philosophy, I suppose I also have to admit the possibility that God endows each newborn with an immortal soul, and could choose not to ensoul children that were born of artificial processes.

A very popular, just-so story, if you ask me.

> But barring a fairly extreme metaphysical scenario, it's only a matter of iteration.

I don't think I catch your meaning?

From what source did you acquire your knowledge, about the future?

> First, I wonder who you were on Reddit before OCT 2020.

Why? Do you think (just speculating here) that I might be one of those Russian Trolls that I've been hearing so much about? It's certainly possible, that's for sure. And, The Experts have advised us to be on high alert for such goings on. Now I'm not making any accusations here, I'm just saying: it adds up (where "it" is the prospect that I am likely to be a Russian Troll, in that "I" check the necessary boxes, thus it is reasonable to form that conclusion).

> Second, all of Covid is a land war in Asia. It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without embroiling yourself in a 5 front war. The problem is that it has been politicized, with Trump pushing for vaccines and Democrats saying that they wouldn't trust them, then switching roles once Biden came to power. Thusly anything you have to say about the vaccines or mandates, pro or con, there's a healthy stockpile of argument and fact that can be used to support your position and it would take forever to unravel that.

Mostly agree, and can't help noticing: isn't it a bit weird? Like, if you were running this show, is the way that it is being run equal to the way that you would run it?

To be clear: I certainly understand that "mistakes happen", especially when things are moving fast - but things weren't moving all that fast before covid ("normal", mostly), and when one realizes there are mistakes/flaws in a system (say, your population is ~dumb, to the point of being highly prone to suggestion), is it not standard convention to address those mistakes? But when you look around, is it not substantially true that there is an absolute truckload of obvious, bi-partisan, non-controversial flaws in our system, and most of them get lip service, at best (if aid to starving children doesn't float your boat (it is rather socialist, to be fair), how about something as simple as single payer medical care, an issue that is both important and is one of those very rare items that has bi-partisan political support, at least among the population of this democracy we live in)? At worst, they get obviously distorted coverage, or not mentioned at all (not to open an ontological can of epistemic worms or anything, just musing). I dunno about you, but I can't shake the feeling that there's maybe something....not-entirely-organic about the whole package.

> Third, the very essence of the discussion was regarding how purchases have a cost in children's lives, so I'm dubious regarding your confusion as to why this is being brought up.

Oh that. Well, I'm of the belief that humanity, particularly "The West", optimizes for numerous(!) variables over and above the happiness of overall humanity. On one hand, this is an extremely unpopular theory, but then on the other hand, I am far from the only person who subscribes to it. In fact, it isn't even all that difficult to find politicians from either party singing the praises of such ideas! And yet, there tends to be not a lot of follow through on these ideas, or even serious, in-depth discussion. It's probably nothing, of course, but it's one of those ideas that sits in the back of the mind and makes you wonder - do know what I am saying, sir?

> Fourth, humans have an amazing ability at storytelling which has served them for both news and entertainment for quite a while.

Indeed - we even get stories in this very subreddit "now and then", often accompanied by an insistence that thinking in stories is the only acceptable approach - and this is a philosophy subreddit!

> Humanity also has the arrogance, imagination, bigotry and creativity to manufacture such irresponsible and damaging lies as to divide the greatest nations on the planet.

Too true, too true.

> And lastly, I'm concerned. That's all. Just concerned.

Well you should be!

I'm curious though: exactly what is it that you are concerned about? And I might as well ask in advance (you know me!): how confident are you that what you are worrying about is what you should be worrying about? I mean, do we humans even have a sophisticated (and legitimate, accurate(!), etc) methodology for determining what we should be worried about?

And if not:

• why not?

• what are we using, in fact, as an alternative?

> It isn't artistry that I'm worried about killing anyone.

Why not? If one was to peruse the history books, I think you'd find art's fingerprints all over the place. Consider something as recent as COVID: I presume you subscribe to the theory that vaccines save lives, and that conspiracy theorists' stories contributed to a non-trivial amounts of death (due to the believers of these stories not getting vaccinated as a consequence of ingesting them into their minds). If you read some of these stories, are they not often incredibly artistic, with their passionate descriptions of "reality" and calls to action, creative stretching of the truth, and various other common artistic flairs?

And never mind the conspiracy theorists - how about the mainstream, "responsible and trustworthy" journalism/messaging - did this not also utilize many(!) of the very same techniques, if perhaps with a bit more (on a relative scale anyways, which is how humans perceive reality as luck would have it) epistemic quality to them?

To me, the situation is clear:

• our whole world runs on stories

• all good stories contain artistry

Is it not so?

And if so, should we then not perhaps be at least a little curious about why some just-so stories consistently get the official seal of approval and other just-so stories consistently get the seal of "fake news", when a skilful deconstruction and epistemic analysis of the respective stories would quickly reveal that none of the stories really "add up" comprehensively, and whoever is doing the "official" (despite no vote being held on the matter) categorization is "a little biased"? I mean, come on: there are literally lives at stake here, is some seriousness not warranted?

> > > > I find it interesting that what amounts to a "some assembly required" kit of call to violence manifesto....

Nice.

> ...is justified by the concept that an EA microtransaction is somehow, in some butterfly wings effect, responsible for deaths of children in the third world and proof of some oppression hierarchy built on genocidal white supremacy or some such.

Hold up now....what are you getting at here? Firstly, I don't think I accused anyone of being responsible for any of this. My words were descriptive in nature, I was only describing plausible cause and effect relationships (correlations), I wasn't saying that anyone was necessarily at fault. I mean, think about it: who says that the way things are isn't right, if not righteous? My claim is more so that it is....non-beautiful, and perhaps(!) some other negative things, and I also concede there are many upsides (for us anyways) to this particular way of doing things.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you're referring to with an "EA microtransaction" bearing responsibility for death (what's the cause and effect relationship there?), or anything about proof(!) of "genocidal white supremacy" (I can agree substantially with the "oppression hierarchy" part though).

These are slippery rocks we're walking on, we should choose our words carefully lest confusion beset us, just as our wise leaders do when they are broadcasting into people's minds "how things are" in the world (which at least plausibly influences the way they act in the world, both on an individual and collective basis, and so forth and so on).

> > > > I feel like the philosophically minded might find this ironic.

It seems almost certain, especially if one considers the widespread (ubiquitous?) phenomenon where two minds can observe literally the same thing and come away with extremely confident but completely different knowledge (just ask them, they'll tell you with complete sincerity) about what it was they saw.

That's my take on it anyways - thoughts?

Hey, well like Mr. HST would say: when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

I don't think it is too big of a burden to bear to think about such things now and then, we're all philosophers here after all. And a little artistry more often wouldn't kill us, I don't think.

And it's not exactly off the topic of the thread either I would say. Or is it?

Haha, fair enough!

It's a fair point!

But then, this is Reddit - expecting seriousness on this platform is perhaps not a great idea, and behaving seriously is...."not popular", to put it nicely.

> This flies in the face of the laws of nature. Survival of the fittest.

People can be rendered unfit pretty easily - people in the Middle East have a fair amount of experience with that principle. Would be a shame if such a fate befell us over here some day.

> I don't think I'm on board with that. Also not on board with racism or ageism.

Your support is appreciated, but not required.

> I see the merit in raging against the dying of the light, but recognize that one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.

Sometimes. And sometimes one's destiny is set by other people (like the people "the West" drops bombs on, or the people that were not so lucky to make it out of the twin towers, or the people who died as a consequence of some lunatic refusing to get a vaccine - so terribly sorry about that, better luck next time!).

> We're told we have an influence on our destiny through our actions. Not control.

Close enough for this domain, imho.

Besides, the whole "democracy" illusion gives me near infinite fuel to sustain rage for the rest of my life.

> This is why I dislike the far left and far right. The supervillain proposition. Everyone is stupid but me, I see things clearly, therefore it's OK for me to fool or coerce everyone on the planet to my will. Think of a bad name in history, he/she probably felt the same way.

Oh, I know I'm not thinking "clearly" here - I think a good target to aim for is the clarity of thinking that the personnel in the US War Machine have when doing their dirty work - clear, but with very carefully drawn limits such that one can achieve one's goals: determine the destiny of certain people, whether they like it or not. As the saying goes: "One good turn deserves another!"

In part, but I am working from a much more advantageous position than you: I have ~direct access to my mind, yours is virtual (or at least: much more virtual).

> The "flaws" you pointed out were all basically saying that the most literal translation could be said to be untrue. Again, this was not what I was trying to do with the author. I use tons of literary license. Eh? You like that? Tons. That sentence just keeps on giving.

It is excellent!

> I've often found myself criticizing how we determine who's wealthy or popular in our society, but it's a far cry from that to "vote Republican or you're killing children" or "don't buy this or you're killing children."

I am an extremist (or, very open to the principle of it at least), so I am a-ok with spreading death around much more evenly. At the very least, I think it can be persuasive. Children (of all colors) >>> Western Boomers in my books.

> In fact, not buying goods may cause layoffs would cause lack of health insurance in some households which may lead to the death of children. In short, anything you do MIGHT lead to the death of children.

True. But then, we can acknowledge that the future is predictable/probabilistic, or we can pretend it is a total mystery.

> Suggesting that there's some choice you can make, which is conveniently "do what I want you to do", that will result in no children dying, is an appeal to emotion. As I see it anyway.

We're told we have control over our destiny (via Democracy, our most sacred institution), but I happen to not buy it. So as long as our leaders are ok with playing make believe, I'm ok in principle with engaging in extreme experimentation (including deceit) in pursuit of improving things for children and the underprivileged, globally. And if some Very Bad Luck befalls Westerners - too bad, so sad...after all: that's "just the way it is, nothing can be done, don't worry things will get better in time, just be patient". I'm sure some charts can be found that are moving from the lower left to the upper right, indicating that All is Well - would be fun to see if they buy that so easily when the shoe is on the other foot.

/rant

No, that would be your heuristic interpretation.

My argument is contained within the text of my comment - interpret it literally and you should be able to come up with a closer version.

(I guess my plan to be nice to you didn't work lol)

> I think you presumed my game was taking the words so literally as to sacrifice their meaning for some semantic argument. > > > > You were wrong.

I presume you were identifying anything that could be legitimately considered erroneous - and it isn't that you were flawed in that regard (I technically agree with you), it's that you accompanied it by similarly flawed text of your own.

> When the author said "it corrects this gap" what they meant was, "it attempts to correct this gap", which is what I was arguing against.

I think that's not just fair, but righteous! But in this case I have two issues:

1. Your accompanying flaws (as noted)

2. I happen to have a fairly strong personal opinion about this particular topic, and as a consequence I think you and I are optimizing for different variables. In this case, I would say you are behaving how I would normally behave, and I am behaving anomalously to my normal approach - I think I may well qualify for some kind of criticism based on that, but would need to think about it a bit.

> Yes. Because it reframes the entire conversation toward the human instinct to use an abundance of caution around their offspring. Including children in the narrative, such as "poisoning our drinking water with X amount of toxin Y which is over Z legal amount is bad for everyone, but even more so for children as they're smaller and more susceptible to lower levels of toxins than adults" is fine. It has all the elements required. Amounts, legal limits, some scientific, quantifiable data that can be argued against. Simply saying "voting for this bill will murder children" is an appeal to emotion. It offers no evidence that can be argued with and presumes you're either in favor of murdering children or you're on the side of the author.

I do not disagree at all, but in this case, I consider that a feature rather than a bug.

If you think about it: is the particular manner(s) in which wealth is allocated in exchange for labour/assets (including national assets like minerals) not more than a little (at least) arbitrary, inconsistent, and of *at least questionable fairness? It's true that these things are subjective, but that goes both ways.

And then on top of it, there's the element of ~power (which comes in many forms, the media being a particularly noteworthy one), distorting things even further.

I happen to disagree with you on principle on this particular issue, but your argument is excellent and enjoyable to read, so I absolutely must upvote you if I'd like to get a good sleep tonight! I may even RES tag you in hopes that I may be somewhat less of a dick next time we have an encounter. :)

Some unluckiness: there is no single implementation of an algorithm to test that against novel internet propositions - all we have are human "algorithms" that tend to be implemented using heuristics, and the possessor of the heuristic has little insight into its operation, and typically has low if not negative interest in whether their algorithm is sound.

> Really. It corrects this gap?

Perhaps the author was writing somewhat colloquially.

Two can play at that your game:

> The author is presuming a problem, in terms of child's lives that could be saved. There's no indication that a single child's life could have been saved and wasn't due to someone not donating to charity, at least in terms of quantifiable evidence.

Really? There's literally zero evidence in existence in the world? Not just none that you know of, but at all? How did you determine this to be perfectly true?

> So we're riding right past the part where we justify the metric of "child lives not saved" and presuming that children are dying FOR ONLY THE REASON OF people not giving money to the right sources.

When you say "we" are you referring to me? Because I am not engaged in hyperbolic presumption, and I suspect I am not the only one.

> Couching things in this nature, is appeal to emotion. Literally, "think of the children!"

Would that be so bad? If you were in need of help (now, or when you were a child), would you not prefer that some of your fellow humans came to your aid?

How about this: what's your stance on vaccines, and explicitly, what is your reasoning for that stance?

> As I see it, anyway.

Why should we respect this when you didn't respect the qualifying language in the author's piece (did you even see it)?

It is that, but saying it is "just" that is misinformative.

> In philosophy, we call this a false dichotomy.

Technically, you are calling it that. You do not know what other people think.

> They are measured mostly by listening to the subject who exists physically and communicates using things in this universe. They can also be measured using various methods such as MRI.

measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.

> There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?

See above.

>> Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

> in the brain.

See bolding.

>>> Causes of what?

>> The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Causality isn't really covered in Western curriculum/ideology.

> So you are claiming nobody should seek medical treatment for anything related to the mind? That medicine itself should have no role in the treatment of any kind of mental illness?

No, that's your interpretation.

>> I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

> it doesn't surprise me that you suspect things.

Nicely played! ;)

>> For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

> What do you mean by the cause of causality?

If I steal your bike and you punch me, my stealing your bike is plausibly the cause of you punching me.

> Again I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

> OK. But I fail to see the relevance in this discussion.

See Western curriculum above.

>> I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material.

> But you claim all diseases of the mind are supernatural and therefore should not be treated by medicine (i.e science should stay in it's lane) right?

Please quote the specific text from which you have extracted this specific assertion.

> Again I don't fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that because some ideas were controversial at some stage and are accepted today that means any or all controversial claims are actually true?

No, it demonstrates how relatively smart people can be dumb on an absolute scale. That this is not easy for you to discern may demonstrate how people have difficulty cognitively navigating between the two scales while considering a single idea.

> We are trying. It's been difficult so far though.

It would be interesting to do a crowd-sourced causal analysis of the problem!!!

Even stranger, at least to my way of thinking: why are humans so concerned about the well-being of AI in the future, when they have such little concern for the well-being of most instances of biological intelligence in the present. Is this not highly counterintuitive, or maybe even paradoxical?

>It's only a matter of time before we figure out how to reverse-engineer that system to create feeling machines.

I think it is worth considering what we know about the origin of that fact.

> Sorry but both of these are material and physical and in this universe.

What device is used to measure them?

What is the unit of measure?

Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

> Causes of what?

The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

>>> Also would you agree that religion should have no role in medicine because medicine is in the material physical world.

>> I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.

> What part of medicine are you claiming is supernatural?

Primarily, the portions that contribute to causality (primarily: the mind)

For clarity (to avoid people accidentally using a colloquial meaning of the term):

supernatural: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond [current] scientific understanding or the laws of nature"

>> This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.

> I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

> You are convinced there exists some thing that is not physical and material.

Correct. Perhaps you can release me from this potential delusion by answering my questions.

> I want to know what that is.

a) Causality.

b) Human delusion and hubris.

> Furthermore I want to know how you got convinced such a thing exists.

For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

For "Human delusion and hubris": People complain about the consequences of it [causality], passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

> Also now that we are on medicine what kinds of treatments this supernatural thing is good for and what diseases or ailments we should take away from doctors and hospitals because they can only treat the physical and the material.

For causality: treatments are a subset of causality, and are intimately entangled.

For "Human delusion and hubris": the placebo effect is well known and sometimes still used (I believe) in medicine.

I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material. I believe they could do much more, but to their credit they at least try, if only somewhat (bureaucracy and delusion makes innovation and progress difficult - recall how controversial ideas like washing hands or having checklists was when they were first suggested).

> You made a series of claims. I just want to examine them in this philosphy subreddit..

Great, then let's proceed.

> Can you name something that exists outside of the physical material world

Causality.

Human delusion and hubris.

> and also tell me how you know it exists.

People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

> > > > Also would you agree that religion should have no role in medicine because medicine is in the material physical world.

I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.

This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.

> What is the lane of science? It seems to me that given all the branches of science everything is in their lane.

Matters in the strictly physical/materialistic world.

Some sub-disciplines (psychology) rightfully deal in the metaphysical, which is fine, but I strongly object to people implying (with or without conscious intent) that the competency and quality of results in the hard sciences also exists within psychology.

> The problem is that religions don’t stick to their lane.

It's a problem, but not "the" problem (it is only one problem among many).

Another problem is Scientific Materialists not sticking to theirs. Also, they tend to be overconfident in their beliefs, mix up objective and subjective, belief and knowledge, etc. I mean, everyone does it, but SM's tend to perceive themselves as necessarily objectively superior at thinking.

> They insist on commenting on things such as whether evolution is real, how old the universe is, when life begins, nature of consciousness, what it means to be a trans or gay person and what kind of health care those people should be allowed to get.

There's quit a mix here. I'd say: you saying that these things are "not the business" of religion is an example of the flaws I note above.

You can declare them off limits, and I will simply undo it by declaring the opposite. And, I suspect I will enjoy the back and forth, whereas you may have a strong emotionally negative reaction to it, and perhaps not quite appreciate what is going on at the same level.

I think it is plausible that the truth value of the proposition varies according to the particulars of the situation - but, if we were to assume otherwise (that it has a constant value), we may then not insist on the necessary level of quality to realize it...and from that, many downstream negative externalities could manifest (due to a cultural tendency to dismiss the potential need for high attention to details).

I think this (admittedly crude and imprecise) theory could go a long ways to describing the nature of modern day politics and culture in general, and in turn: the less than ideal state of affairs on the planet, that everyone hates but seemingly no one can do anything about.

Except when it isn't. :(