The existence of badness does not rule out the possibility of goodness tho.

I would start by considering whether it is actually possible to accomplish anything substantial via disorganized/uncoordinated one on one conversations between poorly equipped individuals. If we're going to do something, might as well put some effort into determining a good idea before putting substantial effort into it. This simple rule of thumb (that tends to be followed fairly closely in most domains) may also have some utility in government of people in general, where the rule seems to not be followed.

Oh, it's not that I disagree with you in principle, it's that it's sooooo easy to think one is doing a good job at what you're describing here, and so difficult to know when one is screwing something up.

> It will always be hard to have a conversation with a person that doesn’t know have the requisite knowledge to address the topic. I try to tell people I’m an average person I just spent alot of time reading about the topic cus I didn’t understand. But many will still be intimidated by any amount of intelligence.

It's easy to (and difficult to not) imagine such scenarios with the usual suspects (the members of one's various outgroups), but all people suffer from this problem, if in different ways and to differing degrees. I've been involved in lots of conversations with people far smarter than me (in the aggregate) who are not able to realize that their substantial skill in some domains does not necessarily extend to all domains.

> It’s not easy and like I said practice practice practice. I’ve definitely made many of those failures myself because I don’t operate on the same mental frame work. So I had to learn. I came from that mindset so it gives me the perfect experience to talk to it. Just as the best reformist for skin heads is the leader skin head that turns into the reformist because he knows what they think and feels, all the coded language and emotions that get you to that belief set. The previous conditions that preclude the belief. Often lonely or orphan lost souls that are looking for community.

> Just to make it clear.. When I grew up neo Nazis, Hells angels and southern revival / general stoner bro racism was a problem in my area. Weather it was at punk rock shows or desert ATV crowds. Many of my friends dads were old country racist types that listen to Johnny Rebel. (Pure racist country). So I’ve had an interesting upbringing and experience to speak from.

I think you make a good point: I think there's a lot of truth to the saying that "it takes one to know one". Too often uni educated people seem to believe their education and legitimate greater intelligence necessarily qualifies them to engage with and educate their lessers on ~"the facts", but pulling off such a technique successfully is a lot harder than it looks. Pairing up people favoring ontological similarity across various dimensions seems like a much smarter strategy than picking based on resume and credentials. A textbook example is this: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

While this is certainly impressive and useful, people who lack the necessary skills to pull it off may be making things even worse than if they didn't try. I regularly run into people who try to "educate me" on the flawed beliefs their delusional model of me is lacking in. Worse: this phenomenon is often amplified by higher levels of education.

I'd ban you for tautological thinking without acknowledging it.

People enjoy observing others in this regard, but tend to be less interested in observing themselves. To be fair, it's much more difficult, and much less fun.

This seems like a rather minimalist take on what could possibly be done.

I think how it works is that the specific nature of qualia that emerges (is generated at higher levels) is a function of the existence and nature of information that is is integrated at many scales/levels.

How did this knowledge (some of it of the future) get into your head?

It's possible to find out, but not mandatory.

> Metaphysical is still part of 'everything', innit?

Opinions vary. A lot of people (some of them otherwise genuinely "smart") seem to believe that it does not even exist, that it "is" "woo woo".

> Way we see it, physics cannot study or discuss what it does not experience, yet it can - and ought to - acknowledge the possibilities.

No disagreement here, but the fan base seems to have not gotten the message. Maybe that scientists rarely knowledge that science does not even try to study the entirety of reality (while often implying that it does) has something to do with it. Personally, I doubt most scientists even have a strong understanding of the genuine complexity involved.

> in real science, anything may be challenged, and often is

I wonder how much real science still exists on the planet. It's an interesting idea to contemplate.

> Differing approaches are fine;

Opinions vary, and strongly!

>... differing levels of credibility ought to have actual, articulable reasons beyond " I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia." - because academics makes mistakes too.

Many do, but aren't widely distributed. And that which is not known has a way of appearing to not exist.

> Obedience does not bring victory, & calibraka may want to understand that before echoing what they were told without reflecting on whether it was accurate, perhaps?

Shall we ask of others that which we cannot do ourselves?

I realize that. I believe you may have missed my point.

>So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?

Physics is known to be deterministic, metaphysics seems to be otherwise. So, different approaches may be appropriate.

>Physics is the study of how everything works.

Does it encompass the metaphysical realm?

Belief is a very powerful tool that humans have in their kit.

> Honestly, I'm convinced it must be some algorithm spitting out these headlines and not an actual human being

Implying humans aren't also ~algorithm driven....

Excess ambition of certain kinds can get one suicided in some cases. :(

> We could instead use that ridiculous amount of wealth to fix the fucking planet that's already at the right temperature already can sustain life and fix it first instead of going to a new planet fucking it up until we have to go to another planet how about we be responsible take care of what we have and then we can think about moving on to having something bigger.

Sir: you are making speculative claims about the abilities of humans....there is surely some evidence that supports your claim, but there is far, far more that contradicts it. At least according to current standard operating procedures. If only it was possible to change standards....damn you laws of physics, why do you constrain us humans so!!!

Because I quoted physical text that contains content that does not require non-common interpretation to illustrate that your claim is incorrect:

> > This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic? > > > > The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.

From earlier in the thread:

> >>I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision.

> Luckily, evolution found a solution: belief.

I do, yes.

I quoted the text to which I replied, that you claim does not exist. I don't mind if you pretend as if I did not, it's even more fun that way!

> This post has absolutely no positive purpose.

No offense, but how would you even know such a thing? I bet I know....

> It is simply FUD that will deceive a lot of naive people, and irritate everybody else with half a memory on the argument.

Not everyone shares your beliefs. Fundamentalists of all kinds think their ideology of choice is The Best, history is filled with this sort of delusion....it is in our nature.

> It blows my mind it's still up and upvoted.

It's a philosophy forum - jump in and give it a try, you may even have fun!

> This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic?

The text I quoted suggests otherwise.

> > > > The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.

"I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision."

Are we in the same thread?

> > > > It's fine to even guess the earth is flat. Just don't make that belief part of your identity or something, so much so that you are going to reject thousands of years of evidence with a loud fart.

This seems like sound advice.

What if the actual problem lies where no one is looking: the Normies? 😮

Besides, if the science gang can't take a potshot now and then, maybe they don't have what it takes to hold the throne they somehow ended up sitting in.