>We should be thoughtful of the world.. but if your perceived world is made up almost entirely from your own ego, how would you interpret this train of thinking? That’s all I’m trying to point out.

The Tao te Ching doesn't exactly mince words in Chapter 1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

A third option is unknown, though it is often not reachable by humans.

> I'm not trying to get $$$

Why not? What kind of an implementation are you aiming at that wouldn't benefit from $$$?

> I believe in collaboration instead.

They are not mutually exclusive....like not at all. In fact, the opposite is more often true (consider the website we are having this conversation on right now, which runs on money).

> Look at the open source movement. They produce far superior code to that of all the big corporations with budgets in the billions. Yes, some corporations hire teams of independent minded open source creators and exploit them IMO because they control the real gold: eyeballs and data.

True....but if one wants to reach a goal, which is (probabilistically) faster: hoping for talent, or buying talent?

> I want to work without being tied to $$. I want to find the first collaborators and roll on from there.

Money tends to tie/corrupt people, but it is not a necessity.

> :heart: > $

Exactly. But that does not render the value/power of money to be zero. Both variables could be extremely large numbers, with heart being a much bigger large number.

As a though experiment, imagine two scenarios:

a) You and me (as is) vs the world ("the powers that be")

b) You and me (with unrestricted access to $45B in capital) vs the world ("the powers that be")

If it was me, I'd choose option (b).

If you ever come into some $$$, let me know, and I will do likewise. :)

You are onto something.

What sort of an implementation do you have in mind?

Ah, I think we've talked about this before right? As a fan of subversion: some of those are excellent.

Now we just need an implementation.

> ethics as a game

This sounds interesting....but can you link to what you're referring to?

I think this is a plausible edge case - you could even be suicidal, yet get vaccinated to protect a loved one.

But I don't think this necessarily reaches a "should", as simple preference could be sufficient. In a sense, from certain perspectives, maybe "should' is purely a collective hallucination, like "rights", most of "truth", etc. Adult life is very much like a continuation of "playing house" from childhood.

It may provide insight into your stance on staying alive (that may be contrary to your self-perceptions on it, at times).

I was coming at it from the perspective that most people tend to prefer not being killed (or dying in general).

Considering that: did you get vaccinated for COVID?

> See how that works?

How you avoided the content of my comment? Yes, I do see how that works. One might think discussions in a philosophy subreddit might be above this, but one would be regularly disappointed.

EDIT: yet another pseudo-philosopher can't substantiate their claims so drops some snark and blocks the user so they can't reply. Maybe if mods did something about this this subreddit would become smarter over time.

> I responded directly to the content of your comment.

No, you did not.

> You are trying to apply something to one side of the conversation while ignoring what would happen if it were applied to both sides equally.

No, this is your imagination.

> This convo is going nowhere, but only because you are stopping it.

Says the person who blocked me so I can't reply to his comment.

> The burden of proof is not on the ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’, it is on those claiming a positive - ie the existence of benevolent deity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) > > > > The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. > > > > Shifting the burden of proof: One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

It's interesting how the mind executes "logic" depending on the topic of discussion.

> You can Google all these topics yourself for the proof.

What sort of a Google search might one do to determine in an epistemically sound way that there are no conservative positions that are supported by the relevant scientific research?

> Cutting taxes to grow the economy...

"Conservative positions are often/usually dumb/self-serving/deceitful/etc" and "no conservative positions that are supported by the relevant scientific research" are different claims.

> Any other issues of importance that I left out?

Yes: evidence of your initial claim. An admission that you were speaking speculatively/hyperbolically would suffice.

> Mate, you didn't argue your position; you stated a claim and then folded your arms.

I guess we have that in common....two differences between us though:

• I am willing to defend my claim, whereas we've seen what your defense of yours consists of: "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha".

• you seem unable to answer simple questions

EDIT: followed up by blocking me, the sign of a true intellectual powerhouse.

> But that still doesn't tell me why I should want to end suffering for others.

Arguably it may decrease the likelihood of people harming other people due to anger as a consequence of their suffering...and some day, one of those harmed people could be you or one of your loved ones.

> Ah, I see what's going on here: you're taking a centrist, "both sides" approach to a conversation about perception and reality.

No, that is your perception/model of what is going on, powered by the broadly distributed "both sides" algorithm.

> It's a position that only serves to enable and embolden the worst antisocial elements of our society.

What if you have it literally backwards?

> No, I won't be presenting "proof," as I'm quite confident you won't accept anything as such, regardless of how accurate or well reasoned it is.

Also because no proof exists - thus, it is a belief.

> > > > Good day.

Good day to you as well.

Even funnier is your inability to counter ideas you disagree with. You could prove my bold assertion incorrect in your reply, let's wait and see what happens.

From the sidebar: > > Argue your Position > > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. > > Be Respectful > > Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Is "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha" compliant with those guidelines?

Is "Hahahahahahahahahahshahaha" the maximum of what you are capable of?

> Reality exists outside of our perception.

Also: our perception of reality exists within reality (which complicates things substantially, because it raises the question: just what is "reality"?).

> "Perception is reality" means "if I perceive something to be true, I will act as though it is true."

Agreed. It also typically means that the person considers their opinion of what is true to be synonymous with what is actually true.

Also: some people have much more powerful means of communicating their opinion about reality as if it is factual reality, confusing people further.

> This is a useful axiom for dealing with people, to be sure, but it's terrible whenever we need to deal with the real world. You might perceive an absence of cars on the road but that won't protect you from being struck and killed by one.

Agreed....so too with plenty of "facts" that spread throughout the memeplex. The Science has been on a big run for the last few years.

> Are you saying our "media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc." have dominance over our society?

They have substantial persuasive power. Compare the general public's consensus take on affairs in Ukraine to what is broadcast as the state of affairs in Ukraine - I don't know about you, but I sense some pretty strong correlation between the two, enough that I think there may even be a causal relationship (which is further supported by the commonality of people linking to journalism stories as proof (in their minds) that something is necessarily true).

> Curious. I can see how that argument could be made but I think it's rather soft; that is, yes, certain persons on the internet have had a direct influence over me, personally, over the past few years; but I am not beholden to them.

Beholden: owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or a service.

Perhaps. But would you go so far as to state as a fact that you have zero(!) bias as a consequence of the consumption of journalism or conversations on social media?

> Indeed, I no longer consume content from some influencers that, just a year ago, I would have considered high on my list of reliable sources.

Excellent - have you achieved perfect rationality?

> This isn't to say that they're not worth listening to, rather, that I don't see how this hegemony functions in practice. Further, I'm not convinced there is a hegemonic order (as the OP seems to think there is). I think there's a different kind of order, but it's certainly not hegemonic (though it is hierarchical, after a fashion, mostly because people tend to naturally organize themselves into groups with a hierarchy).

Do you form any particular conclusions as a consequence? Or: what epistemic status do you assign to the speculative proposition?

>> All humans view reality through various biased lenses

> True; but this fact has little bearing on the point I was making.

That your considerations here are biased by your lenses may have at least some relevance - "has little bearing" is your perception of what is true...but is it actually true?

> Unless you want to argue that a left-leaning bias is somehow equivalent to a right-leaning one . . . which is patently absurd, on its face, if we take the time to understand what the Left and Right (as political platforms go) actually believe.

The "both sides" algorithm seems to have been very broadly distributed - I often wonder if this is purely organic.

>> And if you are unable to explain it to a conservative thinker, do you know (as opposed to believe) that the problem is 100% on the receiving end?

> I do.

Excellent - please present your proof.

> Because I've been explaining these concepts to people for a long time. And I've found that, when someone refuses to understand the basics, it's usually because of a deeply held conviction (i.e. bias) about how the world works.

Ah, I see what's going on: your proof is your self-perception.

> That's the entire point of capitalism.

Technically, it is your perception of what the entire point of capitalism is.

I don't disagree that capitalism has many negative side effects, I am merely suggesting that we concern ourselves with accuracy of our beliefs and assignment of guilt - government could moderate capitalism, but capitalism itself is often the only entity taken into consideration.

An important question: does the government set school curriculum so as to keep the masses dumb, so capitalism can function without informed resistance? It is certainly plausible!

> We might be able to limit exploitation, but it can never be eliminated under capitalism. And so as long as it continues, exploitation is a given, and this will always empower justifying ideologies for that exploitation.

That future you're seeing: do you realize that it is virtualized?

> The author doesn't get into this, but is complaining about the intolerance from liberals. This intolerance is real, but the reason for it's existence isn't just bad people. It's the way our society is materially structured.

The metaphysical organization of our society (essentially: how people think, which generates the "reality" they consider) seems much more important to me.

> W t f are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

> Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.[1] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2] The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle's works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. 'after the Physics ', another of Aristotle's works).[3] > > Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions of:[4] > > - What there is > > - What it is like > > Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.[5]

> We need to know how much there are resources in order to articulate a pareto efficient distribution of them.

Best get cracking then! Maybe it's a good idea to take an ontology textbook with you on your journeys.

> What makes you to distort everything that has value and is the easiest part to grasp of the subject matter?

Technically, from a scientific perspective, your mind is what makes "me" "do" that.

And as luck would have it: it is rarely difficult to get one's counterpart enthusiastically involved in the manufacture of a big show.

> Capitalism needs exploitation

It may prefer it, but it can function without it.

> Once the source is found, racist, sexist, and other bigoted beliefs get reinforced and structurally integrated into law, thus perpetuating it.

Two can and do play at this game though.

> Ultimately, liberalism (and conservatism, an aesthetic variation of liberalism) cannot resolve this problem because it exists to serve capitalism. So here we are in a world where a lot of "tolerance" from both groups doesn't amount to much, whether its tolerance for oppressed groups or even each other.

Agree, but this is kind of my point: why does do people act as if there's nothing that can be done about it other than complain about evil capitalists and demand that "someone" does something about it? Did the author get into anything like this?

> Tolerance isn't materially possible under capitalism...

This seems unlikely. For example: is it not physically possible to start "taking out" prominent capitalists and see if that alters their attitudes a bit? I mean, they do indeed love money, but they may love living even more. And one might protest that killing is wrong, but are most people not pretty ok if not often downright enthusiastic about our military and geopolitical adventures overseas that result in the death of a lot of innocent people.

> ...which depends on the exploitation of someone for its existence.

It utilizes and benefits from it, but claims that it is necessary for its existence at all seem to be meme-based. Capitalism can be moderated, but if our society and the people within it choose to not even try, I think they share some of the guilt.

(Note: I'm not ranting at you personally but more so at the collective hive mind.)

> So the amount of rsources is not a physical matter question?

Only partially - there is certainly physical matters, but there is also metaphysical matters.

An example: your opinions on various matters, and how these opinions affect your behavior, which in turn affects the overall system.

> It is literally the first question of justice.

Can you link to the resource you're referring to here? I'm curious if there is an accompany peer-reviewed scientific proof.

Do you believe that all non-comprehensive, non-balanced perspectives are garbage?