> Is irrelevant to the point I am making about ACTUAL neo nazis dude.

I have explicitly acknowledged that I agree with you in that regard.

However, it is true that there are many claims that certain people or groups of people "are" Nazis, where the accused has made no confession or exhibited behavior.

You are not obligated to discuss this, but I think it is interesting that you are saying it is not in any way relevant.

> You're trying to talk about "people on the internet".

I am talking (not just trying) to talk about a very specific subset of people.

> Stop trying to change the subject.

The subject of this subthread is a function of the ideas that have been raised. If you do not desire to discuss the aspect I have noted, you are more than welcome to disengage from the conversation.

> We're not talking about "people on the internet don't label nazis right". This is about whether certain actions can be declared as "evil" and what that means.

I have injected it into the conversation, and I have asked for your thoughts on the matter.

Right, but the contents of your message seemed to state only the positive subset of ChatGPT's attributes, and implied that it is good for error checking/etc without acknowledging that the things it says are often completely incorrect or nonsensical.

My hope is that the similarity of it's "cognition" to ours may force or encourage us to pay more serious attention to the nature and consequences of ours.

>> but I am talking about the much more plentiful situation where people are accused of being Nazis despite not having admitted it > > > > Red herring.

Red herring: a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting.

I disagree. The phenomenon I've mentioned does in fact exist, and is related.

> But I'm glad you agree with me

Only on a subset of the whole though.

> So since you have nothing to add to this discussion, I think we're done here.

I am going to report your comment to the mods on this basis:

> > > > 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. >

> Well, I was talking about a neo nazi that literally wants to murder someone.

Right, but the difference between thought experiments and reality is that in a thought experiment, one's declarations of truth are assumed to be true (which is ok, because the space is purely virtual*), whereas in reality people's declarations of truth are not necessarily true, though they are often perceived as such.

> It literally isn't what I'm talking about. I am not talking about random kids on fortnite labeling people as nazis. I'm talking about ACTUAL, SELF-DECLARED neo nazis who want to murder people, like these ones: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/590292705/5-killings-3-states-and-1-common-neo-nazi-link

In that minority case, fine, but I am talking about the much more plentiful situation where people are accused of being Nazis despite not having admitted it, or not even exhibited any characteristics of it. Basically, I am referring to human delusion and silliness, which often has very serious consequences.

> Im talking about these kinds of people and as a POC I am perfectly right to fear these people. Are you trying to tell me I shouldn't fear a neo nazi like the ones here in this article and call these people "evil"?

Let's see how you react to what I have written here.

ChatGPT often completely makes shit up though and states it as if it is a fact.

Invoking this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

...and in turn, hilarity/tragedy ensues.

I believe it is relevant, because of this:

>> I mean, if someone is a murderous nazi and you're a POC I think it's perfectly OK to write off the nazi as "evil" because he wants to commit horrific actions, like murder against you.

Humans have well demonstrated that they use the word "is" in ways that are contrary to its technical meaning.

For example:

> "People on the internet" is an irrelevant red herring and [is] completely unrelated to my point.

Here you are describing how this appears to you, seemingly unaware that it may appear otherwise to other people, and that how it appears may be different than how it actually is.

I disagree in that people on the internet have well proven how bad humans are at accurately identifying Nazis - I've seen many claims that ~50% of the population are Nazis.

> Brass tacks: Yes, the good/bad binary is about control, and this is a good thing. Theology is about control. Ideology is about control. Laws, politics, government are all about control. All the words that we say to each other are arguments that seek to control the way that the other views the world, behaves, and acts.

This meme is self-referential, misinformative, and (imho) self-contradicting.

There's no requirements for one's beliefs to be true. And while it is often beneficial, it is not always.

Subjectivity is perceptual, truth (actual, as opposed to perceived/declared) is not.

Agreed, that's why I used "approximately" - technically/tautologically, it changes to the degree that it changes, and that value is not known because there is no way to measure it accurately, so people tend to ~imagine a value (or, choose one from a wide variety of inaccurate representations) that aligns with their preconceived notions.

> Ah, the author had some mystical idea of "happiness" in mind, then, which they have no doubt defined as excluding those things they think ought not to produce it.

Are you not kind of doing the same here, assuming that the author's take is necessarily wrong and yours is not?

>> Why does "evolutionary strategy" matter if the fundamental question is how to live one's life? Is parasitism a valid strategy to pursue one's own happiness or self-esteem?

> Sure?

What if it isn't actually though? Like, it may "work" (you do not literally die), but whether parasitism is optimal for the overall system or even yourself as an individual (if you consider things like systems theory, emergence, consciousness, etc) seems rather complicated.

> I mean, you only really get three basic roles to choose from - predator, prey, or parasite.

What about neutrality (which could be a blend of these, or something else)?

> Of course, the metaphor falls apart very quickly if you try to work with it, because the use of the term "parasite" wasn't exactly intellectually honest in the first place. It was just an emotionally loaded term meant to forestall debate.

a) That isn't the only reason it falls apart.

b) How do you know that "the term "parasite" wasn't exactly intellectually honest in the first place. It was just an emotionally loaded term meant to forestall debate", and that the phenomenon you mentioned isn't affecting you in your evaluation?

> I don't think any serious existentialist would suggest that everyone can just casually discard their lived experience. It's there, and it shapes identity. True, we have more choices about that than we are often led to believe, but it's not a binary

You can think of it as probability distributions across numerous variables, the population, and time. So in the case of racism (and various other -isms, experienced from a particular frame), as time progresses the whole distribution will retain approximately the same shape (reflecting the relative levels of the racism within the population) while the entire distribution can move towards less racism (absolute decrease in the aggregate).

> Whether or not a piece of what looks like garbage abandoned on the street, might have some value, sentimental or other, is not a good reason to claim that this particular “X according to reason is valuable among (sic) others”, regardless of the value it might or might not have for me.

Perhaps, but this is other than the current scenario, which is where you have asserted: "it is not “valuable among others”."

Have you substantial evidence to support this assertion as being substantially more than merely a personal opinion?

> I am disagreeing with the OP’s general assertion of value.

And due to the manner in which you have done it, you have acquired a burden of proof.

> The value of something is based on the consequence of having one unit more or one unit less, and this will vary according to circumstances.

Perhaps, but that observation may not be comprehensive, there may be other variables involved in other (than your) implementations of ValueAmount(Object something).

> Which ties back to my finger painting. If I lost it on the street and it was found by a street cleaner, or anyone for that matter, how much value would they attribute to the actual finger painting. I think you conflate the value attributed to the physical object vs the value that some others might, or might not, attribute to my subjective sense of loss.

I think you might be conflating your opinion of how things are with how they really are?

> Ok but it is not “valuable among others”.

More than one person has expressed disagreement in this very thread though.

What meaning are you ascribing to the word "is" in this context? What does it refer to?

> For example 20 people voting to take the wealth of the richest person is a democratic but isn't exactly fair.

Isn't necessarily fair....it could be more fair though (or, lead to a more net happy/harmonious world regardless of "fairness", which is a subjective term so fairly misleading anyways).

Besides: the masses are subject to the whims of the rich and powerful few on the regular, perhaps they should be subject to the whims of the masses at least occasionally.

> but most public protests are against political or private interests that could never be addressed by democracy.

I think they could be addressed by legitimate democracy, but I can certainly agree that they are not addressed by our democracy theatre (that we refer to colloquially and ambiguously as "democracy", as if the word is a binary).

New solutions to old games can be discovered, and also new games can be invented.

I thought I asked some good questions, would you be willing to reply?

> "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed" (from Google) > > > > Tangible, touchable, interact-able, experience-able. Perhaps more specifically "as pertains to reality" > > > > For the specific use "...any real capacity." it means that just because you can think of it and make it "real" in a sense (real within a story, lore for a game, etc.), doesn't mean that it is something you can find in reality and interact with.

Are thoughts real?

>>> The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity.

>> Is this claim (...an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists...) "real"? Is it true?

> Yes, just because you can conceive of something doesn't automatically make it a reality somewhere in the universe.

"The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity" is real, exist, and is true though?

> Personally, I believe there are no gods, nothing supernatural. Everything is natural and anything that seems supernatural is simply something we don't yet understand well enough to explain via natural laws. Therefore, it is reasonable to be skeptical of any claim about a god or gods. I can take the believer at their word when they describe aspects of their god, since that is what they believe about it and doesn't really affect me but when they start saying that I must believe in their god or such and such thing will happen I need proof. As far as I'm concerned they are just believers in a fantasy, until they can provide proper evidence. I myself tried to provide proper evidence for a believe in the christian god and that simply wasn't possible.

What's your take on abortion rights?

> The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity.

What meaning do you ascribe to the word "real"?

Is this claim (...an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists...) "real"? Is it true?

> Take magic for example: Shooting a fireball by saying a few words and willing the thing into existence or lifting a rock with nothing but the power of your mind can't be done in real life, but we can conceive of a reality where it might be possible.

Seems reasonable, but examples in the physical realm is playing on easy - how about metaphysical questions like is there a God(s)?

How something "reads" is a function of the content of the document itself as well as the quality of the mind ingesting it.

> We know how to examine the brain to some extent and we have improved on that significantly

On a percentage basis, how close are we to having perfect understanding of the entire system (including when brains are networked)?

> ...we also know that all who we are is contained within our bodies.

We don't actually, but there is certainly no shortage of belief who have faith that that is true.

> We require no metaphysical concept to understand that.

To understand what is really going on here, I believe it inevitably gets deep into metaphysics, depending on one's definition - for me, I use this one:

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

> My argument is simple here. We are fundamentally real within our context of understanding. We do not require claims that suspend the reality to explain anything about ourselves.

Oh, I didn't realize your statements were an argument.

If it isn't too much trouble, would you be willing to continue this conversation in a form of only objectively true statements? (And if not: why not?)

> My thinking is that we have no demonstrated need for anything beyond our experiences within our reality to explain these concepts.

Your thinking may be correct, but it may also be incorrect.

Consider: what are the odds that your cognition and the "knowledge" that it rests on has zero substantial flaws?