Відео

Love this subject - Where can I find the 3 of you on social media?

Beautiful 🙏🏼

if determinism is the case, then there are no tradeoffs, just our limited access to information & mentally simulating vaguely sketched non-actual (impossible) counterfactual states of affairs.

Love u

I think the show captures the importance of both well. If we accept that there is no point in attaining perfection, we idle and lose our ambitions. I think the pursuit of perfection is perfection in itself, willing to change and improve, but never settling for circumstantial perfection.

Pull the lever halfway. Although I wonder how many people are in the trolley? Oh Well.

I’m her. Just birthed Christ In my Spirit. Rev12 just happened. To me at the end of the summer 2024

I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.

Well guys I got to say is that really surprised me this video your guys's conversation is so interested that I really thank God and thank you guys and thank you to your dad and mom dad did that beat you how to be a good person human being

For he or she "we" are trying to fight that path "pre-destination".

🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful. One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear. Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation. Cont...

Game theory is inherently not sufficient to describe morality. Predicting the outcome of an exchange does not bear any yield to its moral contents or lack thereof. You also plainly neglect any other form of ethics or virtue in this discussion. L- take.

Thank you

Existence itself seems to be a great foundation upon which to guide morality. Objectively? I'm unsure. Still, I admire this avenue of work. Best to you.

Poor take, gravity hasn't changed in, well, since the birth of the universe and it's constant based on mass which can be calculated. Morality is constantly changing, can't be measured and frankly, doesn't exist outside abstraction

Morality only exists in the mind of a perspective SENTIENT SINGULARITY.... WHICH INHERENTLY MAKES IT SUBJECTIVE. 😂😂😂

Bad exists... which is a subjective observation. Evil implies that GOD IS DIVIDED. Evil requires for a CREATION of GOD to be imperfect. AN IMPERFECT CREATION can only come from an imperfect CREATOR. Creation is the complete expression of pure FREEDOM. In which, there is the latentcy for every possibility & probability within CREATION. BAD & EVIL are often conflated. Evil & sin are a conceptual construct created by Religion. "Bad" is a common experience shared by all subjective perspectives. (Ppl) The common, inevitable experience of "bad" is co-opted by religion, which then juxtaposes their perception of SIN over it, in order to control the masses through mass psychosis & mass Stockholm syndrome.... By using the artificial projections of Sin & Evil as tools to convince SENTIENT SINGULARITIES to lend their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto SYSTEMS and ESTABLISHMENTS which insidiously abuse this Gift to then forge chains of servitude to offer back. Those in POWER know that EVERYONE IS A FRACTAL EXTENSION OF THE GOD-HOOD.... And they do everything in their power to make sure we the ppl NEVER learn this.... The perception of a SENTIENT SINGULARITY (ppl) is the jewel of CREATION. Our consciousness is an extension of the OMNI-CONSCIOUSNESS. Every quanta of (our) experience fuels the life stream of the OMNI-VERSE. Morality can only exist in someone's mind... which Inherently makes it subjective... objective reality does not superimpose its objectivity on a subjective mind which objectively exists. A mind objectively existing does not interfere w the fact that the minds perception & perspective is RELATIVE. THERE IS OBJECTIVE REALITY. HOWEVER, ONES PERCEPTION OF THAT OBJECTIVE REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. I AM THE BRIGHTEST NIGHT. I AM THE DARKEST LIGHT. ❤

You are completely wrong about gravity. Anither comment explained it well but its simply a relationship between two masses, their distance, and the universal gravitational constant G. Thats it. Always. Won't change. The resulting force we humans would experience changes but the relationship that results in those calculations doesn't. Gravity is objective

Really the only thing this argument demonstrates as objective is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Morality is simply that set of behaviors that the majority of people within a given culture find to be acceptable or unacceptable as a matter of intuition, having been raised with those values and unable to realize they were instructed in them from youth.

Your argument rests on the premise that morality is reducible to game theory. Game theory can describe which moral rules will end up developing, but it can't compel an individual to stick to those rules, which is the whole point.

I fly in Minecraft

Profoundly absurd.

In the description, you say that evolution gives us our goals. What are those goals? I see that as the weakest postulate in your argument. What are we optimizing for? Maximum Happiness? Pure longevity? We could argue that evolution is the observed result of some biological systems outlasting others. Is perpetuity of the species our goal, then? Through evolution itself, the humanity of the future will not be the same as the humanity of the past. What is persisting then if not the intangible? And which systems do we choose to perpetuate? This challenge aside, I struggle to see how such an abstract goal could provide moral guidance to agents within our system. Is morality for the omniscient observer alone?

gravity is just what we call the causal effect of mass in spacetime. we observe gravitational pull but that's just our way of describing observations. the truth is gravity does not really exist. it's an emergent phenomenon of spacetime causality, which to us feels like a fundamental force of the universe but not really

There is nothing subjective about gravity. Objects don't have their own gravitational force . An attractive force that we call gravity exists between two or more bodies that have mass and is determined by the amount of mass of each body, the distance between them, and the universal gravitational constant that does not change under any circumstances. Every massive body follows the exact same formulas and field equations objectively.

Interesting analogy

Yes but your point falls apart since we don’t “objectively” know everything about gravity but what we do know is gravity is a constant exerted by our universe that we don’t fully comprehend how it does that.

It’s an interesting take, but flawed. I don’t claim that morality is subjective because it is context dependent. That’s not what subjectivity is! It’s subjective because it’s inconsistent. Two people can look at the same set of facts, do the moral calculation and come to completely different conclusions. When they do so, there’s no stance independent method to check their calculations. Instead, the vast majority of people simply agree with the person whose calculation is most similar to their own. Including people who insist that morality is objective. By contrast, if you and I come up with different outcomes when we try to predict the movement of celestial bodies, we can look through the differences in our computations and design an experiment to definitively test who was right. No one can disagree that the person whose predictions failed got it wrong.

Interestingly, I doubt the objectivity of even gravity.

Subscribed just for the term transjective. This word alone has so much potential to bridge so many gaps. I love it and why am I only learning this now!?

Interesting way to look at morality

oh heck yea man. This all sounds right to me!

FIRST! 🎉

BOTH you and Lance have fundamentally flawed understandings of morality.

@51:00 Cycles back to the first topic - Seth's take on Steven's "Will to Life" @58:00 Discussion of is-ought gap @1:03:30 Discuss definitions of "objectivity" @1:13:00 Transjectivity @1:18:00 Seth's Theory of Consciousness - "Energism" @1:25:00 Seth's Network Theory of Consciousness @1:33:45 Contrasting different arguments for Objective Morality @1:38:30 Seth's argument for the epistemic objectivity of morality

@Theo_Skeptomai Does this tag work?

There is no such thing as 'objective' morality. Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain dilemma). Like all cognitive assessments, moral assessments always and necessarily involve the subject's own biases, experience, attitude, and other personal iconsiderations. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral, just as everyone else does.

great analysis budd, this scene of vinland saga should be more studied. To me atleast that scene finally give more understanding on something that always was in my mind about how we human should loves, that i could never be sure of. But that scene not only put a great definition of human love but also great exemple.

would love to see a video on Hunter X Hunter and akira

I was just going through suggested UA-cam videos and found one to do with assembly, which from my understanding is some kind of compiler that translates into binary and talks to the CPU. So while I don't know what I'm talking about I think software uses code, that talks to the operating system that is built on the assembler that talks to the CPU or gpu, I am just guessing but I don't think software, which uses code ever really directly talks to the CPU it just does the higher level abstraction tasks and the underlying stuff takes care of it all. I would like to understand all this stuff because we as humans tend to deal with the higher level abstraction but there may be a similar thing going on with our brains where we are twice removed through a kind of double translation into our operating system or simulation system

Awakening? Lol he went from sleep to a deeper sleep. The drunk dude was sleep too

trying so hard to be right, why are you arguing semantics, literally everything to a computer is 0's and 1's. thats the language it uses to translate our language, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. thats like saying rojo isnt red because its in Spanish and needs to be translated first. they mean the same thing.

😂 "Is your ego so big that you cant accept the laws of physics are more powerful than you?"

I guess your mistake would be in assuming "either compatibilism or incompatibilism"

Way too long. Harris' book is only 96 pages, and probably didn't need that much.

1:14:00. Compatibilists aren't ignoring the precursors to the decision making process, nor are they ignoring the brain. Rather, they note that the purpose of the brain is to produce conscious awareness such that the brain can model potential future outcomes of the actions one might take. Consciousness exists for this very purpose. This modeling of potential outcomes and the subsequent decision making process is what Free Will is. Consciousness likely only exists in tandem with Free Will. In other words, from an evolutionary standpoint, consciousness exists so that an organisms can sense and respond to its environment. If an organism cannot make decisions and take actions in response to external stimuli, there is not much point to being conscious! Dan Dennett puts it this way: "The ability of rational agents to act out of self-determination; to select actions from a broad set of possible alternatives based on rational expectations of their consequences." I think the error the Incompatibilists make is primarily one of the Category Error. They seem to recognize that properties like Intelligence or Consciousness are emergent from underlying deterministic processes, but get tripped up over Free Will as though it must be something different or more special than these other things. They seem to see the brain as insufficient to generate genuine decision making capability. The notion of "could have done otherwise" trips them up because they seem to think that one must have proof of the reality of the hypothetical other choices they could have made in order for the choices they did make to be valid. But for a compatibilist, it is fine for those hypothetical necessities to never be realized - they are just future potentials being generated by the brain as a part of the Free Will process.

excellent breakdown

Thank you for allowing me to feel smart for a second by not knowing who John Dee was. 😂 For once I felt I could hold my own . 😂 I only came to learn about John Dee after becoming disillusioned by Mormonism and seeking to understand where Joseph had derived much of his philosophies turned theology’s. John Dee, Edward Kelly, the Magus… did not disappoint.

Loved listening to the two of you play around with concepts and ideas. Your guest sure know a lot about Mormonism, is he LDS? I was super surprised when he started saying that he believed in demons etc. He lost me a bit but I’m trying really hard to not be so reactive when religious beliefs arise. My frustration is that it halts further exploration or curiosity. You however did a beautiful job of smiling and kindly nodding. 👍🏻 great example. For me it hits like, “yeah that’s true because we all know that if one falls down a rabbit hole everything turns upside down and we shrink….” Ugh it’s painful.