It's not a joke, it's serious. The Book of Revelation is the account of vision had by John of Patmos. So what did he actually see? Millions if not billions of people throughout the past couple millennia have tried to make heroic stretches to make the book fit their contemporary setting. If you think about what might have actually been seen or experienced, many of them fall outside the realm of possibility or probability, outside of God deciding that some truly crazy esoterism was in order. It is in an interpretation, as you are saying "there is a reason the building is called Mar-a-Lago" and then going on to link it directly to Scripture. That is an interpretation.
The rhetoric you've used here implies you either did not understand what I was saying, or you did understand and are trying to imply there's some kind of time paradox
When people make these kinds of interpretations, it makes me wonder what did John of Patmos see? Did he see the Mar-a-Lago and understand the Spanish name with which to write it down? Perhaps he actually saw the Beast of the Sea rise from the sea and God was like, "yeah, someone will figure out the connection to a building some guy owns in a couple thousand years give or take". It all seems extremely tenuous
Vlad has outlined it, the farce was in the institution of moderation this way. I'm not on here enough to have detailed notes for moderation
Might as well try it to show what a farce this has been
Schizo nonsense like every single time the administration does anything and everyone rushes to "decode", which is not productive (as they're not "decoding" to figure out an action to take, they're simply "decoding" so they can believe something is happening), and never pans out. But it does work to strengthen the "faith", as cults will always force their holy texts to mean whatever they can force it to mean in that moment and adherents will wash their minds of the previous meaning it was meant to have and excitedly accept the new one
Inside trader absolutely, Trump talks about him being in crypto and making a ton of money... And there was a huge buy in Bitcoin like 15 minutes before Trump made some Bitcoin announcement, I don't even remember which because there haz been so much evidence of insider trading in both crypto and stock markets with Trump's tweets (sorry, truths) and other announcements that it's hard to keep up
What a deceptive list of votes, where were they compiled? I distinctly remember myself and many others aside from your 1 listed being against the need for moderation: https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARK9l6ukF/x/c/4eXuKkvGsCZ
It's facebook-boomer-tier nonsense like most of what gets posted there
Anyone who actually understands the architecture of an LLM knows how it works. Because it's a non-deterministic system, you cannot easily step through it as you would normal code, but it is still possible not only to conceptually understand it but to actually step through the system if you have access to the datasets and meta-parameters (temperature, top-P, etc), and logging information about the RNG that occurred (any company working on foundation models would have all this or they couldn't reliably improve the product).
Systems with transformer architecture (what "AI" is using) are going to be used for what they're best at - pattern recognition. This is shat allows the system to very quickly extract sentiment from extremely large sets of data. Pattern recognition being essentially THE function of transformer architecture also makes it good at facial recognition. A dream for surveillance.
There are two sets of people who are running this "AI is going to become super smart and end us all!" Narrative:
- the business people: Note how it's almost always someone who stands to benefit economically from AI that is in the public eye talking about how amazing AI is and how it's just doing all these crazy and mysterious things (which are not at all crazy and mysterious if you even halfway understand how it works)
- the narrative seeders: pick your poison on who these elites are, but they want people to both humanize AI and see it as something amazingly intelligent so they willingly submit to upcoming AI surveillance and governance.
Aside from that you have true believers, grifters, and those who have been fooled, but the two sets above are the ones pushing it from the top down. And there is bleedover between the two, as I believe Elon Musk, for example, belongs in both camps
The real conspiracy is how Musk's reaction is always included in these posts, as if to ingratiate him to the dissidents... But surely that could never be
Need the people to beg for solutions to replace the old order. 2030 is coming on fast
People crying out to Elon Musk over Twitter like he's some sort of god figure listening to their concerns, and not a face for coming technocracy who wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, shows just how cooked (as the kids say) we are
did not address abortion
Does not address Nukes
Does not address how any of this is differentiated from the unnecessarily extreme 'kill billions with a thought' jumped to from the idea we should be able to do more evil if we're being tested
"Find the answers yourself in these links I provided, don't expect me to be able to actually answer"
Simplifies the idea of divergent universes to "imagination", which in itself undercuts the "classroom" ideology - if imagination is somehow equivalent
"Champ"
Yep, this started off civilly enough, but into the trash it goes
I granted it might not be possible for duality not to exist but I'm aware of my own limitations in understanding that.
You have chosen to ignore a bunch of the questions posed, and reduced the idea of heightened ability to do evil in to "play video games bro!!!" This is not about wanting to do evil but is about examining your claim this is all a test. You're trying to throw little barbs in now, "oh do you not think interacting with people is better than NPCs in video games?" when those are not material to the discussion. So much of my post was ignored or intentionally misunderstood (I assume, since you seem intelligent enough to understand) I'm now convinced you're only trying to justify a position as opposed to debating it. If you can't answer the questions I've posed or engage with why the hypotheticals I've posed are wrong without tangential conversations about video game NPCs (which really does not address what was proposed in any way), I see no fruit coming from this conversation.
One could contend it's an immutable law for existence how we experience it now, but that is with a perception shackled only with an understanding of a reality with all systems that keep it functioning in place. It's possible existence could never take another form, but that means there is some kind of universal limitation on how conscious beings could be created.
Ok so now let's get back into classroom metaphors. First, numerous times I have posited that each person could be within their own universe. This universe could split off from the "main" one every time a person is born and everyone can act exactly as they would otherwise, the only difference would be the main person's actions Now this person can be completely tested, as can all people, plus you still get the same "richness" since everything else is the same.
Though the fact that the supposition that if we're being tested we should have an even greater capacity for evil was taken to the extreme of, one should be able to wipe out all of humanity on a whim, without considering the already numerous times proposed Individual-focused realities, I'm not sure how much consideration this idea is being given.
Regardless, I would like to dig into your classroom analogy. It seems you consider dying to be going "out of the classroom". We live in a reality where billions have been aborted, millions of babies die prematurely or shortly after birth, and millions can be (and have been) vaporized in an instant using technology we already have. Is this materially different the "self-evidence" of counter-productivity to the "classroom"? Since you have considered death to be no longer being "in class" (by your own analogy), clearly the deaths of all these who have yet to live, or the vaporization of millions who had no idea what was coming should be considered a catastrophic failure. Again, by your own criteria. As an aside, the person who is wiping out a billion people with a thought may decide only to wipe out those over retirement age, surely given the dynamics of your classroom analogy that would actually be quite preferable to the situation in real life. They have all had the chance to learn. Yet you insist this is the most ideal form of reality that is possible out of all forms
Answering your question will be impossible because there is no objective criteria, any answers simply will not give us the same "richness" because it's arbitrary.
We see duality as necessary because this is the system we're in, that doesn't mean that if the entire universe were being created from nothing a different choice could be made unless there are immutable laws regarding existence that cannot be changed by any being. In any case, I continue to contend there should be more capacity for even more evil (which I guess means life would be just as "rich" since evil and duality are both necessary by the previously stated position) if the point of this life is we are being tested.
I brought up victimization because it was a concept you introduced into the hypothetical asking whether the person was a victim. But this has gone far beyond what the initial point was, which was that there are still infinite amounts of actions one can take even if there is no evil. You contend "less good" would become evil in such a system, I don't agree. Regardless free will could be expressed, with a still infinite number of choices. None of this has to do with a moral test. But, if we grant your presupposition that a moral test is necessary (already a huge concession in this debate) again, why do some face much lesser moral tests than others? Why should we not all face the same tests and given that it's a test, why are we not facing the maximum test we should?
I feel as if we're arguing passed each other. I'm coming at it from an angle of how can we understand the nature of the world, and how we can really know whether it is ideal - this involves trying to conceive of completely different systems of reality, existence of a whole different nature than the one we have here, which I have tried to break down. You seem to be coming at it with the presupposition that the way things are IS the ideal, and trying to reason about ways to make that conclusion fit. And though I accept many of the conditions necessary to make such a presupposition for this debate, then we have to spend time in the weeds. To disregard a logical conclusion of an idea means to discard the principle core of the idea, and to do so when we're talking in theory really undercuts our capacity to understand each other's points. I don't see how we can find further common ground this way
No, it doesn't. You can say not acting was the wrong thing to do, and I'd agree, but the man is still only victimized by his own choices, mistakes, etc in that case. He is in no way being victimized by the choice not to save him, he is simply not being saved. Taking the idea that not taking action is victimizing to people who would benefit from that action to its logical conclusion - this means if you are not spending all time you have looking for people to help, you are victimizing every single person that you have the physical capability to help in some way. Seems ludicrous
Ignoring the man does not make him the victim of your choices, as murdering him does. It simply means you're not intervening into his situation either way. The evil that is allowed now can force others to bear the brunt of the consequences, and I'd argue is in a lot of cases even necessary due to the system of reality we exist in. To me this is a huge distinction. I've mentioned this has been abstracted away by human dominance, but in the past when resources were limited it would be necessary to kill, either indirectly by taking the available resources, or directly by killing the competition to ensure you and your people got the resources. It's hard to see that as the most ideal classroom.
You posit that a world where everyone is super powerful would be chaos, I have previously posed the solution that we all live in our own reality where we have godlike power, if this life is to be a test. Even if we discount that possibility, it's not hard to believe existence would have reached an equilibrium. Technology has allowed us to kill people so much more efficiently than ever but there are also more people than ever, so we're not in this posited state of mega chaos despite guns, tanks, nukes, bombers, etc.
I think "this is best" is the simple answer and is in some ways necessary to believe in order to believe God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. But I find, without being able to really expand on this, for it to be unsatisfying intellectually. I'm sure before agriculture people, without being about to conceive of alternatives, thought finding berries in the woods was best. I believe this line of thinking ends up at "God works in mysterious ways", which is fine but as I said, I find to be unsatisfying when trying to reason this out. Either way, appreciate you
I'll mea culpa on the science thing because that was another user who jumped into the conversation earlier and I had not cared to pay enough attention to notice the difference.
What I won't mea culpa is the alleged "dodging" of the hypothetical. I asked many hypotheticals that encompassed that more than encompassed yours (and some non-hypotheticals like the mechanisms by which your worldview works), but you need to reduce it to argue your point and now feign indignation that I "dodged" the hypothetical, despite it being a simplification of questions you already chose to ignore. Hypotheticals that were asked to come to a deeper understanding, not ones orchestrated in their simplicity to win an argument. Or maybe you truly do feel indignant despite the hypocrisy, that wouldn't be atypical.
You believe what you believe and there is no need for evidence. Everything flows downstream from that. It's great for you personally, and I do really mean that, but it's useless in discussion. Whatever piece you may need to say I'm sure you will but there is no value left to be had in this exchange. So, you can enjoy the last word should you choose
There is more data, but competition is inherent in the struggle for existence, at every level. We have been able to abstract some of that away from human life because we have do thoroughly dominated all other life on this planet. If you have data to contradict this, I'm happy to look at it. It's very easy to say "higher order thinking" is unresolved data but one could say the emergence of higher order thinking is an advantage that gives the ability to so thoroughly dominate the world.
People do see it as natural law. Because most people understand that if you do good things, good things tend to happen in return, and bad things likewise. If you're a dick to everyone, you probably die because no one will help you when you get in trouble, if you're helpful to everyone it's the opposite. You can choose to believe that in a spiritual sense or not. I actually tend towards believing that in a spiritual sense and very strongly tend towards there being a Creator God, and Christ being a representative of Him. (Though I admit my faith is far from rock solid as I continually try to sort out the nature of all things, but all that aside). In the sense of debate I tend away from relying on that which cannot be observed.
Evil exists, perhaps. We have actions that we perceive as evil, but is it because we see the negative consequences that arise as a result of destructive behaviors or is it because of something higher? Even an animal knows not to touch something that burns it, and would probably consider that thing to be evil. Is the reason we see common morality throughout cultures because humans observe the same behaviors as being destructive, or is there a higher reason? I like to believe that the latter is true, but the concept of "evil" as behaviors we've recognized are destructive does not automatically imply there is free will, only that it is advantageous to avoid them. For what it's worth I do believe in free will, but that is a belief, it is not founded in logic and evidence that I can present
This is something which is very difficult to wrap one's head around because we are only accustomed to the universe we live in. But if we are to use your analogy, you could be in a video game where there are infinitely many choices but the evil ones are still in some ways precluded. Let's say you could do anything but kill another person, the laws of physics could be changed (like in a game) to somehow not allow this. There are still infinite choices. Even better, if you're trying could know whether or not you attempted to kill someone, but prevent them from actually getting killed. But regardless, there are infinitely many ways the universe could have been created. If we were created without the need to eat other organisms to survive, to need to compete over finite resources etc, much of what we see as evil would not exist. Further still, humans would still find interest in all sorts of things and all sorts of pursuits in the absence of evil, there would still be an expression of self and free will. If we accept that the universe could be structured in a way that still allows humans to act in infinite ways but avoids evil being possible, the question becomes, "why is evil necessary?". The typical answer posited is "because it's a test".
This goes back to my analogy about how I cannot actually fly, because there are physical limitations. No matter how much I may will it, I cannot break these laws. One might ssk why aren't they more restrictive of evil? But if one accepts that this existence is a test there are other questions to ask: why aren't the laws of physics, or any other universal law we're governed by, then even more tolerant of evil? If the point of all this is to show whether or not I'm evil, wouldn't it be better for my physical limitations to not exist? What if I were very powerful, would I abuse it? If I were extremely attractive would I be a womanizer? Because I'm not I get to slip by as good? Why, if we need to go through this evil to be tested, are we not all being tested at the limits? Why do some face great temptation and falter while others who would likely falter facing the same temptation never face it?
Also I very much appreciate the way you engaged with this I don't see it as ganging up at all, I realize my viewpoint is in the minority. I appreciate that you're really attempting to understand, even if we don't end up seeing eye to eye
It is not a weak deflection, and I made the distinction because you said vegetarian which is much different than vegan. Competition appears to be in all ways the nature of this universe, from the atomic level to the observable human level. Competition that is part of survival (for food, resources, natural security, reproductive security, etc) will lend itself to actions we consider to be evil. It takes higher order thinking to avoid those and even that thinking is primarily used to some type of end that is beneficial in that way. This is why complex organisms have reward systems in their brains, more complex biological directives.
We can grant that entropy is a law, but have we seen any type of greater manifestation of it in living organisms? It seems to me there are a lot of ideas you can connect if you're trying to prove a certain conclusion, but they don't really fit together naturally with the evidence available now
You bring up a good edge case. The fruit then likely loses out on the potential of its own continuing through seeds, but that's not the same as death. Vegan cats are super unhealthy, and a diet that relies on human supply chains and the such, while still being suboptimal, certainly is not something that would have happened in nature. So if you grant only fruits were ever being eaten by all animals, and that primarily carnivorous animals for some reason have a bunch of characteristics and instincts that are specialized for hunting and killing that were simply pointless before the fall, sure, why not. It's an incredible stretch with essentially no backing but you're welcome to believe it.
The rest of this is pseudo philosophical nonsense. It can't be possible because you said so
Not muh father of the vax Trump though, he was either tricked or was using 69D chess and actually using the word "vaccine" to mean ivermectin