How is it a blank state? People would be as they are, unlike assumed in those academic thought experiments. They just need to revise their moral judgments, not pretend to be suffering from a collective amnesia which is a view from nowhere. The real problem of politics is that we know that the box of statism is not right but we don’t want to step out of it. So here we are, always carrying our blind spot of judgment.

indeed, however "before rules" assumes a blank slate, which is, sadly, as far from reality as one can get. It does provide an interesting academic exercise, but very little else of value.

and developing a "coherent set of rules" without a viable mechanism to move from current state, to the idealized state, is also meaningless, and ignores the reality that all societies are transitory, evolving and changing over years, decades and centuries, and your coherent set of rules rarely caters for that reality.

The best your rules can cater for is something to handle the current situation, with an acknowledgement that they need to be flexible enough to evolve and adapt as the society and situation evolves and adapts.

Your rules may, possibly, be able to provide an adaptive framework for change, but not much else.

Before rules is the moral apriori viewpoint for the inductive process of discovering a coherent set of rules. Also only such a system can truly be voluntary, something the libertarian and the capitalist would agree on. If you start from an existing set of rules that would be illogical potentially. It is like assuming that the moon is cheese and building the rest of the theory regarding the cosmos in an incorrect manner around that assumption.

why do they need to decide before the existence of any rules ?

Clearly thats never going to happen, any tribe, society or group is always going to have rules of some sort. There is absolutely no reason why a society can't decide on a reallocation strategy at any stage of their existence to try and make the allocation of resources more equitable (if they think they can do that without destroying their society in the process).

And, during that period, those with more will scream about being made worse off as reallocation occurs. And, compared to their previous position of wealth, that may be true, but compared to the rest of their society, is almost certainly untrue in real terms.

[removed]

And under capitalism one trespassing is not cooperating and gets shot. It seems to be a feature of every system that those not cooperating as the official principle says, will get locked up. And when they cannot be fit into cells, they are put into camps!

Which system sounds more shelfish to you:

One person owns everything

Or

All persons own their share?

Given that they are to decide before the existence of any rules. Measured in Paretian terms.

So system x is bad because it is not x or people don’t live according to its principles? I’m not much assured.

More clearly… words can feel anodyne when written but they can play out to the opposite. Yet we don’t realize all the triggers or perception that trigger with the way they are laid out. Reddit is a great place to obverse this. It’s why I’m even on here. It practice my dictum and learn how people act in this space. So I’m not too far outside of it to not be able to understand people. Then to interact with others ideas against mine. Otherwise I don’t need to be here.

I totally get your point. Some are better at writing articulation other in conversation. Personally if your not trying do gotcha moments you can work though both either way. It always good to do the reestablishing what the other person says maneuver. “So let me review what you said to make sure I understand this right. Stop me and correct me if anywhere I do he code I go on…._______…” so few people are good at articulation it makes me think most haven’t thought threw the ideas anyway. The “yea what this guy in the video means” doesn’t fly with me. If you need someone else to define what you believe then you truly don’t believe anything other than the teams prefers perspective. Because you can’t challenge something you don’t understand. So I force people back into using their own words. This is where Reddit can prove to rank the convo. People sending links of others arguments. I could attack that stance but then they can’t even know why it’s wrong or right in their own view if the comprehension isn’t there in the first place.

It’s sort of depressing. Cus you realize most people haven’t been challenged in that way. They are almost afraid to challenge their world views. Reddit is the best of this but only in the most differential thinking groups / communities. The majority is still like most other social media where no one is looking anything but ingroup validation.

What do you mean by realtime awareness? I think it’s down to if I don’t know something I need to be humble and learn from the person next to me. If I care enough to fight it out… I’ll go research the topic next time so that I can hold my own. People get real surprised when you do that. Then your often back to knowing more than them. But often (most all of the time) don’t do it themselves. And it does all come down to the type of person and convo your having. I’m the guy that’s notorious for talking off to the side about something real and thought provoke at a gathering rather than the normal shit shooting. I like to get that out of the way the first 15 minutes then as the buzz fades in get deeper.

Typo on “they get by on this superior knowledge” - change to “superior intelligence” capacity. I know a lot of smart adults that never live up to their potential because of being gifted as a child. I’ve actually had a lot of these people tell me it was the worst thing that happened to them. They got by one smarts alone and didn’t have to do the work. So it would makes sense when you can push back that they aren’t used to a person not as smart as them like me

Scaling any of this is difficult. Scientist struggle with keeping the best frame work up and continuing to run it constantly. Because we do often revert like you caught right here. Those straw men do come back up and a lot of it doesn’t stick. So is the momentary propensity of the humans condition. We remember patterns quick and are often stubborn to break them. Maybe everyone needs the Tim Ferris yearly reset. A small duffel bag full of psilocybin mushrooms periodically performs this reset for us manually when there is no automatic version other than mindfulness and constant attention to the structures of our own epistemological considerations.

But it’s hard because we need to tune down the noise and keep attention on being casual monsters that can gossip (which is very important much needed social calibration) and relaxation from our busy work. I can tell you most won’t become stoic philosophers or existential mystics if they have extra free time but being captivated by work and other responsibilities makes most need a relax defrag conditional state when you do get to chill out. Then I understand why they get upset more in this sort of paradigm of pattern. They’ve learned not to be challenged, so any semblance of push back to their often revered persona, default position for them, and they’re whole self is under attack, which they lack the effort or energy ti address. Me just trying to have convo with people like that, had to learn to read this element. And like I said you have to ease your self in like the other end (anti-intellectual side) and respect there views and listen. If you can disarm all the nonsense that impedes positive discourse first, then people become more open. When people are more open they be able to empathize more and take your consideration more earnestly. Coming back around to having more self confident and trust them can allow us to duke it out in the future with the gloves on or even off, then reconcile, dust off and have diner or a drink afterwards (or during). The drinks or puffs can be important because it release inhibitions but not everyone has a healthy or cognitively aware experience of substance.

The hardest part for me is the song and dance. I’d like to jump ahead if we know the arguments and I can usually mitigate the time with a quick recap of taking points. But again that’s where validating each persons perosn Al experience and sentience is important. But yes it is tedious. This is where patience and listening is important as my mind wants to go to the next level rather than legislate the basics. It’s what I call the axiomatic grounding we must do to not talk over under and around each other. We need to define terms because more than ever where in the ingroup outgroup semantic blender. Even simple terms now are loaded by each groups affiliation. One things “liberal” is a bad word like Nazi to call someone, while the other thinks “racism” only applies within imbalanced power structures. Just ask someone what “freedom” means to them. You’ll likely not get a single result unless everyone just does the dictionary default because they aren’t even comfortable defining the term in a simple context.

Our understanding of stats, probability and as you’ve pointed to causality is terrible yes. Personally I wish I did more math when I was young because of it importance but even then if you don’t constantly use it you forget and lose the power to use it. More than anything I’ve grown to seen it as just another mind opener level that can give me different ideas on how to address or look at things. Advancing dynamic structures and complicated analogs that can teach you your own contradictions among many other potentials.

I don’t set my sight too high because in this regard because I want to be realistic. Realism is important in this lens. If you go into talking with people thinking you can change there mind and they do the same, neither will often ever happen. So approaching it yourself different with the intent to learn and listen, it give the whole process more likelihood of fulfilling your desired result. If at the end of the day no or changes at all but the modern respectable “tolerance” comes from it. Then we’re contributing to the position liberal rights view of the world. Then I’m at least glad I can be a part of tying the blend together into a much more beautiful tapestry of potential. If I get leagues more of gain then it’s all gravy on too, if not it doesn’t deter the process or joist at my resolve.

Whether this “is the only way.” … for the most part what good is idea if it can’t endure scrutiny. The ideas are one thing and the action another’s the idea of the action is another all together. (Thanks Zarathustra. Haha). So when it all comes to a head way.. many of the ideas will have actionable results (back to causality) that we can compare and analyze. The human mind may have much more terrain that is currently unfalsifiable in ways that would take much time to establish. While there are many systems at work in the world currently.. we also have to look and say there’s a peaks and valleys of this landscape (borrowing the perspective from Sam Harris’s moral landscape - haven’t hand the chance to read it yet though). Every system has good and bad parts. The world is so complex in these emergents human social and culture interactions that we can’t essentialize it. It quick form for reasons of time constraints and moving forward in discussion yes. Then there’s ideas that we can set to the side because they don’t deserve a seat at the table. Communism or Nazi would be a quick start if we’re talking politics but then if you get deep enough each had element beyond the terrible results we see that a reasonable person should pay attention to. If not just for the reasons that they governance methods prop up anyway.

Now one of your last comments actual set me down the idea path that I do occasionally. I like to run the experiment on myself if I give in and believe the other side is right and my whole world view is wrong. Oh man… it’s taxing. Emotionally. Mentally. It comes full circle and feels physical in a short time. So it makes you realize the corner you can put others in. And they won’t often act nice, as cornered animal don’t. It important to ease off and console and find another path out for them. Acceptance is what humans communal condition is always looking for in way of validation. On the personal side we must also orient ourselves to take this softly.

The scale issue persists. Its not easy for even the most mentally aware to deal with for reasons I’ve state before. But the more we shed the ideas off on others the more we can build. The great disruption of tech is getting too far ahead of our ability to adapt to it socially and physiologically. They use basic human psychology to prod at you neurons to fire the result they want for engagement time. Until that part is alleviated then we won’t see much braid stroke overall gains. And just as well the political climate that is arousing violence is a new norm that’s somehow accepted. I believe we’re in for more hurt / harm coming soon. And this could very well be the reduction or complete destruction of the possible positive I’ve outlined hear. If simple facts are up for debate, we’ll then fuck… I’m not sure we can talk our way out of that. Education reform takes decades to see precedes. So we’re too far behind for an effective change today to make the difference. The tech world is a mirage in many ways. I heard some one say this week (haven’t looked into it) that at one point recently the top 19 of 20 Christian social media pages / maybe fax books (can’t remember - but it’s not pertinent just an example)

We haven’t ever got to the bottom of our metaphysics or pneumonialogical understand of what I consider the dimension of consciousness. While now we’ve created an dimensional overlay of a techno-physical world over the top of our others. Now we can’t agree on epistemic even more because the suspension of belief is meet with a new world where anything can be true if you want it to be. It’s no wonder, if we were paying attention that, the Larpers are mythologizing and by doing so manifesting their fantasy into the real world. The nurture of nature is a strange thing to consider. But I worry that too many toxic self fulfilling prophesy will follow suite as people programmed to find their own hero’s journey condemn the world to disaster upon shallow and hallow belief jus as religions were capable of once and still causing the most harm to humanity at the same time of connecting many on the interpersonal immunity scale.

But anyways… as you can tell the spirals of concerns are nebulously branching. And there are far too many variables for my little brain to include in any one way of viewing it. At least knowing these limitation can help. Tech may be able to save us yet, but it also have just as much draw backs we have to work out for it to be healthy. Who do we tech lose levels out of a problems created by tech? Maybe… But humans must guide the horse with more than invisible reins most often. You won’t let the horse drive the carriage by itself. So the animal spirit must have some higher level cognition guiding the machine, for the animal not to be overwhelmed by it’s own creation. And it’s wager allowing market forces to decide blindly like the horse chase a carrot or tuning scare isn’t likely the best approach either… though all must be considered.

I think they're mostly talking about situations where companies find out that whatever they're producing or researching has negative impact towards either the environment or the populace and the company buries the evidence of said negative impact to protect the business. One example is how Syngenta has attempted to silence Dr Tyrone Hayes when he discovered that the chemical Atrazine, which Syngenta produces, is an endocrine disruptor that is negatively impacting wildlife in areas where the atrazine has been applied and washed away into local water sources.

I’m not so sure. It’s also part of the reason we have our modern society. I certainly would not want to go back to living as a hunter-gatherer.

This article is focused on how people may view science similarly to how they do morality, not a judgment on whether or not it should be moral or have findings based on morality.

Yes, basic human greed has been a survival mechanism.

However now that humanity has transformed from hunter gathered tribes into a globally connected society, it has become a massive liability to that society

The consensus used to be that the earth was flat.

> In general, many people agree on what "is" about the world

> in general, people do not agree on what they call an "ought"

While I agree on the popularity of these terms, I'm not particularly fond of relying on popularity as an argument for or against something of this nature.

"the fulfillment of desires" sounds very much like an "ought" to me, not an "is".

You talk about the physical reality of "is" being something tangible that we can perceive through our senses... Yet you're also labeling Sally's desires as an "is", which seems to undermine your initial point about "is".

You're describing Sally's desires as an if/than statement, and yet you don't think that's a potential "ought"?

I'm not arguing for or against either... While I tend to agree that "ought" cannot really come from "is"... I wonder why everyone assumes that the starting point is "is" and not "ought". Because I think "is" can come from "ought". And I also don't think it's terribly challenging to imagine a world originating from "ought" not "is".

"What kind of philosophy are you talking about?

I don't have any.

Most people have no idea what I'm doing.

What am I?

What do I want?"

Because there is a physical reality of “is” that we have access to through our senses (being a brain in a vat notwithstanding). In general, many people agree on what “is” about the world.

There is no similar sense perception for “ought,” and in general, people do not agree on what they call an “ought.”

It seems an easy assumption that there “is” something about reality, but maybe not an “ought” considering the imbalance of assurance.

I also think desires are an “is” about the world, and to maximize the fulfillment of desires is a question of “is.” Sally desires justice, happiness, comfort, and other things. It’s a question of, if Sally does ABC and maybe convinces others to do ABC, then the world will be XYZ, where XYZ is a world that fulfills Sally’s desires. Pragmatically, XYZ should fulfill most other people’s desires because other people won’t want to do ABC if it doesn’t meet their desires.

That basic human greed is the result of being shaped by evolution to make sure we survive and reproduce.

In the US 50% of Americans work for small businesses. If you want to work for yourself and you’re willing to do whatever it takes, you can. It’s not easy. I have worked for myself 32 of the 38 years of my adult life. There were times when I was working 16 hour days for weeks at a time.

Having said that, we need to overturn Citizen’s United. Corporations are not people. They are not allowed to vote for example. Given that they can’t vote they shouldn’t be able to donate to political campaigns. They are part of the reason our politics in the US are so divisive.

The fundamental difference here is that we have a built-in survival instinct. So we are going to work to ensure that we best we can. Profit creates a buffer so that we aren’t constantly right at the very edge of survival. As long as there’s an economy, there’s going to be a profit motive. And there should be because profit drives people to create things they their people want.

I just don’t think we should be trying to tell people how to live. That’s never ended well. We can educate but we shouldn’t be mandating.

Circumstances and values change over time. I’m sure if we could leap ahead 500 years there would be things we’d recognize and things we wouldn’t. We would be comfortable with some of how society works and very uncomfortable with other parts.

Consider that 500 years ago there were very few professions. Most people were farmers. Today we have an countless things people do to earn a living. It would seem like magic to someone from 500 years ago. It will almost certainly be true in 500 years as well.

I know many are pessimistic about mankind’s future. I’m not. We will adapt and we will wait until a problem is pretty bad before we resolve it but we will resolve it. People are terrible at predicting just about anything long term. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to take climate change seriously for example. We do. But the people who thing we won’t survive to 2100 should study history better. We’ve survived ice ages, the black plague, pandemics (prior to vaccines), wars and more.

It won’t be easy but we will survive.

That’s not true. Ants wage war. Chimpanzees have been known to do so as well. Dolphins gang rape other dolphins.

But forgetting all that, all those species social groups compete with other social groups of their own species and other species for resources. No living thing is immune to competition.

Over time values will change (that is a virtual certainty) and hopefully for the better. But society needs to change. Our government must represent the interests of the people not the other way around.

I heard some in a snippet on psychoanalysis

It is a "model" about one single aspect of an idealised concept of science, not actual science.

How does this differentiate with a technocracy ideology ?