I think it just depends on where you’re at emotionally and spiritually. If you are fulfilled by serving others full time then that is indeed saintly and something to admire.

> My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination.

Using Occam's Razor?

> It's part of the brain, it's simply a sub system.

This is metaphysics.

Try thinking of illusion not as a True/False binary but as a multidimensional spectrum.

This simple approach (consciously overriding subconscious heuristics) has great utility with many ideas.

> how could they ever understand what that is

Try thinking of "understand" not as a True/False binary but as a multi-dimensional spectrum.

Psychedelic trips can often pierce the veil, though we don't really have a very sophisticated means of dealing with what's discovered - heck, even proponents are often not very helpful.

[removed]

Very interesting. Forgive me, but I am a philosophical novice. I believe what Smith is getting at is the idea of balance. What I have come to learn so far is that, when it comes to applying philosophy, you kinda have to strap things down and hang on for dear life. You are constantly questioning and examining your beliefs and the world. Smith makes the claim that Rand has the solution in living for one’s self, but, like with many frameworks, there isn’t a solid right to just apply without consideration. The way I try to live is philosophically mediating between my pursuit of wisdom, my connections with others(family, friends, strangers), and the fulfillment of my self.

Aristotle’s teleological idea that humanity’s purpose is to gain understanding is brought up by Smith. This purpose argument may expand wider than how Smith applied it here. If we are supposed to understand and comprehend, then wouldn’t it be not just, a metaphysical understanding, but an ethical one that we must find as well.

I think Smith had a valid response to altruism, but personally would it not be better to live both ways?

> its more then one

Did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: No explanation available.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

Or think about it like the Emma’s room thingy (?) Where a scientist (that only sees/knows black and white) knows everything there can be known about the color red, but has never seen it. Does she lack something?

OP would say she lacks the experience of red, what would you say?

I did enjoy the read, disturbing as it is

I suppose one could always have ones neurons mirrored into a sort of bio-synthetic matrix. Then gradually offload the processes to the "other side" key would be maintaining conscioussness at both sides until the original body is deceased.

Assuming this matrix doesn't deteriorate one could potentially exist until one tires of it.

The idea of reincarnation itself is an assertion requiring evidence. Unless you can reliably show, from first principles, that people have reincarnated, there's no need to disprove it.

Is it possible to predict the future of any deterministic system with math formulas?

Interesting. You observe adults imagination to be more dynamic than childrens?

> heuristic is not working without logic and probability. heuristic is an undercategory of it and is mostly using probabilitys!

Citation please.

Also note I said: "...there is substantial evidence that heuristics do not run on (actual, flawless) logic."

> u have not all info, but you still use logic and probability to come to a solution. Like trail and error, statistics and so on. all of those methods cant work without logic and probability.

You can also flip a coin to come to a solution.

>>> Kants Imperatives gives you everything you need. The hypothetic gives you the logic and the categoric gives you the clear goal you need to attend.

>> Is this necessarily an evidence-based True Fact, or might it be merely a heuristic powered belief?

> My sentence of Kant and his Imperatives is not very precise. So im not sure what exactly you ask to be true here.

Is it objectively true that it gives you everything that you need?

> A fact is the ationalistic/hypothetic system that is like causal and determiend analytics, methods that work to create truth and function. They are evidence-based but also use probability. As heuristic is also evidence-based in the end, but its only a probability where you expect the evidence to be.

If probabilistic, then not guaranteed to give a correct answer.

> And the categoric imperative is also a method that works for moral.

A sledge hammer "works" for opening a locked door also, but how optimal is it?

> So further, u can understand that moral, like all other systems, is a system of goals and methods and you can analyze goals and methods with the hypothetical/rational system (including logic and probability). And thats also evidence-based but also heuristic!

Whether one gets remotely correct answers is another matter.

> If people disagree with other peoples logics and conclusions, then there must be a reason for it. One reason could be, they dont have all the facts. Another reason could be, they dont have the same goals/methods (this is very important). And a third reason could be, they dont manage to come to the right conclusion, even if they have the facts and the same goals. And a forth reason could be, all first three together.

Another potential issue: there is no correct answer and the person isn't smart enough to realize it, due to the shit education systems we have going on here on planet Earth.

> > > > So for example, you have to jews analyzing a moral problem but both come to different conclusions. So where is the problem? They done have the same moral, they dont have the same facts or they dont understand them in the same way. or everything together.

One problem: people are not taught how to recognize when their thinking is unsound.

> of course its a big problem if you have two different systems, but you think its the same. this is the reason for many wars and many misunderstandings and social separations. and not just in morals.

Agree on this!

>And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.

Some have argued that atheism is the opiate for people who cannot bear the thought of a holy, omniscient, omnipresent God to whom they must one day give an account.

​

​

>Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.

I suppose some atheists may hold that view, if some atheists are ignorant enough about Christianity to think that it ascribes "little value" to life.

​

​

>It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.

Spoken as if by someone utterly unaware of the worldview in question. Christianity holds life in very high regard indeed. Pro-life, one might say.

Since you seem kind of condescening and rude, vs someone interested in discussion, I will go ahead and block you at this point, as I am not interested in that kind of exchange. Peace.

Death can help us live but live can also help us death.

[removed]

The first rule of conscious club, you only know you're in conscious club if you're conscious.

Perhaps this definition helps round off consciousness. Defying atrophy in a beneficial way as to cause you to replicate and amass things that assist your own survival

Some people don’t dream because of medical/biological issues, if you do certain drugs like smoking weed it greatly lessens your chances of dreaming. Dreaming only happens in REM sleep which takes hours of sleeping to get to that stage. Dreaming isn’t guarenteed, and most sleep is not dreaming sleep.

I e been under anesthesia before and it’s exactly as you describe, one moment you’re awake in the room and literally the next moment you’re waking up from surgery. It’s a very unsettling feeling not being to account for the lost time

without subjective experience...

It's not in any description of it or science we know where you can point to subjective experience. I am well aware of the science. It's simply saying that if I didn't have taste for example, I wouldn't be able to even guess others do until they tood me and then I wouldn't be able to imagine it either. That goes for all of subjective experience.

I can't be a 100% sure, but we have our own experience and evidence from convergence in evolution in our cases, verbak reports and the whole rest. In the case of simple calculators that did not evoove to think and feel like us, we don't. And it's a rather specious suggestion. The positive feedback loops in the CNS, receptors and signalling, etc., are a whooe different machine than simple electronic devices or even any Von Neumann architecture. Our brain is an analog piece wetware.

It's not about us detected neural correlates about consciousness.