Eiuol

I don't follow how this viewpoint is anything like Rand's starting point about consciousness. On the other hand, it actually isn't clear what you mean by this kind of dual consciousness. More than that, I don't think Rand would say there is any essential difference between awareness and consciousness. For her, we have perceptual consciousness, and conceptual consciousness, neither of which are different broadly speaking except what kind of content or the form of content.

You have to find an example. The twitter file stuff isn't, because either the FBI is coercing companies to cooperate (I doubt it) or Twitter was cooperating with ongoing investigations that you aren't privy to (seems more likely). There is no smoking gun of an email saying "yes daddy Biden, your wish is my command". But at least if that were the case, or such evidence did appear, the companies and the government should get in big trouble. It's not a question of content moderation by private companies.

Why? I mean, I do expect that content will be controlled, precisely because messages must be altered so that they can be transmitted. A message has to be converted into binary and then an electric signal, then re-translated back. This isn't a mere expression of the message, but the very content of it. Details must be abstracted away, or otherwise altered. The telecommunications company must decide for themselves how best to alter the message so that you will be a satisfied customer, and even decide whether content should be modified on the linguistic level. This way, the system works as intended. Since we are talking about human communication, it makes sense to say that content cannot be modified in such a way that the telecommunications company cannot fabricate messages an individual never sent, or to mark the creator as a completely different person. Laws about parody can deal with this, and libel law. But you aren't talking about this. You are talking about a right to modify or control content to any degree. In the process, you've neglected to mention anything about how messages are made and transmitted. That's why this statement is fine: The problem is, the motivating issue for you isn't false representation, or that companies modify content in such a way that nobody knows what another person actually said. No one is doing this. You are talking about deleting posts or suspending accounts, things like that. In other words, your argument is a total red herring. What you've done is talk about a topic that no one is disputing. Figuring out whose speech it is only really applies to false representation. Banning you from Twitter isn't even changing the content of a message. So even if you were right about not modifying content (you aren't), that's not what people are upset about in the first place and it isn't what's happening. People who make it a free speech issue want to say that their account cannot be suspended when the speech is not on its own illegal (calls to violence and so on), and for large companies that have essentially created a public square. The idea from them is that even clearly presented moderation rules are illegitimate and should be eliminated.

We could speculate, but I don't think Rand really started to dive into philosophy of mind or the nature of consciousness as much until near the end of her life. As she thought about free will, her answer would be that what is happening would be a scientific question. A philosophically consistent answer for her would be one that integrates body and mind. Harry Binswanger has developed ideas about consciousness, although personally, I found that his ideas are unsatisfactory. The point I'm making is that analyzing what is happening in all kinds of states of consciousness is a very cutting-edge research question for neuroscience and psychology, and requires a wide range of concepts to understand on a philosophical level, a wider range than was even available in Rand's time.

Yeah, I understand that they say this is what's going on. But I think the idea of "pure consciousness" already presumes a metaphysical stance about the nature of consciousness, so it would make sense that such a deep meditative state could only be described as pure consciousness. I mean, as far as I understand, attaining such a state they would claim is approaching or transcending our illusory notions of reality, therefore all that could remain is pure consciousness. And this would seem legitimate, because it involves a very "birdseye view" of one's thinking and one's place among all conscious entities. I don't deny that this experience is real, and is a type of experience I think is consistent with what the human brain can do. But since I have a totally different stance about the nature of consciousness, on a metaphysical level, my description is necessarily different from theirs. It's not that they are peeling away the illusions all around us, but that they are altering the way that they control conscious attention. To be a little more clear, these meditative states don't prove that consciousness can in fact be conscious of nothing but itself. A metaphysical stance about consciousness comes first, or at least that's something Rand would agree with. Only later can we really get at discussing the scientific details of how the brain attains these states.

Indeed, but as I imagine you would agree, that still doesn't justify autocratic rule. Putin is nowhere near as bad as Stalin, and his regime is preferable to any USSR regime, but that doesn't change the evil of dictatorship. It isn't justified. I don't know what your point is. Are you trying to argue that autocracies aren't dictatorships? That only some autocracies are dictatorships?

I should add that India is the only country there that arouses my suspicion as not worth considering a dictatorship. But I don't know much about Indian politics, and that probably means their political system is worse than I thought. It would not be shocking to call most of these countries dictatorships. Africa is a mess politically and is no surprise that this lends itself to terrible economic growth and quality of life. You've got most Middle Eastern countries, which are notorious for being absolutely unfriendly to democracy. We've got Venezuela, we've got Myanmar, and Pakistan. All of these countries are horrible places to be. You can't characterize it as people being unfamiliar with democracy - these people are intelligent enough to know that they are all oppressed quite directly. America was new to it way back when, even South Africa is new to it, but the people in these countries manage democracy in relatively short order.

Iran is classified as an electoral autocracy. Perhaps we could say that in a very narrow way, not each of these qualify as a dictatorship, but yes, the majority of those are dictatorships of some form or another.

Why the but? Dictatorships are not legitimate sovereign nations. You even agreed with that. I mean, yeah, that's a dictatorship for you. Not the worst one in history, but it is still an autocracy, which is a form of dictatorship.

Which is why when you don't have the time to collect all the facts (time sensitive conflicts, issues involving the choices of different people and everything that comes in about free will, information that will take years to collect, etc) you use likelihoods instead that take into account your lack of knowledge.

Would you truly say that when meditating, you are not conscious of anything but consciousness itself? Sure, you can say that you are focused on nothing but consciousness, yet at the same time, I would say that you are conscious of whatever is on the periphery. As far as I understand, even when you attain the friend of mine after a few hours of meditation, you are directing your attention in a way that physical sensations fall by the wayside. I think this can be demonstrated with fMRI research. But in a more philosophical way, consciousness is experienced in reality, on top of how consciousness is the unity of various contents; when consciousness is focused on itself, as a totality, consciousness still includes all the sensory experiences of the body. You couldn't scrub away everything underlying consciousness, even if you wanted to.

Strictly speaking, when it comes to many actors with various intentions, motives, and values, the conclusions you will draw from the facts can only be best guesses and approximations. I'm agnostic about the Nord Pipeline, but it isn't necessarily bad if it is intended to harm Russia. The bigger issue is that Russia is a bad-faith actor and is treated in the way that autocratic regimes should be treated. When it comes down to it, people already picked their sides, and you know those who are morally okay with autocracy are going to say that Russia is unfairly mistrusted. (All that said, I'm not sure if Musk was attempting to defend Carlson, only that questioning narratives wildly offends some people and the call to arrest Carlson for treason is absurd. I just hope he realizes that people like Carlson get just as offended when you question their narratives, or when you hold their feet to the fire.)

Very true. But somehow, that has become "therefore, anyone who thinks Putin is the bad guy here isn't questioning anything." Yes, some anti-Russian government people give everyone else against the Russian government a bad name. Is Tucker Carlson a Russian agent? Very unlikely. Is he a grifter? Very likely. Is he guilty of treason? Not unless he is deliberately acting on behalf of the Russian (state-controlled) media. His interests do align with the Russian government, though. More specifically, about questioning narratives, that's not what Tucker Carlson does. He presents a narrative, but hides behind "just asking questions" about most issues. He doesn't allow questioning of narratives either.

I haven't read that book. So I wouldn't know.

I actually find it interesting to see the inner workings of insanity. I'm not worked up about it, it's an amusement.

I guess it's hard to stay on topic about Q because on some level, you recognize that there is nothing there.

And I said "or poorly phrased questions". The way you ask a question in science matters, or if you ask a very general question, you need to understand the limitations of your question. So even if people are skeptical of something for legitimate reasons, the problem comes in when people don't know how to interpret research findings. I mean, part of the issue there is that a lot of the time, accusing others of "unquestioning acceptance of authority" reveals an inability to correctly interpret evidence, in a way that you think other people are reaching conclusions before they should. Forget covid even, the most skeptical communities involving science are often those who don't know how to think about evidence properly. It ranges from those who say vaccines cause autism to those who think the earth is flat. It's not that the question itself is bad, but that when there is sufficient evidence for certain conclusions, they will still be skeptical. And when they do reach conclusions, it's more about how scientific thinking doesn't work very well, and we should remain absolutely skeptical as long as we aren't absolutely and unerringly certain. It should be clear that the context was agreeing with Q's alleged theory. Thanks for making yourself the perfect example of inability to interpret research properly. That is not to say even voluntary lockdowns are good, it's fine enough to ask questions about it, but that the short article goes from 0 to 60 almost instantly. Collusion? It's one thing to suggest a positive feedback loop between the the social media market in the pharmaceutical market. That's a fine research question and evidence we can talk about. But the collusion part! I can't argue against it, "they" must be hiding the evidence you are right is how the discussion will always go. "The vaccines are new, we have to be extra careful, because for all we know [X] will happen, so we are going to need many more years of testing!" is pretty much the refrain you will hear when anything is new. People know enough about immunology that there is a good idea of what will happen, good standards of safety, and an understanding that safety isn't an on and off thing. You present your thoughts here like a careful evaluation of facts, but it reveals an unfamiliarity thinking about relevant scientific questions. But that's something you can fix. It's different when you start swallowing the nonsense of Q even in the tiniest of doses.

What is being a fan supposed to mean? I'm a fan of Q but I only mean that in the sense "this is weird and bizarre and means little about reality but it's pretty fun and I really hope it's a psyops campaign aimed at weeding out violent fringe lunatics". To say that Q is right is to say that you are a believer, even a little bit. What it got people to do is become arbitrarily skeptical of just about everything, and those that believed any extent had opened their minds to arbitrary speculations as being just as legitimate as speculations made with evidence. I can't say that Q is right or wrong, the statements don't mean anything. There is no evidence of these things ("incredible harm") which isn't to say that none of these things are bad. De facto vaccine mandates are fine (where you are not legally bound to get a vaccine) because it is pretty well established that vaccines are safe as a whole. Besides, all of these things the US are voluntary! So really, even your Q-lite beliefs reflect pretty well the mindset of Q believers. Most of the kinds of questions people ask about vaccine safety or the efficacy of certain measures are either arbitrary or are poorly phrased questions. It's why there is a significant overlap with Q believers. It's a kind of epistemological melting. "Trust the science" people of the same way, except the fortunate thing is that there are people involved with the science that are able to think clearly and ask legitimately skeptical questions, even research things you talk about.

But going back to Q, the believers are just unhinged.

Questionable activities indeed. And unlike Q drops, these posts communicate something. Anyway: unless I'm blind, I don't see in the entire tweet thread where it says that the government paid Twitter to hide or remove information. The headline is more like "government worked to persuade Twitter to assist in a criminal investigation". I don't know about you, but if I ran Twitter, I would try to ban any and all accounts related to any kind of Russian hacking, and if the FBI asked me for information to further their investigations, I would tell them I did this. Even if I'm wrong about the gravity of what happened, we can at least evaluate specific claims. Talking about Q drops goes absolutely nowhere, and involves nonobjective communication.

I mean, that actually would be accurate. Eating fast food is bad for you every time, while vaccines are even safer than eating a big Mac. Not to mention that the risk of choking and dying on a big Mac is probably a lot higher than you think.

You didn't, you asked for my judgment. So I did. But every discussion I've ever had with you on any topic, after a few posts, you forget my explanations, then act as if I never gave an explanation in the first place. I decided not to explain, there would be no point. It's worse than that, because he agreed that it is autocratic, while denying that autocracy is a dictatorship. Not all dictatorships are autocracies, but all autocracies are dictatorships in the modern understanding of a dictatorship.

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't mean you are making a bad argument. I literally mean I don't know what you are talking about. Why would this be it? We've discussed my justifications before. Ever since I got back in the discussion, my posts have been mainly about "let's suppose you're right. What do you say from there?" I don't know man, unless you really really really want to solve the mystery, I think you hit the dead end of even being entertained by his posts. No, it was that stupid discussion about animals, instincts, free will, etc. I spent way too long on that one.

I'm rushing you to judgment after you have had 10 months to think about it? If you say so. Why can't you go on to complete your thought and say that "Putin comes out in a much better moral position"? You accuse me of rushing you to judgment, but then you go on to make the exact judgment I asked you to make! But I think I solved the psychological mystery by now. The West is morally preferable in this circumstance. Russia is morally wrong in this circumstance. Not very hard to say. No, I don't think so. I've had other discussions with him even on non-politics topics, and I think honestly he does not comprehend the discussion. Stupidity might not be the right answer, but laziness. Then again, I think laziness and stupidity are the same thing. It is easy to say is that somebody has thought it through like you did but decided to lie to themselves or others about it. But to say that somebody is thinking at a snail's pace, it's hard to imagine someone doing that. You can overwhelm somebody with so much information that they think they are being careful by not making too strong a judgment. Even Nick Fuentes doesn't get overwhelmed, and sees through the -government- propaganda, but since he is an authoritarian, condemns the West and praises Russia in clear moral terms. That's why I posted the video of him.

Asking for a judgment after 10 months is a lot longer than instant. Are you saying that you have not been able to make these preliminary evaluations? Then again, you're even wishy-washy on your condemnation of NATO. You do everything but say NATO in the West is morally wrong, you do everything but say that Russia is morally right. In other words, by not coming to a judgment in 10 months, you are being lazy. Notice I didn't say you are right or wrong. I said you are lazy Honestly, asking him questions like that are not worthwhile. He is not intelligent enough to answer. It's like asking a 6-year-old who only knows arithmetic to do calculus integrals. It doesn't matter how many times you asked, or how many different ways you asked, your attempts just won't work. After a few posts, he will forget about what you just wrote, you're asking the same questions, and use the same attempted refutations after you already answered them 5 pages before.