TheRobin

well, the problem of any "public good" is first and foremost, it doesn't exist So what kind of solution do you expect?However in regards to game theory, an intersting thing could maybe be done, which statists often seem to ignore when trying to fit their agenda into descriptions of GT. That is if one introduces a third player with the ability to force other players (i.e. the state), then this generates a new action among all former players which is "bribe the state", so the game changes to "at what point is it more profitable to bribe the state then not to bribe the state". Any attempts to create a "checks and balance" also fails for the same reason, as it merely introduces new players and new actions for bribery.So imo, if you want some fun with GT, I'd go for this approach

In very general and broad terms: trouble empathizing and cynicism usually indicated where there was some unprocessed or unacknowledged part of myself, that I haven't empathized with. So the cynicism and lack of empathy worked as a kind of shield against my own pain in those areas. Or at least that's been my experience usually.Alienation, distance and disconnection: I'd guess this stems from wanting to connect but either failing to do so or not trying. So my first question would be, is this disconnect in regards to other people something that has factually occured or is it just a feeling?My experience with socializing with some random meetup groups where often, that there was quite a lack of curiousity on the part of most people towards me. Like I could ask them for 5 minutes about their life and listen, but they would only ask a question in return and after a sentence of me as an answer move on to something else. Though I didn't feel disconnected or alienated in that situation. It was more a "sober realization", not really a feeling of disappointment or distance. So I would guess, that maybe these feelings might stem more from an unfulfilled longing on your end than on the situation experienced.Though this lack of curiousity is also something that I only recently noticed having myself a lot and I found this also stemmed from a lack of empathy and unprocessed history on my part. And I found I was quite needy for the empathy and sympathy of others especially in the areas where I lacked it for me myself. Which was probably not very satisfying for the other people involved. And I'd argue that depending on the degree people will subconciously catch up on that and feel the neediness, which will make them want to distance themselves instincually, which might alos be a reason why you end up feeling that way when socializing. Though that is mostly based on my hypothezizing without any evidence about you, so I have no idea how helpful that is.So I would recommend as a short to do list that might help figure it out for you:-write down the facts of the interraction you have with others-write down your expectations/needs/desires you have for these interractions-compare those and see if that might already explain some of the emotions you experience-furthermore I would recommend trying to figure out why your expectations/desires are the way they are. Basically why do you want these things out of social interractions?-compare those to your history and see where you had those same needs/desires in the past. Maybe you find some correlation or pattern there and maybe there's some unprocessed history there or unfulfilled needs.I hope that was at least helpful to some extend. I'd be happy to hear if it was or not.

Nah, I don't think feeling bad is appropriate. First of all, the money has been stolen already, regardless of whether you take it now or not (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't lower taxes to reflect an absence of handouts anyway). Another thing is, that I'd guess to only reason you need the money is because governments has tampered so much with education and transportation, that it has become unaffordable (or less affordable), thus government first created the necessity of needing more money to begin with. And last but not least. if you've been to public schooling then this is a rather cheap restitution for the damage already done to you through that schooling. And every person who supported you being thrown in school and having your mind destroyed at that young age, while probably being tossed into the same rooms with bullies and all sorts of disfunctional people, while of course lacking any empathetic teachers (usually the case), who don't really care too much about the emotional/psychological well-being, is now paying for that, so, in a very weird and twisted way, I'd say you've probably more than earned it for the damage done to you in the name of those people. There are some anarchist who were also forced to pay of course, but I think the amount you would directly "own them back" would be too minute to even bother and I'm pretty sure, that they'd at least be happy to know that at least some of their stolen income goes out to actually helping someone who's struggling to survive "the system". But even if there are some that would rather you not have the money, the amount would be so small that even bothering to think about it for 5 second (let alone demand it back) would already create more losses even if the amount somehow got back into their hands, so from a practical standpoint, even they couldn't logically claim to want to take the actions necessary to demand it back imo. Hope that helps

I disagree on principal. You become a thief. By that principle a one-month-old is also a thief, if one of his parents works for the government.

Some parts of sociate do force us to conform. School, parents (if they're authoritarian). I wouldn't call that simply "telling us to". As it literlly implies force of one way or another. As for "answering" the questions, I wouldn't try to answer them, but here's a response: Usually when people ask that many questions, they aren't really curious but more expressing their feeligns in the form of rhetorical questions. A lot of these questions simply have an underlying implication of an experience of "how things are" and a negative emotional conenction to them.your friend seems to be very angry and seems to have a feeling of powerlessness and a general "pointlessness of it all" (not sure how to best phrase that) and rightfully so. But what he describes isn't "how life is" but how he was actually treated by the people in his life so far (and especially while he grew up and couldn't change his situation).So trying to talk to him from a perspective of "answering the questions" won't help him, I think. What would help him (assuming the right circumstances) would probably be to stop depersonalizing his experience and as a consequence of that stop distancing himself from his own experience. Getting back to where the hurt occured and was felt and feel it again so to really understand what actually happened in his history and not surpress it or project it the world as a whole.Regardless of that, he has my deepest sympathies for being in the place he is now. And I wish him the best of success in fighting his way through it

I'm not quite sure, what this study has to do with psychedelic drugs, maybe you posted the wrong link? This study deals with psychotropic drugs (SSRI's, Lithium, and such) and opiates (cocaine, herione). While I found this a very fascinating read (as it also has a lot of info on neureogenesis outside drug-use and seems to contradict some earlier notions of no neurgenesis happening in the adult brain at all) it has nothing to do with psychedelic drugs as far as I can see. I really enjoyed the video you posted though (which seems to implicate an intersting correlation between Psylocibin and increased neurgenesis if done in the right concentration (and a decrease if done in the wrong conentration). Most fascinating part was, that it seems that the wrong amount seems to be in between the right amounts and not just a simple linear progression. Thanks for the links though, I found them to be very interseting and fascinating

Could you give me the link to that study, if it was an online article, please? I'd be really curious to read that one

Thanks for the long response. Sounds like an awful spot to be in. I shortened it to that part, where I feel I can maybe say something productive and helpful. So I don't want to minimize your story, I just don't feel I can respond with anything useful to the rest, I hope that's ok for you. The first thing that came to my mind here was to ask, whether you tried having a dialogue with that voice and ask it why suicide is an appropriate response to failing one's standard and see where that leads you. Another thing you could do is (and probably you already did that, but I'm gonna say it anyway, just to be sure) to scrutinize your standard a bit. A question would be "How did you come to have these exact standards?" "What do you ahve them for? (I mean what purpose to they serve you? In the sense, that, for instance, if you're a doctor performaing an operation there are certain standards of hygiene, which have the purpose of not infecting the patient. Or if you produce something, then each part has a certain standard of quality it needs to adhere to, so that the final product works properly etc. So what goal do your standards serve here?) And are these goals, that you chose to have, things that you want for yourself or do they originate somewhere else and/or weren't conciously chosen? And you're probably right that other people's standards also could play a role here. But I'm more inclined to think, that it might currently be, that you're still carrying around other people's standards as your own anyway, so you might want to make sure, that's not the case before you spend time on figuring out how other people's opinion of you affect you. Because of those two things are entangled you can never be sure which one you're actually looking at, making it impossible to arrive at a clear conclusion about one or the other, if that makes some sense. I hope that was of some use to you.

I'm very sorry to hear, that you grew up with people who treated you like that.I'm not sure, I can be of much help here, but one thing that came to my mind when reading your post was, that you seem to analyze your situation and past rather erm technically, rationally, but I didn't get the feeling that there was an emotional reaction that was much part of it. Of course, since this is a text-based internet board, I might be completely wrong here.In regards to how to overcome this: Have you tried really diving into it? I mean when you feel that fear, you really go with it, like, really letting yourself feel the fear and the thoughts behind it and what fear is really all about (no matter how "irrational or weird" it might seem) and get to the bottom of it that way? Because so far it seems your analysis is rather distant and technical and I don't think that will get you that far in actually solving your problem or even really understanding what the emotion is all about.

Given this definition, I "Statism" sounds like a zombie idea.. thoughts? Cool, I never heard of the term "zombie idea" before and I agree, given the definition of the term, statism fits that description easily AH, what fancy times we live in when we can use the word zombie in regards to politics and actually have it mean something

Well, the moment you define something using contradictory properties, the claim becomes literally meaningless. Which means you can't verify or falsify it anymore (as no one knows what is talked about or described, therefore nothing could even hypothetically be tested). I was incorrect in saying contradictions don't exist. in order to make such a statement the term "contradictions" would need to actually describe something that could be said to either exist or not exist, but it doesn't even do that. If something exists or doesn't exist, it's no longer a contradiction. That's like saying if something is either blue or red it can no longer be called green (assuming it only has one color).

The problem is not in that reality might not end up being really weird and maybe even allow for things to exist that we now presume to be impossible. Say if it turns out that something which we'd call a circle would turn out to also be a square in some respect then that wouldn't show that there in fact exist square circles, but merely that the label of "circle" was incorrectly applied to begin with. BUT if the language we use to communicate should have any meaning then the definition can't change on the spot or on the whims of an individual. Thus if you define a circle to be a circle, you can't then claim that it might also not be a circle whenever you wish it so, because if you do that you make language and claims become meaningless, thus practically exiting any dialogue you could have with other people about reality, truth and all those nice philosophy thingies so saying stuff like "there can't be a square circle" simply implies that there IS in fact a defintion of the words "square" and "circle", which doesn't change whenever we want it to. and if someone would then go on and say that "but there MIGHT be square circles anyway" what they're really saying is that "circle" and "square" no longer means "circle" and "square" and that they do not wish to have a meaningful dialogue based on actual language and words that have meaning. Also saying "contractions might exist" makes no sense, since contradiction implies a claim according to which an thing or attribute exists and does not exist at the same time and respect. so saying "a contradiction exists" would be saying "a thing, which exists and doesn't exist, exist without not-existing", but of course if it simply exists without at the same time not-existing, then it's no longer a contradiction, so the claim "contradictions exist" can by definition never have any meaning and thus never be true.

so you say you find it important to define things and the refuse to define things.That at least proofs my claim that you don't really care about truth or debating, regardless of what you claim in regards to these matters.

I didn't say there is no truth. I said humans can't have 100% certainty about that truth. As for the rest, when have I disagreed? I'm the one who said that when discussing God we should ask "What % probability do you think there is that God exists?" and that you must define God. You always must define. I've been saying that all along. And people have said, that things that by defintion have excluding properties can't be said to exist, to which you replied, they might anyway. So if you insist on a definition, but then don't adhere to that definition I don't see a way to still call that a debate. If you define what a cirlce is and what a square is. And by definition they have properties that can't be shared, but you claim, they could be shared anyway, then you're ignoring the definitions given. But I slowly think you use the word "truth" very differently than a lot of people here. Could you maybe explain what you mean with that? And if you're at it maybe give a short explanation what you mean with "certainty" how it is gained, and by what standard you measure it? Maybe that would clear thigns up a bit

I never said one needs 100% certainty to debate, I said one needs a clear standard.If you don't have a clearly defined standard (which you always adhere to) in a debate, then it's not a debate, but mere opinion-slinging.If your standard of truth is that "ultimately nothing is certain and there is no truth" then debating about truth is by your own definition not possible and debating becomes impossible and self-contradictory.Even with probabilities, if you don't clearly define what 100% is, then talking about probabilities doesn't mean anything.

you seem to have utterly missed my point: Your epistemology makes debates impossible (since there's no certainty, what are we debating about aside from personal preferences, which by definition are neither true nor false, so there's no debate possible (as debate involves correction in regards to a standard (a standard which according to your epistemology doesn't even exist)).So, even according to your own standards, you're not discussing philosophy, you're not even having a debate with people, you're simply acting in complete contradiction to your own assumptions and utterly ignore that even when it's pointed out.So, again, what possible puropse would that have?

STer: Your behaviour and epistemology kind of begs the question: What are you doing here then?If you have an epistemology that is obivoulsy so different from what is used here to debate, then your behaviour is about the same as if you would be a baseballplayer going onto a football field full of people playing football and then complaining that no one knew the rules of baseball or used them to play football and on top of it all calling the player irrational for playing football instead of baseball.So far I hardly ever saw a post of any value to the debates you were in, and your behaviour is often in contradiction to the claims you're making, so really, what are you doing debating here? What possible motivation could you have for doing that?

haven't watched further than 15 mins: in regards to the idea that DNA conatains information: interstingly enough I just stumbled upon this one a few hours before (around 8 mins iirc a caller calls in with the same "justification")Aside from that, the probability math doesn't really mean much. If one wants to claim that the probability is impossibly low, then one'd need also a precise number of how many tries per second there are to form those proteins (else it's just a big number without any meaning in terms of claiming any likelyhood of proteins forming. Plus who sais it's all pure random anyway, I'm not sure that's even true)I think if one would want to go the probability-route, then rather say how unlikely it is that the laws of physics are exactly as they are and take the "impossibility"-claim from there. Of course there's nothing to compare so you can't really make any claims about possibility there, but just the sheer idea that matter behaves exactly like it does and not a slight bit different is staggering in and of itself.Furthermore I don't see any possibility to ever arrive at a final explanation as to why matter would behave the way it does. But that still doesn't mean that claims of deities hold any truth. Because if an explanation is impossible and thus unknowable then any knowledge-claims about a (final) explanation is also unknowable (and that obviously includes any claims of deities).Btw this is not the same as to say things can't be known or empirical facts can't be known or that reason doesn't hold or anything like that (as reason and empirics is used to make the claim in the first place anyway )

If you assume we live in a representative government, then we already know that people do care (else the govt wouldn't provide theses services anyway), so we know we wouldn't need any government to do it in the first place.Also: How can doing nothing be considered an act of aggression?The problem with that kind of thinking is also, where does it end? Do you have to help the guy you see living on the street everyday? If so, does that also include the guy who lives on the street in the village next to yours? Or the people 10km away? or 30km away? And what would be the consequences for you if you didn't want to help? would it be ok for the guy in need to take your money by force? and if so how much could he take before his need no longer justifies that force?btw the two man in a room test is quite out of place here, as it assumes there are somehow only these two people around and one guy is completely dependant on exactly one other guy. But if that were literally the case, I think the world those two guys are living in had a lot more and different problems than solving the welfare of one of them.

in short, no it's not unscientific, because the burden of proof lies on th one making the claim that God exists, BUT: Would you be willing to make this a little more practical? Can you give me your definition of the term "God" and we'll see where we go from there? Cause I think this isn't really about science more than about metaphysics and epistemology and/or failing to see some basic contradictions when working with the idea of a "God" (I can also recommend stefs videos/podcast on these topics (you'll fuind them in the "introduction to philosophy"-series. I think you could get much out of it regardless of whether you currently think it scientific/rational to assume a deity's existence or not)

Another thing you can say first is something like "I'm not really sure, what that has to do with the question I just asked" and see how the other person reacts to that. Worst case they insult your intelligence, best case they explain how they think the two hang together (maybe in a way that wasn't obvious to you in a way that you mistook their argument for a red herring). Either way I'd rather try pointing that out first before I'd bow out of an argument.Also, you use the word "honor" a lot here and I'm not sure what you really mean by that. "Honor" is one of those words that has a lot of different meanings to different people/cultures, so I'm not sure why you use such an ambiguous term as a way of describing behaviour (and as part of a reason to opt out of a debate). Could you maybe tell me a bit more about why you used it here and what that means to you?

I'm not sure I would subscribe to that idea. Mostly because even in societies where there has been a shortage of food at some times, this hasn't really led to resorting back to childsacrifice and the sort after the amount of food needed has been restored. Btw is there any data that portrais such a behaviour as you describe it (the canibalization of siblings and ones own children)? Cause I would assume, once people are that desperate no one will be survive to leave that legacy behind for others. I don't know much about the Caral, but wouldn't it be more likely that they've just been invaded by these "less friendly" cultures and dragged away as slaves or so? Also in a side note, the linked sites really aren't portraying the most established ideas (to put it mildly) and its author doesn't seem to have a good understanding in economics, so I would take these ideas with a few grains of salt if I were you. (There's also another thread ("The Utopian Paradox" in which this has been discussed to some degree if you want to see where that has lead)).

Sorry to hear how it went.But this is really fucked up insidious manipulative bullshit that guy was using (plus then blaming you for being the "irrational" one on top of it all)...Where would you want to go from here in regards to that person?

"free market" is just another way of saying, people shouldn't use violence against other people (NAP) or their stuff (acceptance of property). Which of those two principles do you have issues with? And why? If you don't mind me asking I disagree with your definition of free market. Non violence is nonviolence. Free market is free market. I cannot see them as inclusive. Then please give your definition or the term. Everyone here (or at least every AnCap/voluntarist) understand the free market as NAP & Property rights (correct me if I'm wrong, guys). So if you chose to use the term completely differently then at least provide a definition and make explicit what you're talking about on on what principles it is based. Else it's just purpesfully misleading and a straw man from the beginning, which doesn't really allow for a productive debate to take place.

"free market" is just another way of saying, people shouldn't use violence against other people (NAP) or their stuff (acceptance of property). Which of those two principles do you have issues with? And why? If you don't mind me asking