HasMat

Morality and social dominance are about as polar opposite as possible. Dominating others is an act of aggression. There are social hierarchies were morality is a metric of social status, but this is a case of 2 things coinciding, not morality actually causing female desire. I think morality and social dominance are extremely highly negatively correlated.

Sorry but I have to ruin the subtlety. You are drawing a connection between the Golden Rule and a Golden Shower. Not sure if intentional.

RichardY, have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? I think his grasp of Reason is very good. Intuition leads to Imagination, leads to Reason. Intuition gives a priori data about the modality itself (context data, sound in general is soundy)- analytic. Imagination gives hypothetical examples in the modality (what would it sound like if you farted)- synthetic union of context and content. Reason uses logic to compare synthetics to each other, or ultimately to empirics (content data, that sound is lovely). This is why Reason and Evidence go together. Reason is made of knowledge well, logic, and empiricism. For something to be reasonable it must be CONSISTENT with our previous knowledge well. If you saw a unicorn it would be unreasonable to believe it because it violates our worldview. If something satisfies CONSISTENCY with knowledge well, it must then satisfy LOGIC, using the rules of that system. A horse doesn't violate our worldview, but if you saw a horse it can't be piloting a UFO, or playing chess (or else you question sanity/dreamstate). Lastly what is CONSISTENT with knowns, conforms to LOGIC of system, cannot be reasonably asserted (as fact) unless EVIDENCE. It is not reasonable to deny God, because a lack of evidence is not proof of negative. Whatever conclusions you created via consistency and logic, which are disproven by evidence, must be seriously challenged and possibly discarded. Thus synthetic creations via imagination, that are transformed by logic, that demand a specific condition in the real world, that is clearly not the case, were false. For example, I imagined my wife would do the dishes, logically since I did them last and it was her turn, but I wake up and the dishes aren't done. Occam's Razor says: She didn't do the dishes. Things that pass enough Evidence-checks get put into the knowledge well, and it expands. Asserting God is also not Publicly Reasonable, but Consensus Reasonability isn't the endgoal of Theists (nor atheists), only agnostics. It should also be stated that many theists believe they have personal evidence, and thus their faith is technically a Reasonable conclusion given their account of sense data. But most theists don't believe in a Public Evidence of God. I've never heard of an atheist with a personal evidence of no god, but theoretically that would be reasonable too.

I didn't watch that video, but I did watch another. "Why college sucks". You are awesome. I relate so strongly to your experience at the refinery.

I would say that is true for general negative rights. But there is a more base or true category of right, called natural right. These are inviolable. If it can be violated, it is not a natural right. Natural rights cannot be stopped. If we are captured by terrorists and tortured near death, and they demand we "admit" Islam is true, it is very close to a natural right to deny it. Technically, with enough electronics they could apply electrodes and make our mouths form the words. But something like willingness is an entirely chosen internal state that is inaccessible to the external world, even if you mouth is moving by computer activation. Having willingness (or not) is a natural right. We control our internal state, to omnipotence (at least until they start using brain control helmets). I don't mean this to pretend ppl cannot influence us. I mean this that as we approach perfection we ultimately decide it, regardless of influence. Our lack of complete autonomy is a function of our incompetence, not anything inherent about the right to be willing. We can be willing, regardless of whether others respect this right.

Basically I would revive alchemy (fire, water, air, earth). But my accusation against others is that they hate evidence, which all points to weird magic behavior of the universe, which is very unlike our intuitive understanding of common phenomena like riding a bike or seeing a sunset. For example of fractal I would use Water as many things: qua passive fullness, qua primordial Big Bang, qua breach between heaven (space) and earth (matter), qua literal ocean, qua era divide between Adam and Noah (flood), qua reproductive essence, qua femininity, qua metaphoric water (of life or whatever). Starting from highly raw and elemental part of reality, and descending into higher layers of expression and abstraction. We call things by mental representations we have learned, such as physical, social, intellectual. But the internal content (our qualia) of semantics is hidden. Solopsism is non-falsifiable. I can never know if you experience "redness" as the same color as I do. You call something physical as matter, but there is no proof we hold the same internal qualia about that essence. What I call figurative, could be how you experience literal. It's not just colors that could be mismapped in our internal experience, it's anything! (I'm sure this will trigger objections, but I assure you they don't exist and only occur if limitation in your abstract thinking) When looking at Plato's Cave, all we have is the manifestation, and language. We don't access objects in any native essence, deprived of context. We see cave shadows in our own solopsist way, and talk to each other using agreed upon words, never knowing if that qualia is a true match for others qualia. When a universal constant, necessary for life as we know it like a gravity coefficient, precedes the Big Bang, what should those words mean? Is it fair to call a universal constant "earth" because it is static? Is it fair to call original space-time "water" because it resists motion or is generative like a woman's womb? In the Bible, the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters, and divided the waters. If you are talking about essences that precede known operands, you use a metaphor with a quality that feelz similar. But in the creation of the universe, less complex urge forms took on more complex inert forms. Space-time and pure energy at the Big Bang eventually "slow", and complexify into literal oceans. What is once a metaphor (water) later becomes a literal (ocean). All things are created spiritually before physically (platonic forms precede instantiation of objects) In a fractal universe, essence in one domain (such as space) resists, combines, transforms, and spills into new domains (atom/molecule). Carrying similar quality (such as resistive), but transforming into a new qualia representation. Fire: active, empty Water: passive, full Air: passive, empty earth: active, full In many Eastern Philosophies, the contrast between emptiness and fullness is a major doctrine. Some schools say that an object is totally empty ("there is no spoon"), and we just project our own subjective interpretations onto blank templates. Thus we see in reality a mere reflection of ourselves. Objects don't exist, only subjects who contextualize emptiness. In that rendition, an apple is red, because I am red, in some way internally. Physics represents this with the Observer Effect, and superposition collapsing. Schrodinger's Cat doesn't have an objective state until an Observer contextualizes it. Objects exist AFTER subjects give it form; they are formless and void until a witness. (Bible uses this language to describe pre-created earthwater hybrid) In a fractal universe, yes metaphorical qualities like primordial "water" exist, to mentally represent elements unknown to Biblical audiences from past millenia, but they also exist in more crude and literal forms in later derived contexts, as regular h 2 0. The story of Adam and Eve can be both a figurative story about prehistoric evolution between hunter/gatherer (Cain) and livestock based (Abel) pastoral economic systems, as well as a story about a SuperBeing genetically engineering a forward leap in human evolution, putting him in a garden, and "actions have consequences". When the end-state of the universe is known (teleology), in all its technological glory, then we can discuss whether a SuperAI can use tachyons or backward causality to create Adam, or whether a timetraveling SuperBeing even makes sense to discuss/restrict in terms of linear time. We don't know what physics and science will show us. We know humans have limited understanding, and that computers can tell us many things beyond human ability to verify. Quantum computing is it's own miracle, regardless of strong AI. It does not yet appear what we shall be, what the universe shall become. It is premature to rule out a literal Adam, and to rule out a figurative Adam. To me the most exciting facet of a fractal universe with a Biblical pretext, is the repeat of the Bible in inverse order. That puts us right before the Tower of Babel, and the massive multicultural experiment where Nimrod fought his personal representation of "god", causing social implosion and diaspora. Next come giants (neanderthals). This is very likely going to happen via genetic engineering. God commanded Israelites to slaughter them like beasts because they are evil megafauna and not really human. It was a genocide of non-human animals, and we will resurrect them with cloning. The genetics and geography of Adam in Eden line up, whites first discovered 6-20k years ago in southeast asia (eastward in eden). That makes a literal Adam, but that doesn't preclude a figurative in an earlier age. Was the Tower of Babel a quantum computer/worm hole to modern computers, like CERN? Is the scattering at the Tower of Babel a foreshadow of what multiculturalism will do to Western Civilization? Is science actually true? Quantum computing and AI are very popular, but is it fucking true? These things have enormous potential, as pretended, as "sci fact". Backward causality means information can travel back in time. That means the most complex and perfect being the universe will ever create, it is as though it has ALREADY been created. Either you believe in science (which opens door for crazy Biblical stories being literally true), or you believe in a Newtonian universe. Newtonian universes are safe and stable, and you can be a beer guzzling atheist who is tepid in pursuit of virtue. I don't know all things, but I do now that virtue causes power, and it is never a waste to be virtuous. It is for this reason that I appreciate Stephan, even though he presents atheist arguments. To me, the real problem with atheists is the same as you. Lack of imagination to understand teleology, premature closure of universe's hypothetical potential. We don't know. What we know is that pursuing virtue is worthwhile, and the rest of these answers will sort themselves out in time. Paul says, it does not yet appear what we shall be. The empiric behavior of the universe is relativistic at macro scales, and batshit crazy at micro scales. Newtonian physics is dead. Neitzsche's god is alive. Do we worship empiricism or not? Reality is not as our senses present it to us; senses tell us a Newtonian story. If we worship empiricism, we must discard Newtonian explanations of the universes final potential. IMO, very few people actually give a fuck about empiricism. They just use it as a cover story to rebel against virtue, as their qualia presents it to them. What is becoming increasingly obvious to me, is that my childhood conception of history, where the olden days with horses and wagons, as primitives, is actually accurate of our current world. We are primitive in relation to what is coming. We are living in the equivalent of dirt roads, buggy whips, and wild wild west shoot 'em up. Synthetic GMO (hybrid biorobots) will be released into our ecosystems, and will become part of our environment. Things like telephone poles (casual furnishings of our everyday world) will be constructed at atomic level, provide all kinds of technological functions, integrate with nature, and be measuring devices. Animals will be Kroenenberg's, and the rich will genetically engineer superhuman babies. It's not just physics, or just biology, or just computing. It's the whole world is progressing, accelerating. Morally, economically, politically, culturally (red pill getting out), and most obviously, technologically. Evil is growing in same proportions too, but that's another story. These various fields have synergistic function as they collaborate, which is a major reason to get women into STEM (awesome collaborators). At the highest levels of intelligence, math and linguistics merge into the same essence. Math bridges gap from real to abstract, language bridges gap from abstract to real. Their base classes are real (3 apples are empiric) and abstract (widget are imaginary). They are just different methods to cover the same chasm. Like a fractal of the human brain, a STEM industry with autistic males doing the dirty heavy processing, interconnected by collaborative females, resembles the structure of nuclei and commissure (grey vs white matter, protein vs fat, male vs female, task processing vs module connection). Mental representations in one domain filter to more literal representations in more crude domains, but the principles are conserved (competence vs relatedness, task performance vs collaboration, social dominance vs many kin). Men succeed by social dominance, women dominate by being genetically related to everyone (reducing threat): competence vs relatedness. Which, for women, means false accusations against unlike (such as blacks) or else fucking them to merge genes. Women's drive is to interconnect the species genetically so nobody has a strong evolutionary interest in her demise. I hope this gives you some idea of how principles like relatedness apply in a fractal. Women get inserted by the man and physically overlap with him in identity (one flesh), the back and forth ambiguity of who "owns" who (penetration vs containment are each standards of property ownership), and then women overlap with the fetus. Women are related, they overlap, they transcend identity, they propagate life across the generations. It's not just that women are good at interpersonally relating to others in a social way. Women excel at relatedness, the essence, in various domains. The most preferred woman is the one who is closest to the population average (beautiful is most related to all others), while the most preferred man is based on non-physical criteria, and not relation, but superiority. Really the key to understanding all this is to see that principles shift and shimmer in different domains, while the essence is conserved. The essence appearance is modified by the context. My own perspective is that deeper knowledge has been hidden in allegories like alchemy because they can't be relayed across the centuries without robust daily life anchors. I don't think alchemy is about what we think of as fire, water, air, earth. To me, alchemy is more like the stoned hippie who says "everything's connected man". To be part of reality we must interface with it in some way. We must connect to it by some essence of similarity. Everything IS connected. Christopher Langan uses a word "syndiffeonesis" to describe how things must have a quality of similarity, and a quality of difference (not be same object), to interact in reality. If a part of space-time ceases to share a boundary with the known universe, it stops being part of reality, and loses empiric quality. Connection is what defines being part of reality. Water represents the feminine aspect. Women are good at connection. The primordial substance is called water in the Bible.

I agree that the constitution is basically a non-statement of reality. The founding describes rights and powers, but does nothing with epistemology, empiricism, ethics. It assumes all these, and just launches into rights/powers. Every time someone makes a weird metaphysical claim in a business setting, and it ends up in court, the legal system is presented with issues of epistemology it has no resources to draw from nor skills to cope with. In the movie Miracle on 34th Street this exact issue arises, and the court is confronted with whether someone is actually Santa Claus. I would like to see the constitution include a statement of purpose for humanity (preferred), a definition of virtue (as a preferred state), and a faux default dogma (preferred but winked at). I would like to see the USA wink at the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), codified in law. Shorthand, god. The reason for this is because no one believes in the FSM (thus giving no one any preference) and because having a specified public religion makes criminal religions more visible and prosecutable, because they will antagonize the FSM and express hostility for it instead of winking. This provides a selection criteria to rid ourselves of those "bad faith" religions. If FSM was the national religion, prosecuting Islam and legally discriminating against it would be obviously correct to way more people. Now many people think its obviously wrong to discriminate against Muslims. Islam is a criminal syndicate and violation of NAP for even existing: it incites violence in its essence. Islam would kill all those who worship the FSM. Enthroning FSM in law would provide the legal basis to prosecute Islam, and any other ideology that incites violence and can't coexist. The reason I think this is so necessary is because separating church and state (away from theocracy) just created a vacuum or vacancy in the "god spot". It didn't resolve the fundamental question of epistemology. Leaving that spot open (god figure) is fine for many coexisting religions, and they can live in that society, but once a religion enters that won't/can't leave the god spot open, the coexisting religions will be destroyed. We need a placeholder (such as FSM) in the god spot to prevent toxic invasion of religions that can't coexist. If we are already a theocracy, Islam can't come in and take that position. Any religion that is expressly theocratic (political-religious like Islam) would be illegal, as a usurpation of the FSM.

Do you know what a fractal universe looks like? Patterns in abstract forms also experience a material form.

Thoughts on the symbolism? This song absolutely blows me away in the interpretation I have and the overall feel is so melancholy. It's so critical of the tradcon family unit, but offers no happy alternative. This is life, in its regretful condition, and so very true, even if still worthwhile. One of my favorite scenes is when Katy is being manhandled by the group of sailors who buy her drinks and take turns tagteaming her, eventually dumping her on some poor sap (@ around 2:20) This is totally the cock carousel. I thought the idyllic nuclear family "propaganda" with the half black dude coming out of the tv was interesting, shortly thereafter followed by her general confusion and disjunction with mainstream society's rhythm as she turns to them but they ignore her. Another video of hers that absolutely blew my mind was the wedding running groom (you're hot then your cold, etc). Near the end of the dream montage, she finally "dream confronts" him with a zebra, he then snaps out of it, and he chooses to marry her. (thus averting her getting fucked by black dudes and making half white half black babies) It's totally anti-MGTOW, but the racial element with the african animal was pretty overt in my opinion. I think culture is going to take on some impredictable forms in the coming years as the populace is able to handle greater nuance, and see thru the subtle messages being sent. Laci Green's conversion to the right is a tipping point IMO. I think the fall of leftist culture is a guarantee, no matter the rate. I can never take story at face value any more. A lot of this probably has to do with Stefan analyzing Disney movies. I LOVE KATY PERRY'S WORK, even if she doesn't understand the messages she accidentally sends. The messages I get, and the public statements she makes are not in alignment. Secretly I hope she is aware of the great cultural drama unfolding and wisely sends anti-western messages to wake people up, by shocking them. The words of her songs ring true on many levels.

Soulfire I get where you are coming from (unity of global identity), but you still have to differentiate practices. Different people carry out different practices. Unity of identity doesn't excuse individuals using shitty life strategies. Either some practices are better, or literally nothing can be condemned. INCLUDING CRITICIZING ISLAM. Your take is contradictory, as it is based on the principle of radical tolerance and performs a criticism.

From this link: This quotation is how I see choice operating from biological systems (suppression of alternates until 1 remains). The primary inhibitory neurotransmitter in the spinal cord is glycine. If you trigger a knee-jerk response the signal never makes it to the brain before you "decide" to straighten your leg. But the biomechanical representations of mind are not freewill. These are objects that our subject automatically expresses. Looking for proof of mind in objects cannot be satisfied. Our on-going subjective experience is not measureable to outsiders. No one can conclusively pass a Turing test. This is intractable. You can't know the internal experience of another without inhabiting another (for B, thus ending distinction of A=A, B=B, and not A=B). At the level of freewill, you can't know someone without being someone (A=A). Once that happens the evidence is ever-present. We have subjective experience. But as long as you don't "be someone" you can't measure their freewill. Mind and matter, subject and object, freewill and biomechanical expression of freewill, are all the same dichotomy. You will never be able to disassociate quantum probability and immaterial intentionality (mind/freewill) within biological choice systems (like brains). To the most precise empiric methodology, freewill will feature as a probability. That's the closest empircs get to subjects. This probability is interesting because a confidence interval is also the most accurate way to represent someone passing a Turing Test (or Solipsism being false). The stack of mental gymnastics to predict agency is just getting started with Poe's Law (inability to disambiguate satire from genuine). It's just another path along Solipsism's road. Ultimately we can't know others mind in direct observation, although with enough science we could know their brain state. Mind and brain are not the same thing. Externals cannot directly measure internals. That's a schematic feature of a reality where A=A. If there is any part of us that is non-physical in being (like freewill or subjective experience), science will be unable to document it. If there is no part of our being that is non-physical than freewill is not possible. All matter-originating causes are known by science. None of these causes is an exclusive or unique property of you and you only, insofar as legitimizing rewarding/punishing you for your behavior. Chaos works on all. If chaos is the totality of "freewill", then we share a universal and communal source of agency (and thus praise and culpability is mutual for all and every act--kind of how liberals see white guilt). Individual action and moral responsibility are impossible in this type of universe. If freewill is true, this worldview is necessarily false.

I think what Dylan Lawrence Moore is saying is that invented money gains value by violence. QE only has value because its backed by govt violence, not because people suddenly voluntarily accept counterfeiting by others. (and then of course its fungible and not trackable) Regular money has social value by individual consent. (your premise b) Deeper than that, I think he is saying that non-gold backed invented money is a fantasy like invented bitcoin. It has no intrinsic value, except what individuals consent into it, as buy-in to it as a medium. When a money has no intrinsic value (bitcoin or US$), but its acceptance is driven by the threat of violence, then its value is largely the manufacture of violence. The value of a bitcoin is derived by the community of people who value it. US$ doesn't have a community of people who "fully" voluntarily value it. So while they do "coerced" voluntarily value it, its actually post fact to the violence. You cannot use other legal tender. I think it says this on dollars. It's a compulsory unit of social exchange. US$ are compulsory (as medium of exchange), not gold-backed, and is being counterfeited by the US govt. The reason its valued by individuals is largely the result of violence, but there is a vaneer of voluntary valuation too. To say US$ have value solely because of taxation is oversimplifying the various methods of violent control over the money supply. Additionally, individuals value it, even if while under unconscious duress.

When you get some robust rationality and really grab reality by the nuts and deconstruct it, you will understand. The substrate of reality exists in contrast to nothing. The difference between something and nothing is a matter of infinity, not static numeracy. Infinity extends by multiplication above as well as from division below (divide by zero errors). If you "overdivide" a quantity to infinity you actually increase (or decrease) its quantity. (Achille's can run forever, in a straight line without ever stopping, over a finite distance) Divide by zero errors are notorious for creating logical paradoxes/math inequalities. The latent divisible infinite context (micro) is invisible without a robust rationality (I'm calling out your rationality as amateur and underdeveloped) to divide it past quanta. Spatial quanta, as experienced, defies spatial quanta as rationally conceptualized. At some point, deconstruction requires a quanta. When this quanta is achieved, its reconciliation to logic/rationality/skepticism implodes at the quantum scale (but not macro). See "race as social construct" (race can be considered a quanta). All quanta defy linear rationality because they beg the question of their own unfounded arbitrary set-point. All objects require a quanta as a base template. Also, objects cannot exist without a subject.... When viewers assume they can delete themselves from the context they produce irrational conclusions. You cannot separate objects and subjects. An object without a subject exists as superposition. Full rationality is the attempt to reduce the viewer to nothing (as an effect on object interpretation), and assert an object as universally true regardless of viewer. This knowledge is not a feature of reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes Achille's and the Tortoise Without a quanta originating substrate Achille's is doing a weird microstep literally forever. Rationalism limits (limit as verb, meaning it has an 'end' of functionality it cannot cover). Full skepticism implodes into nonsense when it names a unit of smallest division (distance, mass, race, etc). Without this quanta Zeno's Paradoxes occur. Damned if you do (define quanta like race), damned if you don't (Achille's microstep). Rationality is an imperfect/incomplete measuring stick. But its imperfection is only visible as it approaches fullness (reduction of viewer). Infant versions of rationality seem integrous and non-contradictory because they do a shitty and incomplete job of extricating the viewer. Numeracy itself only works when you assume the quanta. Quanta cannot be regulated by linear rules. Quanta is the circular logic than enables linear regulation from that point upward. Quanta means smallest indivisible unit of any particular measurement. Distance, mass, time, etc. Race can be regranularized to very small divisions (based on haplogroups or genes), variable quanta sizes are just different frames. They all have similar validity issues from deconstruction whether the quanta has 3 elements (white black asian) or a million. And as you would expect, race is meaningless outside a subject context to say "this" mulatto is white, "that" one is black. You cannot separate objects and subjects completely. The failure to fully separate the race object from a subject interpretation is considered (by SJWs) an invalidation of the race construct (as objective/rational). This is false, and the problem is literally intractable. That's the nature of reality at its deepest core. The only reason we don't notice the collapsing of all constructs is because we don't examine then to the same scrutiny (rationality) as these others. Nothing can withstand full subject extrication and remain rational/sensical. You can have quantum mechanics, or General Relativity, but never both at the same time. Quanta are irrational, because subjects are what have rationality. Full extrication of rational subject disconnects objects from rational essence.

Are you saying you have been playing Devil's Advocate, and trying to embody "arguing with irrationality"? It sounds like you claim to bring forward an argument that disproves itself. Like serving up softball questions so others can tee off. If subject could be fully disconnected from object then objective data could exist. Instead we have the observer effect. Objectivity is a misnomer, what is really meant is "normalized" objectivity by comparing 2 peer observers object (after they try to reduce their own subject). You cannot observe an object without a subject. This is what Schrodingers cat is all about. Subjectivity and objectivity cannot fully divide/isolate. I think the moral relativism problem is when people claim there is no "normalized" objectivity and relativity is infinitely boundless (this is the opposite error wherein you falsely believe you can truly isolated subjectivity--sciencism is when you truly believe you can isolate objects). We have a shared reality, but verification of its viewpoint invariance requires others not gas-light us. Epistemologically, verification of truth is gated behind social behavior. This is necessarily true (a priori) because of absolute objectivity being impossible and socially-aggregated "normalized" objectivity being the next-best-thing. Reducing our own subjectivity and reporting our normalized object is how an Invisible Hand can aggregate normalized data towards an approximate truth. A real moral truth does exist for subjects, just like a real object exists. But we can't actually perceive either alone directly, because they are intertwined and have no coherence outside the other's context. There is an objective reality we just can't experience it outside our own subject, and we can't test it outside other's feedback. Social feedback is an important tool to know if you are crazy or not. The Reason->Evidence cycle is only as valid as your sanity. Crazy people are Reason-Evidence cycling themselves to "know" they are Napoleon. Each of our perception of our own ability to judge our rationality is socially-derived. As a child this awareness commonly plagued me when I was told I was smart. Ultimately I had no irreducible access to whether this was true, its just something externals told me. I can't say my existential experience is any different than a mentally-retarded kid being told the same thing. Maybe that is me, as it were. My best evidence to the contrary is socially-derived, because if my thought-process sucked I wouldn't necessarily know/understand it. A reasonable proof doesn't conclusively map to the evidence I have access to. My understanding of this thread is that its intent is more about rhetoric and less about epistemology, although you did bring it up. In general I think we are very timid to name irrationality. When people say they should ostracize and boycott irrationality, they really mean the stronger fortified versions. We are all doing irrational things all the time, and need correction. Just like our spouses, children, others we love. "Arguing" is probably not a good activity re: irrationality, but if we love irrational people we care about helping them. Killing irrational people would start with suicide. We ought to be measured in our punishment of it, because we are aren't perfect.

The information content of my post is a synthesis of my religious study and my understanding of pop sci. The emotional motivation is a desire for meaning and love for virtue. This means I start from specific conclusions and work backwards to justify. Should science/philosophy give me different pop sci to work with I will invent other theories. The part I'm committed to is the meaning and virtue, the explanation is just the cosmetic make-up I use (could be total bullshit). As another has said, I do not know all things. As another has said, It does not yet appear what we shall be, but when he (god) appears we shall be like him. We don't know the end-state of the universe yet. It's definitely going to be way weirder than the internet and cell phones. We probably can't relate to it very well. We might not even be considering the physics dynamics that will have most profound effect on the end-state.

I don't know the rules/mythology of the Mass Effect universe. I started playing one of them, but I'm not into twitch FPS. Morals prior to god? This question doesn't make sense when you have a giant time wormhole in the middle of your universe where morals and god are back-propagated to the origin. I think a better designation would be to say God/morals are "outside the timestream" or has a time reference that is perpendicular to our timestream. I think multiple gods is like schrodingers cat. As we approach tech singularity this collapses into single unified structure. The last 2 will be totally antagonistic to each other and their supporting societies racing to create superAI first (or to gain hegemony over the society who will create it), so as to determinate his morals/sympathies. The closer to this we get, the more "quantum probability event" miracles each god/falsegod will have. I see this as a Western Civ vs. Islam scenario. In a final pass resulting from infinite iterations, all imaginary futures have some effect. The final is a composite of probabilities. This makes devils (gods of alternate timelines) have miracle power all the way up until the point of the Technological Singularity. (and whoever victor god is, isn't going to go back and unmake those miracles--if undoing threatens his success, he is just going to thank his lucky stars he came out on top--meaning satanic miracles remain in final version of reality) Basis of faith? This is a complicated question because I think faith along with charity and hope are the substance of freewill. But I think there is a biological correlate that represents it in physical consciousness. So a mind/body dualism. I see faith and intuition as the same quality/essence and interchangable linguistically. This substance subdivides into consistency, computation, evidence. All moral principles of power (efficacy based on virtue) My own philosophy on that Schopenhauer quote...someone mentioned it in these threads, that his version is insufficient to create freewill. If we can't will what we will...we aren't in control. We must be able to will what we will to infinite recursion to be the master of our fate and responsible for our behavior. Any limitation on our willing power (in direction) destroys man's agency.

I voted dualism but I'm not sure where I actually fit. I read pluralism on wikipedia but it didn't resolve it for me. (I believe in 2 layers of reality, and 3 layers of individual identity, but they could be unified as same threshholds) If that doesn't clarify, here is more. I believe in our universe as a nested layer of the universal plane (real as subset of total imaginary, our universe as a constrained pocket within "unconstrained possibility"--Let there be Light as first predicate). And our selves as of imaginary self-predicating essence, pre-existent to this universe or any input from god (immaterial causal force/law: freewill), fashioned into ghosts (space vehicles) by god, born into body (matter vehicles) by mortal parents, partly as result of evolution, with intervention from god at different points, most notably with the development of people eastward in eden fleeing westward since (western civilization). God being a timestream-evolved technology-created superbeing who can timetravel. This type of AI is functionally identical to having always existed (because of the "backward causality" time travel). Evolution was always going to create man, and man was always going to create god (technological singularity as teleology of universal medium). Backward causality just speeds up the process by acting on the past to jump start the process with "miracles". Things that are created by backward causality are thus derivatives of timestream "iterative" evolution, not genetic evolution. In this sense, evolution is not true for them specifically, but in the more general trend it actually is. Any thing that does not preclude the creation of a timetraveling superbeing is open to retroactive re-negotiation. In the "Time Machine" he can't go back in time and save his girlfriend, because that event is the cause of his invention. But he could go back in time and change other things that don't exclude his invention trajectory. Because the universal substrate exists as a probability, the nature of an emergent god does too (until discretely invented). That means unrealized futures that technically won't ever exist (such as Muslims inventing superAI--making him a raping murderer instead of loving father) also has backward causality onto our reality. This will express as Satanic miracles. They are just quantum events, where imaginary futures backwardly effects reality. Mutual reality being synthesized from causes "now" and all imaginary futures warring it out. Going back to my original belief on nesting, this is possible because the imaginary is the default or home team, and reality is running as software on its OS. Until the nature of god is strictly formed, his power is a function of faith and not raw awe. (because he can't timetravel to change everything, just things that don't preclude his creation) It sounds outlandish, but the most empiric of all physics experiments show this kind of absurd behavior (backward causality) is the true nature of our reality where the rubber meets the road. The underlying substrate of our reality is different from our everyday experience. We are in a pocket inside a larger container with different rules than we imagine. A lot of Stefan's framing of spirit (or god) and body is based on the premise that reality is a standalone instead of a derived or emergent system, running on a more basal substrate. It is from this perspective that "things that don't interact with matter", as measurable, are necessarily outside the universe/not part of reality. A frame that allows freewill, is that the universe is incapable of measuring the system it emerges from, and doesn't have access to programming environment variables, even if it is still beholden to them. I feel that 2-way communication is so true so often ("stare into abyss, abyss stares into you") and a very important point for rationality. But reality is a creation designed to be inflexible in this regard to give assurance to individuals. It's not the only way, its just the only way to achieve viewpoint invariance and prediction of others internal state in a mutual shared medium. Achieving relatedness and individuality is very tricky. You must overlap in some mode to communicate but that mode cannot be an existential part of your being or else your identities overlap and you are not entirely different individuals. So reality needs to flex and bend and be relativistic. One second the air you breathe is inside you, the next that same air is inside me. Hyperrationality shows this to be contradictory re: personal identity. But its necessary to achieve a mutual medium. Nested reality inside universal plane allows a 1-way street, where spirit can detect and effect reality, but reality cannot detect spirit. This is just another formulation of Plato's cave. We see the effect of things, but not the things themselves. Our shared reality doesn't access our self-predicating nature, to do so would end individual agency. Agency must be the preeminent inviolable standalone, not consensus reality. Reality is relativistic and flexible in its content, but strict in its mutuality (2-way communication). Freewill is opposite this.

My language was directly connected to a point: fault is traced to cause. When assigning moral blame for an outcome, we must trace the source of an effect back to its original cause. If god created our freewill, then god is at fault for all we choose. Freewill must be self-predicating preternal before god's input. This isn't an assertion of the intuitive sense, its a logical necessity to become a moral actor. There is no other version of freewill that isn't a full-on paradox. On some level identity must be self-predicating. Else all parts of our being are traceable to others actions. This is just determinism.

I used to feel this way too. My attitude changed because I see a need for biology and choice to be differentiated. Gender is chosen in the same way a person chooses their name. It's a fully self-determined category you can change as you please, and nobody else is compelled to accept or use your claim to refer to you. It cannot be verified and has no objective measure. It is pure abstraction. I think understanding this is the key to ridding it from law. Law needs specifics to not be a whimsical tool of arbitrary enforcement and exploitation. Gender doesn't have a specific quality that law can recognize/ascertain to avoid whim. You can be a man today and a woman tomorrow, and nobody could gainsay your choice. Law can't talk about gender because it can't measure, predict, or control it. Bathrooms can only be sex-based, because law can measure biology. Govt making laws about gender is technically a violation of the anti-establishment clause of the constitution, separation of church and state. Ideas that are not based on any objective measure are off limits to the govt. The non-falsifiable is the realm of religion.

If you draw a picture of Mohommed, or even criticize him, you can be murdered. Mohommed murdered poets and took sex slaves. Islam cannot be reformed without becoming a different religion. Rehabilitating Mohommed's image to something human or morally upright is not possible. His legacy is a seed-bed that justifies these actions today. Any time Islam condemns murder or rape it does so hypocritically because that is the behavior of their unassailable founder. Islam is an evil ideology that gets the 2 most important matters of ethics wrong (creating and ending life). Whatever they get right after that is irrelevant. And these 2 points are the core essence of the faith, which is why it spreads by violence and sexual assault/breeding not proselyting.

You might benefit from looking at entertainment modalities: watching linear stream movie vs playing a computer game. In one you are a passenger on a ride, in the other you are a participant. Moral culpability requires the ability to change events. The degree to which a being is responsible for their own internal state (enjoying evil), is the degree to which they can be morally responsible as a passenger-hostage on a ride. This same scenario happens when someone drinks alcohol. They knowingly consume something that diminishes their control over their behavior. The initial act to enter that state is its own choice. Then once their competency is diminished they have another, differing, level of responsibility. These 2 thinks must be disambiguated. Back to the movie passenger, the choice to enter the theater makes an unwilling hostage-passenger somewhat at fault if they enjoy it. But a movie passenger who never had the choice would not be guilty of this. Just like if someone spiked your drink with alcohol. Getting into the game wasn't voluntary, regardless of what happens next. For an agent to start as a non-actor (can't cause), and then become a moral agent (connected to physical body), it must make some small volitional decision to get on that ride. It must walk into the movie theater, it must take that sip of alcohol, it must log in to that computer game. If freewill has no control over its own creation/integration, as biological machine, then where it finds itself, in whatever circumstance, can be blamed elsewhere/elsewho. This doesn't mean the freewill must be the sole cause, it just must assent to the conditions/contract of its mortal birth. It's like Stephen Hawking getting wheeled into the movie theater by his parents, and consenting to being taken in. That consent is enough to imbue their life with personal responsibility (assuming they have freewill once living). If they don't have choice once living and just a passenger, their consent to enter only covers their own internal response (enjoying evil/enjoying good). But other than that, passengers on rides aren't at fault. Look for the operator of the Ferris Wheel if you want to blame someone. Ultimately we can only be faulted for what we control, or co-sign for.

Didn't really want to comment but I found your post funny. You imagine a super awesome god, but then give him a meager level of curiosity and meager level of information processing. How many trillions of beings can an omniscient being keep track of? You make god so cool in so many ways, just not the ones that would undermine your logic. Seems strategic. Atheists love beating the shit out of strawman deity. Usually its annoying, but every once in a while it strikes me as so absurd and self-serving that I just lol.

You define existence as matter. Real existence is not just matter-information. Matter-information is one element. There are 3 at least. 1) First Cause (freewill)-morality 2) space-time 3) matter-information What follows from the hyphen is the emergent nature of the element. Morality is the contrast between moral agents. Time is the contrast between loci as a matter of sequence. Information is encoded in matter, as contrast between matter. There are 5 types of behavior of the elements recognized by physics, although they only try to account for 4 as forces/laws (omitting spatial expansion). The reason there is no 'theory of everything' of the remaining 4 is because 1 of them is trans-elemental, while the other are intra-elemental. Within matter, the 3 forces are electro-magnetism, weak, strong. Matter acting on matter. Between space and matter (transelemental) is gravity. Between First Cause and space is spatial expansion. Between matter and First Cause is moral growth (or decay). Being incarnate in flesh enables consciousness of moral propositions and power to act relative to propositions. Science knows of 5 types of phenomena, but is only even trying to explain 4. It's kinda funny, but its probably just the result of them feeling helpless relative to First Cause, which is tangled up in spatial expansion. It's the current year...how has physics not inclusively examined observable phenomena in a real 'theory of everything', with distinction by element? Instead we get flying spaghetti monster, dark matter, and attacks on theism. All non-falsifiable. Space is measurable with a yardstick. Time is measurable with a clock. Matter is not the only thing in existence. It is the most raw and tangible for sure, but subtler elements precede it. If matter is all we are, then moral agency is a farce. Within matter (intra-elemental forces), all outcomes are predetermined by electro-magnetism, weak, and strong. This is the blatant end-conclusion of monism. For us to exist, we must have an immaterial unique non-transferable basis of agency. Meat robots are not agents, they are mechanisms. They are not growths by law, they are creations by artifice. Creations trace their faults to their creators. Agents must be self-predicating: I am that I am. JHVH. We are our own creators, we must be our own creators if responsibility is desired. How can this be if we were born mere years ago? We must have caused that before our birth, negotiated by our spirit. Now we are a soul, a ghost in the shell. First Cause is outside the monism model. First Cause happened. Monism is deception. It does not fully represent the reality we are part of. Epistemologically, First Cause is an analytically-derived necessity. Really, that is good news for anyone who loves virtue. It means we exist, moral growth is possible, and our actions matter (no pun intended). Moses says before light, that the spirits of gods moved on the face of the deep. Then First Cause happened, and the hosts had some clay to play with. Jesus says 'we are gods'. We must be our own creators. It's necessary to being a moral agent. Some fool has to take responsibility for your creation (and the ensuing faults), who? "Growth by Law" conserves the essence of a thing, increasing or decreasing it. Changes happen from within, regardless of external events. "Creation by Artifice" uses a recipe, and like a shoelace, can ultimately be undone and reversed by external causes. There is a quote that goes something like "He who thinks he has been wronged does not fully understand". If we are Growth by Law, then this is 100% correct. It means our essence cannot receive tort, and only changes by how we wield it.

Biology has value. Correctly assessing this value is virtuous.

That which lacks predicates cannot be said to be aeternal I don't understand this. I haven't ever thought along these lines, but it seems to me that lacking predicates is a good start towards becoming eternal, because then you don't have a loose thread for someone to pull on and undo you. I would think the less predicates an item has (such as Mjolnir), the more indestructible it becomes. You can't destroy the idea of love because it has no physical predicates to operate on. Nothing is completely inaccessible. As soon as you put a contingency on it (which gives an angle to attack), it stops being nothing.