neeeel

You cant even be sure of your own. Youve never seen a mind, or experienced a mind. The only thing you have experienced are thoughts, and one of those thoughts says that thoughts come from a mind.

I suppose we could suppose that, but why would we, or should we? what does it even mean "constituent parts of one mind?

I dont have much experience with 2 yos, more 5s and up, but it sounds like you are going along the right lines. Yes, in effect, it doesnt really matter whether you reach the pool or not.its good to keep that in mind. Also, you can keep saying, "we are going to the pool, do you still want to go"? Does he know you are going to the pool when you leave the house? Does he like going to the pool? Im sure even a 2yo can understand that if he wants to go to the pool, and the pool is thataway, then he needs to go thataway. what is there off to the left that he wants to go see/do? Do you go somewhere else that he likes, where you need to go left instead of right? Anyway, I think you are handling it well, you are keeping him safe, explaining what you are doing and why, and not getting angry with him. When he protests, what does he say, if anything? you say you are worried about him being "too uncooperative"., who has planted the idea in your head that hes uncooperative?

It also happens here(as in, FDR), but probably to a lesser extent

I dont see the difference between internal and external rewards. but if you are saying that people only do good to get rewards ( internal or external ) then I would agree with that.

But you agreed that everyone acts good only because of rewards? And now you are saying they can act out of "sheer compassion". It seems like a contradiction to me

not my style of music, but nice glossy sound. How did you get to work with joel kazmi?

You were making the point that sociopaths only do good when the result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile. I was pointing out that you ( and I ) do the same, and now you are agreeing with me, that everyone acts good only because of rewards. I am a bit confused, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying about sociopaths.

internal rewards are still rewards

Obviously I cant exactly answer this question, as its hypothetical. Could be things like approval of others, warm feelings of "doing good" or "being good" having your discomfort over an injured animal assuaged,

I am fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just cos they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards

What definition of cheating are you using? I dont get this.

Have you tried limiting fluid intake for a few hours before sleep? It sounds like this is a psychological problem, not a physical problem, are you in, or planning to have, therapy?

going from a negative to a neutral is a net gain

No. Your definition of compromise was "A compromise is when both parties give up something to end a dispute. So by definition a lose lose." I am pointing out that this definition also fits trade ( I suppose you could quibble about whether trade is a dispute, and so it doesnt apply, but in general in a trade both parties are giving up something. ) Also, if compromise really was lose lose, then no one would do it.

yes, they give up something, to gain something more important ( to them). So, win win.They value what they gain, more than they value what they are giving up, the definition of free trade. both parties "give up" something in a trade. Are you saying trade is lose lose?

I think this is horribly incorrect. It could be that I misunderstood your use of the word "compromise" though

right, but Graham said "can" not "should".

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems perfectly possible that 2 people can simultaneously murder each other

Im not sure thats what UPB says. 2 people in a room CAN simultaneously steal from each other.

I got INTP-T

right, its not that you are being dishonest, or illogical, its that I am "clinging desperately to my view" absolutely disgusting

nothing to do with hyper rationality. Its to do with you being dishonest and illogical

No its pointing to how we can never know whether an outcome is good or bad. And that is how you are interpreting it as well. Except when you need to use it to prop up your other narrative.

OMFG!! you cannot be serious? I AM NOT COMMENTING ON THE STORIES!!!! I AM COMMENTING ON YOUR USE OF THE STORIES story 1 says changes/outcomes can never be fathomed story 2 says changes can be fathomed. because YOU are equating eating the fruit with a bad outcome ( philosophical death or philosophical dead end). story 1 says "We cannot know whether eating the fruit has a good or bad outcome" story 2 says "We DO know whether eating the fruit has a good or bad outcome, eating the fruit ends in a bad outcome ( according to YOU, not me)" again, this is not about what I believe, whether I agree with the stories or not, how I interpret the stories, or anything like that its about how YOU are interpreting the stories, and the logical contradiction that ensues.