I understand, but please see my other comment under this post. I explained it there.

thanks for that :D

I always understand “free will” to mean “figure out who you really are”. I.e., every person has a certain character from birth, and that just unfolds throughout life. “Free will” is about figuring that out.

What i don’t get here is what the existence of a “creator” would have to do with abortion. Just as an example, what if there is a god. What does that tell us about everyday life, or about abortion?

It would be very well conceivable to me that there is a god, but they have no opinion about whether we do abortions or not. How are these things connected?

What you just uttered is a totally valid belief in my eyes :)

Beliefs don’t always have to be based on mere intuition alone. It’s totally fine to be able to back up what one believes with arguments.

do you believe that randomness exists?

The universe and everything in it was made for a reason.

I wonder how randomness would fit into this. I believe that randomness does exist and that order/causality has its limits.

The world is made of magic, it just differentiated into so many forms, that one of them is science and that’s what many people believe is all there is.

I feel in the mood to explain more about this:

Similar to european school’s history classes tend to be focused on european history (we call that “eurocentrism”), our worldview is focused on humans, i think that’s called “anthropocentrism”. While humans are important, it’s not everything there is. There’s also plants and other living beings, and in fact there’s many more of them than of us. I try to consider that.

I’m calling the unity of all life “magic”, i came up with that and it’s supposed to be a play-on-words on the german word “Magen” (stomach) (representing that plants and animals are connected through an important relationship that is food). Also the stomach is the organ most physiologically/spatially central in the human body, in my opinion. So i imagine that everything’s in the human is built around that “central” organ that is the stomach. That makes sense as the intake of food is the root of all animal existence, that enables animal’s existence in the first place. Thus “everything is created from the stomach outwards”, as supportive organs to help the stomach collect and digest food.

living with their family and hoping that food stays cheap, i guess

I would be surprised if there was not

I think Turing’s Test was only about the quality of AI. But there’s still outside-of-the-digital-world characteristics that distinguish humans from AI. For example, you’d be able to walk up to a server administrator and speak to them in person so they give you an account on their server. AI could never do that.

I have the idea that public libraries could host fediverse instance. Just register an account on their server, then go there physically and they will approve the account. You don’t need to show them your ID or even tell them your name. They just see that you’re a fleshy human. Now, other people who federate with this server can know that any account registered on it is at least associated to a human. That human can still use AI to post on that account, but at least there’s not millions of bot accounts in circulation.

The question is not what you do, but when.

If you did the same job you do today 50 years ago, you’d get massively better pay for it. Real (inflation-adjusted) wages have declined in the last decades, especially if you compare with cost-of-living inflation.

It just means that the demand for human labor is diminishing.

luanti mod dev?

I think the reason why it’s a common belief that one should never “talk to nazis” because a lot of people would easily be convinced by them.

I.e., if a common person talks to a nazi and hear about their beliefs, they might at some point say “oh, these guys are right after all”, and then you have more nazis.

however, i’m an intelligent person and can actually discern what is true and what is not based on my own abilities, and wouldn’t be convinced into being a nazi just by talking to one. In fact, it would have the opposite effect and make the nazi a non-nazi, thus improving society.

Ah, i see now that i was simply defining the word “shame” a bit differently, as i’ve observed it used in everyday life:

I’ve held shame to mean “a painful emotion caused by group-pressure that indicates guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety”.

What you’ve been describing as “shame”, i’ve called it insight in practice. Insight is a good thing because it bring with itself reflection and thought, which i also like to call meditation and contemplation. That’s what society needs.

What society does not need is group-pressure, because it leads to people behaving right, but for the wrong reasons. Such behavior is short-lived and tends to bite you in the ass when you’re most vulnerable. Compare that to college kids who have always been told “no alcohol”, and then at college the first thing they do is to enjoy the absence of their parents and drink so much alcohol they go into a coma and to the hospital. Had they been taught the implications that alcohol has on your near-term health and consciousness instead, they might have been wise enough to not drink too much out of themselves. :)

… i meant on the other side of the table?

A vegetarian!

What if you’re sitting at the table with them, Nuremberg style?

It will make you feel better, and your neighbours who judge you for who you talk with, instead of for what you say.

In my experience, shame is not a natural emotion at all.

Rather, i’ve observed shame exclusively stems from somebody saying “shame on you, you shouldn’t do that”. Thus i infer that shame is a social construct, similar to gender.