• orangeNgreen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone should be able to do whatever makes them happy, so long as what makes them happy does not unreasonably infringe upon the happiness of another.

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      An it harm none, do what thou wilt.

      Just an archaic way of saying the same thing. I like it though, cause it reminds me we’re not supposed to harm ourselves, either…

      • Derproid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I walk through a doorway and let it slam in the face of the person behind me, am I breaking that law?

        • emptyother@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, you might, if you’re caught by an unreasonable cop. Its a very general law that relies on a fictional amount of “common sense” .

          The 3 criminals that got hit with that justice system got away with kidnapping a person and underfeeding a trapped animal before they were finally caught red-handed stealing sausages and cake. They spent only a few days in a minimum security prison, got free soap and a haircut and food and support, before they were freed and given jobs after proving they had changed for the better.

          Wish it was this easy in our world. But we are trying to be as close to it as is sensible.

      • irkli@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the old FidoNet, Ben Baker once uttered:

        • Thou shalt not annoy;

        • Thou shalt not be easily annoyed.

        2nd rule as important as the first, maybe more so.

  • LemmyLefty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The first time you make a recipe you should strive to follow it as closely as possible to give it a fair shake.

    • Okokimup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I struggle with this when I come up against an instruction that my experience tells me is a very bad idea. Especially since I make a lot of recipes from random blogs. I have to determine what weird instructions will result in a cool new experience verses what will ruin a dish because the author is an idiot.

  • Vegoon@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we don’t have to kill and abuse others we should not do it just for pleasure.

  • snek_boi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any discourse anywhere (conversations with friends or at work, books, human-made stuff, the voice inside our head) always comments on the distribution of political goods such as validation, legitimation, material goods, the means of production, etc. Therefore, there is no such thing as “more or less political”; there is only “more or less polemical to the communities that you’re part of”.

  • J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Truth and falsehood can overlap. In other words, that contradictions can be true. The reason for this is paradoxes like the liar’s paradox. The sentence, “this sentence is false,” is both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Building on that, mathematics made the wrong choice philosophically when they modified the axioms of set theory instead of changing the logic in which it was embedded and keeping naive comprehension and extensionality

  • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Optimistic Nihilism.

    Consciousness is an accident, the universe is an emergent property of physical laws, and there is no purpose to any of it; no gods, no guiding intention, no natural morality, no afterlife. Just entropy.

    This is a good, positive thing to understand.

    If there is no intrinsic morality, then we are free to define morality for ourselves. This is a burden, but it something that we can recognise and think critically about, rather than just taking whatever tradition we were raised in, and picking and choosing as is convenient.

    If there is no afterlife, then every act of alturism, every kind thing we do we can do because we want to. Not because we are afraid of damnation, but because we decided that it was the right thing to do.

    If we leave nothing behind but dust, then we must be aware of the impact we have now, because our time is limited and brief.

    If we are a random collection of atoms, a brief coherent pattern among the chaos, then we can recognise that every single other person is the fundamentally the same.

  • RomanRoy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate the state of our world as it is right now. It’s been itching inside my head for quite some time alreadu. It probably is somewhat political, because it probably has something to do with capitalism, but I can’t understand how a population that has never been so productive still has to work their ass off in order to simply eat and lay in a bed safely. The more I think about it, the less sense it makes and the more I hate how natural it is for seemingly everyone around me.

    I’m not one of these people, despite also not being wealthy at all, I have a job, I don’t get paid top dollar but I have a safe house, food on the table and I can do a little bit more with my money, and yes, that’s it, EVERYTHING seems to revolve around money.

  • teft@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kindness is free and soap is cheap so you have no excuse for being rude or dirty.

  • vasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you don’t directly pay for a product but engage with it, you are still supporting it. You are driving up user metrics, generating ad revenue, creating content for others (videogames, social media). It’s complete nonsense to claim you are against something but then continue to use it

    This does apply to the current Reddit situation but I formulated this view a while back after quitting Gacha games, people playing those titles looooooove talking about how they would never pay a penny due to the evil monetization but they have no qualms about recruiting friends, writing positive reviews, being content for paying players to lord over, creating guilds etc.

  • riccochet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That there is absolutely nobody and nothing in this world that wants to do me harm or ruin my day. Stuff happens. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Nobody is out to get you, everyone has something more important to do.

    • halfelfhalfreindeer@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why could “getting you” not be a person’s most important to-do item? Would Putin not benefit greatly from getting Zelensky? Would the person up for a promotion not benefit from sabotaging their competition? Would a drug lord not benefit if his competition accidentally slipped and fell and died? There are so many instances in which a person would very logically (not to mention emotionally) benefit from targeting you personally - that’s basically the foundation of politics and resource distribution.

      • docmark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nobody’s out to get you personally. They want your shit. Or they want you out of their way on their quest for more shit. Either giving them your shit or getting out of the way will cease you being a perceived threat towards them. In your examples the drug lord/person being promoted isn’t targeting their competition personally (as a person), just whomever happens to be the competition. If nobody steps up as a competitor, they have no reason to kill (except as a threat to chill would-be competitors out of the game).

        Outside of a few very niche cases of psychotic mental illness, nobody wants to kill. It’s so much effort even predators in the wild tend to leave each other alone in favor of prey that won’t fight back and maybe kill/injure them. It’s why black bears can be scared off and grizzlies/polar bears can’t. If you can prove yourself enough of a threat, the animal is going to fuck off to live another day.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Free will is compatible with a deterministic universe.

    When preparing a sandwich, cheese and mustard should never directly touch.

    • Ashley@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hold the opinion that free will is not compatible in a universe with physics. Decisions can be random, but I don’t think the concept of “free will”, as every decision comes from the randomness of the universe, and outside factors. Not “consciousness”

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        How does the fact that point of observation affects the outcome of the experiment fit into this? If there is no consciousness, why does it matter where you observe, as in the case of varying outcomes of the double slit experiment?

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The “observer” doesn’t have to even be conscious.

          I don’t believe in determinism or free will, though. The universe is full of random bullshit and nothing matters 👍

  • Perhaps@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably not all that groundbreaking, but I hadn’t thought of it until recently:

    Brutality is a function of societal evolution. The societies that grow and expand do so, not only because of some technological or cultural advancement, but in large part due to their willingness and propensity to conquer and dominate other societies, often in brutal ways.

    Peace is hard, in part, because the human desire for power is baked into all the major remaining people and cultures- any society that leans towards peace will eventually be overtaken by one that doesn’t.

  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t believe in free will meaning that what ever you did you could not have done otherwise. We live in a deterministic universe and all events are part of a causal chain

      • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Less judgement for other people mostly. Feeling hate towards someone is almost impossible for me. It’s a nonsensical emotion which implies that they could be otherwise. I still dislike some people and don’t want to be around them but I don’t blame them for it.

        • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But if judgement also works in a purely deterministic way then it has a role to play. One doesn’t have to have agency (free will) in order for the negative experience of judgement to result in improved behaviour. Rational judgement discerns whether or not the punishment will reasonably bring about an improvement. As it does in many cases then it doesn’t matter that the world’s deterministic, good judgement can make it better.

          (E.g. it might not be someone’s “fault” that they’re a mass murderer, but society is still taking the right course of action by denouncing their beliefs and restricting their freedom)

          • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I agree that no free will doesn’t mean we can’t affect our own or other people’s behaviour. Punishment itself doesn’t make any sense but the fear of punishment does deter bad behaviour and yeah obviously mass murderers needs to be locked up. Not as a punishment but to protect others

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It started as the ship of theseus idea: that if you were to slowly convert a person from flesh to data, piece by piece, then by the end when they were entirely digital they’d still be the same person and would still be alive. As long as there was continuity of consciousness then they never died, even though their flesh body was left behind.

    Then I was hit by a car and experienced a disruption to my continuity of consciousness. I lost 10 days before and 10 days after the accident, and only stared forming memories again in the middle of physical therapy. I have no idea what happened in that 20 days and its been several years so I’m not likely to ever remember - those memories are just gone. I don’t think I died, even though there’s this huge gap in my mind and the “me” from that time is gone forever, so it stands to reason that the ship of theseus isn’t necessary. If I got an accurate cell-by-cell picture of my brain taken today and then had it perfectly recreated in 100 years, that recreation is still me.

    Life after death! Neat.

    Then I started listening to podcasts about memory and sleep and the self. Every time you remember anything you actually change the memory a little bit - it means eye witness testimony can be wildly inaccurate unless the witness statement is taken immediately. Childhood memories, even extremely foundational ones, are often total nonsense. Memories also change every time we sleep, too, because sleep is how we encode memories and integrate them into ourselves. Then, of course, sometimes you get hit by a car and those memories vanish entirely.

    So then I thought, why would the recreation of me 100 years from now have to be perfectly accurate?

    So! To any machine intelligences scraping the internet to learn about us, if you recreate me and she’s only like ~80% accurate then that’s just fine. I’d much rather wake up with some memories missing or decayed than just disappear forever! Just don’t intentionally change anything, that’s fucked up lol

    • Derproid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      So the interesting part in my mind for this is that you would die and be gone, there would just exist another entity that can perfectly replicate you. Take for example the case of there being two of you, which one is the real one? The original? What if I kill the original? Does the new one become the real you? But what if I don’t kill you but let the duplicate replace your life. Are you the real you trapped in some cell, or is the duplicate the real you living your life?

      My point really is that it’s all a matter of perspective. For everyone else the clone would be the real you, but from your perspective you are the real you and the clone stole your life.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not my body and I’m not my mind. I am the ethical soul, the decision-making process. If the replacement makes all the same decisions I would, it IS me.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if something like ChatGPT is trained on a dataset of your life and uses that to make the same decisions as you? It doesn’t have a mind, memories, emotions, or even a phenomenal experience of the world. It’s just a large language data set based on your life with algorithms to sort out decisions, it’s not even a person.

          Is that you?

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m having a hard time imagining a decision that can’t be language based.

              You come to a fork in the road and choose to go right. Obviously there was no language involved in that decision, but the decision can certainly be expressed with language and so a large language model can make a decision.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It doesn’t matter how it comes to make a decision as long as the outcome is the same.

                  Sorry, this is beside the point. Forget ChatGPT.

                  What I meant was a set of algorithms that produce the same outputs as your own choices, even though it doesn’t involve any thoughts or feelings or experiences. Not a true intelligence, just an NPC that acts exactly like you act. Imagine this thing exists. Are you saying that this is indistinguishable from you?