[deleted]

But then what will you consider meaningful work?

[deleted]

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Evolve, adapt, or repeat? The cycle is always present, but is it a cycle leading you to your highest vision? Nature shows us three states - creation, preservation, or destruction. The same states are found in the mind. Every thought or action creates a response, which looks like a continuation of the current and/or previous cycle. The pattern continues, until the cycle is improved upon or broken. The pattern is formed through habit, reputation, and reinforcement. The pattern continues on the way it has always has unless it is evolved or broken. This is what we call “fate”, and nothing more. Through the passage of time, we have the opportunity to create changes, so that we can consciously move forward as we please. The pattern begins with your thoughts and mind, whether you are conscious of the pattern or not it is always present. You may perpetuate the pattern, but we fail to see the truth when we internalize the patterns. We often mistake the consequences of the pattern, as who or what we are. Like will always follow like, there is no other way. Only through conscious awareness can the pattern evolve, and the pattern can take new form. Conscious change is difficult, it is much easier to remain on autopilot and do as we have always done. The real question, are you fulfilling your potential?

Bruh, you are overthinking this haha

I'm not sure where to interject, picking here..

I think it's impossible to have a universally agreed set of standards and needs. We're already proving that individual communities struggle to establish guidelines that are not questioned.

In order to achieve a utopia I believe we'd need to become far too similar, more than anyone else would like.

No matter what, a baseline needs to be established. Everything would have to be agreed on, and that would require an entire planet's worth of agreement. Utopia is easier to exist in a small group, and even then, you're going to have far too many differing opinions.

Is a utopia even desirable?

This is somewhat disturbing to think about, the current you will no longer exist... Anyway, feelings aside:

What do you define as the current? Where do you draw the line of this moment and the following? Do you die thousands of times a second, every 5 seconds? Can you put a duration to the current "you"?

Memories are interesting. Coming from a tech background, I like to think of memories as indexed moments of time. Just as databases exist to be efficient in retrieval and storage, memories tend to work very well when they're also associated with something more than the memory itself.

I don't know if I'm doing a good job explaining anything, so please ask whatever that's needed!..

Anyway, building a little more off the memories as an indexes in a database - would you argue that the dying entities include entities that are working to constantly maintain and index these memories? Do they even get stored, or does the next self simply know all of the previous? Does this same self exist subconsciously with everything the body requires to survive (knowing when to breathe, feeding air to the body, nutrients from food, creating blood, basically every biological)?

Your #2 makes me think of religion. Truths are very difficult to universally back with belief or faith. At the same time, common grounds are tough to find - sometimes more people also believing is just as powerful as the truth.

Also curious to know what makes sense to the person you're responding to.

I find this interesting for many reasons..

We, people/all life as we know it, seems to be pre-programmed for quite a lot. I can elaborate if needed, but I'd rather leave here if possible.

To slightly build up on the previous: Is it possible that we do happen to carry over some knowledge of the previous? Knowing the bare-minimum, essentially running in autopilot, is extremely beneficial for the success of life, especially at birth/conception.

I want to know, what happens if we no longer have a physical realm? It is believed that life on earth will be impossible one day. We have more unknowns than knowns when it comes to the universe, but all science points to the earth no longer being capable of sustaining life. If we are incapable of escaping the death and destruction, do we also cease to exist in any realm?

I also am curious to know, do you consider all known life to also stem from the same entity?

[deleted]

It wont be halted, but machines only requires energy. Doesnt matter if we even lost the atmosphere they would be fine. Next step of evolution, it is what it is.

But all love must be expressed materially, because we are not psychic. We never get to truly know how another person feels about us. We can only infer it from their actions. And "love languages" are just ways of categorizing which actions make a person feel loved. For some it is being held; For some it is being told; For some it is having things done for them; For some it is receiving gifts. The last one can be problematic if what is wanted are expensive gifts, but as a love languages the point is generally not the value of the gift but the fact of a gift being given, such that the gifts themselves might cost less than you could earn in say, the time it took to give someone a really good cuddle, or to compose a flowery poem.

Do you believe that you are control of your typical body functions? Handling of nutrients, the air we breathe, maintaining a balance, and so on..

What do you define as yourself?

I am struggling with this one. Obviously I am not controlling every single cell within my body. I expect my body to continue functioning as it should, given I maintain it.

An emergent entity would offer up the chance that there are others that may be capable of emerging?

1. What "makes sense" about it?

2. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it more true.

Anyone know if Mauss was cited in, Sapiens? I feel like I’ve read this somewhere

often I feel gifts can be a cop out for not putting actual effort into the relationship: attentiveness, listening to your partner, actually being with them. These are the most fulfilling gifts and cannot be bought. The message attached to them is very simple too. People talk about love languages and how people choose to show their love, but I don’t really believe in that. imo people who decide to manifest love materially instead of emotionally have an avoidance problem.

Does Fridman make assertions in the fields of psychology/politics/sociology? Or does he invite experts from those fields onto his podcast and interview them with curious, probing questions?

I'm on that side. Being anti-representationalist, I don't think we can ascribe propositional attitudes/content without the capacity to develop linguistic practices. Highly recommenf Zawidzki's book on it.

I always have to consider the power dynamics and social implications of gift giving and receiving. When I receive a great gift, I don’t feel joy or gratefulness (well, I do, but it’s greatly overshadowed by: OH no, how am I ever going to properly reciprocate the value of this gift to the person. They’ve listened to my interests and picked something very special and meaningful, and now the burden is on me to do the same back and to do an even better job in order to keep this relationship going properly”. AKA the one-upmanship mentioned by the author of this article. Now is that a true analysis? According to Mauss, yes it is. Even if people don’t say it consciously, subconsciously there is a tally going regarding reciprocation and putting equal effort into a relationship. The gifts in his studies are even destroyed- it’s not about the goods at ALL, it is purely about the message that is being sent and it’s a sensitive political message that puts the safety of your tribe at risk. That being said, Mauss studied tribes of people interacting with others who actually often have a tenuous wider political relationship. It’s not really as applicable to personal one on one relationships. I still can’t shake it though. Intellectually, I have not been able to persuade myself that it will affect my social standing greatly to give a bad gift. Better to avoid the risk than to get it wrong and damage a relationship by forgetting that they don’t like chocolate or something. And that’s my master class on using anthropological texts to fuel your social anxiety.

Edit: it’s been a while since I read the original text so if I forgot anything or got something wrong, please let me know!

Care to elaborate how it affected you?

Self observation sounds stupid till one day it happens. Like flipping a switch a older man come up yelling at me sad i did order wrong set me off i was pissed for being treaed like a child and click why did i let him make me mad??? I was not wrong but im the one in control of my emotions and that when i learned you staying calm pisses people off more lol.

Of course there is, but the audience is not the court of law but the general public who then go and vote in elections.

Lex Fridman is really vile, he asserts himself as a scientists, computer researcher etc, and his podcasts were first about that. But then he expanded to psychology, politics, sociology, topics which he has zero authority in

Isn’t there a difference between a comedy podcast like Rogan’s and an “expert testimony” in a court of law? If I’m listening to a comedy podcast, I always have a giant banner in my head that says “these are idiots who are providing you with entertainment, and everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.”

There was an experiment I saw before where a chess board was displayed with pieces positioned in some pattern (like in some random chess game) to both normal chess players and grandmasters, and they were asked to recall their positions later. As you may guess, the masters did it perfectly and every time, whereas average players scored average.

However, the experimenters repeated the experiment with a positioning pattern that could never occur in a real chess game. Guess what, both grandmasters and normal players scored the same, "Average".

This shows that, even chess masters who can recall any game or piece positions in a game they played with enormous precision, score the same as any person in memory tests. Which only indicates that their good memory is not transmittable to other fields, and that calling someone an expert without specifying the expertise, is just a fallacy that our society feeds on. You can't even obtain a skill in one field, and claim with certainty that you can apply it as an elite in other fields, even the most basic ones like memory.

Nevertheless, I don't think this is always true because the skills and knowledge you gain in one branch of science might be helpful for other branches. Especially in Mathematics, where this helped many mathematicians prove major theorems using prior concepts and theorems in other maths' branches.