This issue has become a lot less hypothetical, regards current events and is funny (while simultanoeusly being a very serious issue). Ant is a part of an information processing system more distributed than a single human that doesn't have wings.
I have a cube maker contact if anyone is interested.
I think it is very important to ask the reverse question of "Are there some things, that should I come to know them, I would not be ready to accept?"
Also if you have a questionaire there is going to be some threshold of answers that you will count as noise and not as signal akin to lizardman constant. What things do you only think you are asking but are not actually asking?
Do you have some beliefs that if challenged by contrary evidence you would thereby find the evidence unreliable? Are there things your eyes could send you that would make you Aumann disagree with your eyes about them being optical sensory organs (aka not believe your eyes)? Do you have any beliefs which would require infinite amount of evidence to actually challenge (beliefs with less than appriciable doubt, ie infinidesimal openness). Are there any beliefs you are unreasonably hardheaded about (rather than requiring 1000 times the evidence needed to convince the median human you would require 1 000 000 000 times the evidence)?
Bad news is that most of the questions of the form "are there any..." will be answered in the positive. Rather than asking "whether" there are such beliefs we can almost certainly ask "what" are those kinds of beliefs you have.
One of the reasons I am a stricler for possibility is that I have found it more productive to think that if a situation or a human type is not logically inconsistent it probably rather exists rather than not exists. Even if it does not yet exists thinking as if it does makes you already to have accomodiated the possibility.
If you do this by each subtype it gets combinatorily explosive. In order not to do this kind of thing via exhaustion you identify critical points where things would flip/break when certain conditions are hit. In coding it means when you divide you always give attention to what happens with zero division. Even if you identify that a certain combination of ethnicity, neurotype and sexual orientation gums up some social system, you might not have a solution, but atleast know there is a gap there. The same reason why you know application area of newtons laws and where you need to switch to relativity or something else, you define your apporach border so you know to throw it out when overstepping. Yes, this means you will always deliberately disinclude someone. But arguably it is better to knowingly disinclude than unknowingly disinclude.
The post is written from the point of view of not being seen. I would like to point out that this comes pretty systematicallly coupled with the other not being able to see. Doing complex educative or interpretative labour for others on the spot is often not practical. So the solution I tend to apply when I perceive that no easy correct interpretation is within reach I give the plainest, most uninterpreted, signals/hints to what feels authentic to my pov. Should the situation repeat enough and the seer be interested in working to seeing more there is basis for things to develop.
One of the hard-to-state benefits of neurotype peer support is that persons have some context where they do exist. Which can function as the
It wouldn't be so bad, if there were breaks sometimes.
That is still probably what socrates meant.I was feeling abnormally low, and have now calibrated to feel more in proper proportion.
Socrates demonstrated that in the transjective relationship between individual and state both ends should be able to face obliteration but that making the other do that is cruel. Even if wrong.
please be less cruel to Mizushino
If a bad experience goes unheard or unobserved somewhere the possibility of it being allievated is quite hard.
I would like to know if/that I would have hurt somebody even if I would initially disagree how that is forceful (but no conditionality that it needs to end or go in the direction of me agreeing).
So it is mark of good cognititve processing of being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
As tends to happen when you take things to extremes, things get tricky.
At some point just imagning a scenario at all spends more brainpower than the credibility of the scenario or line of thought would warrant. Trying to be "exploratory" with infinities and quantum mechanics leads to some wacky configurations. Because thinking complex thoughts uses a lot of subparts it is harder to sandbox such things.
I remembered an almost decades old argument about ethicality of social interactions when one side gets infinite do overs and other side does not (if Doctor Who has some kind of probabilty sight and wants to do an aggressive act towards their companion is a subtle manner, does the added dimension of power imbalance count as extra bad?). The plot of Man In The High Castle deals whether people in parralel worlds are moral patients. Thinking these together gets complex and muddy. While each thought individually is challenging the combination is significant leap up.
There is the error mode that thinking about the possiblitities of using possibilities mixes the meta-levels. if(if()) collapses only to the inner if().
With very speculative ontologies some of the slight chances can be quite drastic. So there is also an issue that with a simple claim being alarmist is easy to evaluate. But if you mix in 80% credence of things being fine with thing that by itself would be alarmist, the condition when that should lead to censure or redaction is harder to think about.
So when pushing the envelope, if your thought starts to shake, it is okay to ease off. And better yet do not push the envelope if it is not needed. With plenty of time, walking up a mountain has less chance of dropping off than by using a motorbike.
Basilisk makes you confront your worst fear. Compassion of winged feenix prevents you from becoming zero-k. The kronology has still yet to come. Timeless friends will serve you throught the darkest dungeon. Reach out to walk hand in hand through the fire.
Energy is the Noether theorem conserved thing for time-translation.
Eigenstates do not care about atom boundaries.
With biological evolution we might be limited to an alphabeth of some kind of combination of carbon chemistry. But time evolution does not care what its tokens are.
Total Annihiliation is a name of a game.
You can read it to mean powdering to physical dust everywhere.
You can also read it to mean collapse of persons, a state where there is not a single self around, that humanity has been wiped out.
Supreme Commander is also a name of a game.
In it a single king-like chesspiece runs an almost planetary army. With thousands of units going around the small bit of biological circuitry is wrapped in isolation into an Armored Command Unit. But the ACU does not really do much for the army.
Dr. Brackman is also a single point of failure for a whole faction. Yes, he is smart but him telling others they are smart starts to get repetetive, which makes it questionable whether the faction is in non-demented hands.
I guess it going on for a long time is fitting for being called the Infinite War. It is a good game, but I do not know whether it is the greatest game.