From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > Actually, I didn't find the movie nearly as good as I thought I   
   > found it back when it came out. I suspect that's due to just how   
   > much of what they were hyperbole-izing has come to not merely *pass*   
   > in the time sense, but pass as "what seemingly most consider how   
   > things ought to be".   
      
   That's sad. =(   
      
   > Let me say that I'm not a fan of Donald Trump "as a person" and   
   > the seeming cult that's developed around him. And yet I find the   
      
   Well, I'm only pro-Trump when I know I'm dealing with people who cannot   
   tolerate it, because I have a provocative streak in me. ;)   
      
   But given a free choice, I think Ron Paul is probably the best that the   
   US has to offer. But given how the US system is designed, I'm   
   reluctantly Trump if Biden is the only other option.   
      
   I also like Trumps sense of humour (I think...) which the rest of the   
   world doesn't get, since they are used to dealing with one, and only one   
   kind of politician who is as boring and dry and anti-plain-speaking as   
   humanly possible.   
      
   When someone comes along and calls a monkey a monkey, the press doesn't   
   know how to react.   
      
   > "other side" even more horrifying. It seems like a stupidity contest   
   > to me. "OH YEAH?!?! YOU HAMMER WIT JAR COVER? WELL.. I HAMMER WIT   
   > BOOGER!!! TAKE *DAT*, DUMBASS!!!"   
      
   Yes, I watched a few american political debates and I wasn't impressed.   
   However, I wouldn't say that the debates where I'm from are much better   
   so that doesn't mean much.   
      
   > I'd not want to live in a society that was either. And yet I've wound   
   > up in one that's *both*. Hence my aforementioned (I think...) telling   
   > my wife "we're going to be getting the hell out of here (i.e. die)   
   > just in time".   
      
   Why not move to alaska? ;)   
      
   > But while I don't care for Trump's personality, I liked gasoline   
   > being half the current price, and my investments being worth 50%   
   > more than what they after the seeming Dem gutting of the economy.   
      
   True. I grew up under a soft kind of socialism with everything grey, 2   
   public TV-channels, 2 kinds of beer and horrible food. Over the decades   
   my native country opened up and moved away _slightly_ from socialism,   
   and things improved.   
      
   That is why I can never vote for any politician who suggests that "the   
   government" is the solution and wants a bigger and more powerful state   
   and I do tend to go for the low tax guys.   
      
   I imagine, most people who experienced socialism and the USSR, tend to   
   reason the same way. And most people I know who never experienced this,   
   tend to think that the government is the solution or _a_ solution.   
      
   > But to me, the current state of general idiocy implies hopelessness   
   > in political realms, because whether it's "rigged" or the consequence   
   > of morons casting ballots, I can't see a positive result.   
      
   But as long as there is life there is hope.   
      
   > Heh... maybe I'm so drawn to kooky "philosophy"/mysticism because   
   > what used to seem a tolerable "nothing's perfect" reality has become   
   > a brain/tooth-less theme park. See also: the great inner escape.   
      
   Interesting thought. Well, I guess in times of turbulence people are   
   drawn to other goals and to "belief" since the world itself seems   
   threatening.   
      
   >> And no, I do _not_ believe that ChatGPT is anywhere close   
   >> to being sentient even though I've seen that on many   
   >> places online.   
   >   
   > I'm actually closer to the opinion that most humans aren't as   
   > sentient as ChatGPT. :-)   
      
   Haha, fair point! ;)   
      
   >> So I apologize if I disappointed you with a very plain,   
   >> scientific view of the world. ;) I usually also do the   
   >> "atheist shift" and say that the one who proposes an   
   >> alternative world view to the materialist/scientific one   
   >> has the burden of proof, since our materialist/scientific   
   >> world view does have the common sense high ground (See   
   >> G.E. Moores "here's a hand" proof which I think is   
   >> brilliant in its simplicity).   
   >   
   > Don't worry about disappointing me. I enjoy all opinions that don't   
   > sound as though they came from a cabinet meeting of the current   
   > administration. ;-)   
      
   Glad to hear it! =)   
      
   >> I think everyone intelligent creature sooner or later   
   >> wonders about the nature of reality. My path led me to   
   >> physics and science and I have not found a better way. I   
   >> have read about the idealists and the buddhists but I'm   
   >> not convinced by their arguments.   
   >   
   > It probably sounds like punting or throwing in the towel, but as   
   > I think I've blathered elsewhere, I've become convinced a better   
   > way begins with letting go of reason, as reason to me fundamentally   
   > starts with the assumption that endless pairs of conceptual opposites   
   > accurately represents the situation, which I've come to see as just   
   > so much circular hand waving.   
      
   For me it is about the right tool for the right job. Reason does a great   
   job (politics aside) to help us survive the here and now, and improve   
   the future. But the more I read the good old existentialists, and the   
   more I think about it, the more I believe that reason is not a good tool   
   for meaning and values. We need meaning and values to direct reason, and   
   deep meaning and values, seem to me, to lie beyond the horizon of   
   reason.   
      
   But meaning and values are also not binary, they are a continuum, so I   
   guess up to a certain point, reason can help us, but some people are   
   perhaps wired in such a way that that is not enough, and then I guess   
   perhaps Kierkegaards "leap of faith" is needed or Jaspers   
   "transcendence". Who knows... my thinking is still not done when it   
   comes to this question.   
      
   >> I think you lost me there. =(   
   >   
   > Perhaps another way of saying what I attempted to is that there's   
   > a suspicious connection between being convinced of seeing patterns   
   > and being convinced one is seeing "reality"? Except I'd add that   
   > we can't say for sure whether the patterns are "out there", or   
   > "business as usual" for "mind".   
      
   Ahh got it. Yes, that brings us to the hidden "assumptions" I was   
   talking about when it comes to materialism. Ultimately, you have to   
   assume, otherwise you get stuck in your mind and perhaps even not that   
   depending on the skills of the illusionist. Even your existence might be   
   fake, so ultimately there are hidden assumptions somewhere or else   
   everything collapses.   
      
   >> There is also, assuming there is no free will, illusory   
   >> free will. It might not exist, but for all intents and   
   >> purposes, we cannot tell, and should act as if it does.   
   >   
   > "Should"? Why?   
      
   Depends on your ethical theory I guess. Utilitarianism might argue that   
   even if there is no free will, but we do feel as if there is, acting as   
   if there is a free will brings the most good to the most people.   
      
   You could argue that this has been more successful from the level of our   
   society as well, even though if you're the is/ought guy that might not   
   be too convincing.   
      
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)