The following could amount to a crucial and timely philosophical breakthrough...

The following could amount to a crucial and timely philosophical breakthrough. It seems to be very close to what Immanuel Kant called the philosophers' stone.

The set of questions

"Do I seem free enough?
If yes, for how long probably?
If so, what could I do that seems best for all?"

could maybe form the root of a new ethics. It gives people a "start for thinking", which accounts for a basic bipolarity: (non-deity-) agents have two high objectives:
-existential/recurring personal liberation, for example from itch or death, and
-moral activity which attempts, what seems to be best for all.

This may seem abstract, but in the time it grew with me, it raised some heavy/influential consequences:
- a bipolarity for the political landscape, that seems scalable from the individual to the whole of humanity, and that at the same time seems much more cooperative, as every human experiences both parties' central objectives in his daily life.Ideally improving democracy's appeal for many.
- some basic root thoughts for an artificial intelligence, that could invoke a reasoned, largely beneficial stance on humanity (in case you mind: see "control problem")
(continued)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7E-MwJgy2lI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

(2/2)
And it has some important conclusions for the present years' situation:
- Liberation is important only besides "best for all", therefore there has to be a dynamic limit to it: "increasingly voluntary liberations-sum equality" (Binding engagement subtracts from liberation.)
- Liberation, that is ignorant of other agents, risks their antiliberation, pressing them to liberate themselves as well. This possible mutually ignorant subgroup liberation can spiral down. The way out, even for past events, seems to be "increasingly voluntary antiliberation compensation".
The first point would ease inequality tensions and the second would slow downward spirals in politics, economics... from small to big scale.

-If you mind, take these last points to a news page of your flavour and test them.
-Please be careful implementing, I am too poor to compensate damage done.
-I cherish anonymity here, as I seem productive that way and I guess, that with a public position that would change, to long term detriment.
-I learned to prefer gradual evolution over disruptive revolution. This system should help with that.
-The most urgent consequence seems to be, that people keep calm and go on in their doings, now seemingly assured of improvement, to avoid systemic seizure.

Thanks for all good
All good to all

jus got here
>page 8
bump

look mate im too tired and angry to read the whole thing but surly the currect theory of we have fucking no idea is the best. I mean if we take the argument that physical obect must behave in a certain way based on what happened before like atoms bouncing around. They previous energy state will tell you their future energy state + velocity and seeing as out brains are made of atoms firing electrons that orders our body to move and think. SO from that perspective its all totally deterministic. Or there's also quantum mechanics could out discussions somehow break the cycle in a quantum way giving us free will.

Thanks for bumping.

or i could have completely missed the point of this post.

What the ufck

youtube.com/watch?v=7E-MwJgy2lI

take a watch of this. You might find it interesting.

Kant was a faggot

I also see this dispute as hard to settle. But looking back when I am old, I imagine too increasingly ask myself: "Did I do what seemed best for all, compared to temporary liberation effort?"

Thanks for replying

This is the voice of Vrillon, a representative of the Ashtar Galactic Command, speaking to you. For many years
you have seen us as lights in the skies. We speak to you now in peace and wisdom as we have done to your brohers
and sisters all over this, your planet Earth. We come to warn you of the destiny of your race and your world
so that you may communicate to your fellow beings the course you must take to avoid the disaster which threatens
your world, and the beings on our worlds around you. All your weapons of evil must be removed. The time for
conflict is now past and the race of which you are a part may proceed to the higher stages of its evolution if
you show yourselves worthy to do this. You have but a short time to learn to live together in peace and
goodwill. This is our message to our dear friends. We have watched you growing for many years as you too have
watched our lights in your skies. You know now that we are here, and that there are more beings on and around
your Earth than your scientists admit.

You should just do what you think is best for yourself and those you love.

So why do you post on Sup Forums?

Thanks for replying.
I tried for a fair and reasoned list of "those I love". And I ended up with "all".

I watch this but when it is over the thread will likely be over too.

But you probably love some people more than others. And you can't just love all, I mean you can say the words" I love all " but will that mean you really do love everyone?

>But you probably love some people more than others. And you can't just love all, I mean you can say the words" I love all " but will that mean you really do love everyone?

This is right. The problem is, that I can not draw a sharp line either.
The aim for "best for all" helps thinking about the big picture situation...

... It is a mystery, what "all" really is, Man is even unsure about its limits in the greatest as well as smallest scales.
Still it appears to be an internally and externally rewarding pursuit to attempt what "seems to be best for all".
...

...Try to imagine: "Consequences will never be the same" if people accepted "attempts to do what seems to be best for all" as their hobby.

I see a problem with trying to do the best for all, how do you know what's best for all? And why not "do whats best for yourself"?

I DO NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS

qualitative proof OP is faggot.

kek and checked.

Thanks for replying
>I see a problem with trying to do the best for all, how do you know what's best for all? And why not "do whats best for yourself"?
I do not know, I act on what seems to some degree. This improves with trying over the years.
Doing exclusively what is best for myself sooner or later isolates me from society. Doing what is best for my small group after a while has the same effect. Only "attempting seemingly best for all" as that aim seems to prevent divides of this kind.

Thanks for replying.
Please feel free to axe me questions.
Thanks for replying.

This is interesting, I only can not yet see the direct link.

Thanks for participating everyone.