These people exist in vast numbers. I am not labeling them via some imaginary labels but real psychological phenomena (e.g., external locus of control, low self-efficacy, extrinsic motivation etc.). Typically the result of bad parenting/role models that do not sufficiently prepare one to take responsibility and criticism in an effective manner.
'Intelligence' implies a strong genetic component. I am dismissing the genetic component and attributing it to environmental circumstances and upbringing. Something that's harder for policy-makers to address - hence we typically resort to prison and punishment instead - perpetuating the erroneous idea that genes have a stronger influence on human behaviour.
They lacked (past tense) good role models but this does not preclude them from changing. The assumption that people are incapable of change is a dangerous assumption.
Raising one's knowledge is a matter of curiosity more than 'the difficulty of navigating the internet'. Those who are not curious in ways they can improve or know themselves (and their beliefs) are avoiding responsibility. This is what they have learned to do. But, they are still capable of change and such change will sooner or later become necessary - whether they want it or not. You can only run from the responsibility of improvement for as long as you are happy, but this becomes increasingly difficult as you continue to observe the achievements and happiness of others.

I missed this one I think: I guess I am assuming you are referring to America, but not the real America, the real America is under economic crisis. I'm not talking about the shutdown, or some emotional fueled event, I'm talking about the actual US economy.

Are you taking into account the CIA's involvement in the democratic and economic processes of these countries. I'm not talking conspiracy theories, but rather actual factual and accepted intervention (tons of intervention for example laid out and sourced in Chomsky's writing, I don't know if we consider that legit here).

The world doesn't work in the way you are observing it for the context here. I realize in the news and politics we ignore these things, but they are the real factors that have made the world what it is today. Ignoring them gives us false results.
I think turning our thoughts towards ourselves and ignoring others is how we got to this world we live in today. I realize you might think this world is an accomplishment but I think thats because you are only thinking of it in terms or yourself, your family, your country etc.

Yes we agree with all this but not the cause, the cause is not evil is my point. It is not the person we should blame but their environment. If someone is born and raised under a hateful regime, and that is all they are taught and all they see, can we really blame them for their learned hate? And expect them to grow out of it while we hate them back?
I'm not sure if you are agreeing it is a genetic component. Either way its not their fault. I understand in this world today the best we can do is put them in jail, but we should be able to agree punishment especially for those who don't respond to such punishment, is not optimal as far as morality and rehabilitation goes. Its like beating a lame dog.

Well many people (most) are incapable of bringing about their own change. Most people cannot even break simple habit which do nothing but give them cancer. Also we live in a world where most or many of us undergo 10 or so years of heavy conditioning in school which teaches nothing more the divide and conquer/survival of the fittest.

Its hard to be 'curious' when your daily life is war and killing. Its hard to be curious in a population of starvation. Living this way while the 1st world country blame you for your situation when really its the exploitation of these countries lead by the 1st world that puts them in this situation in the first place.

Are you sure you are not just assuming these people have your intelligence and your standard of living, and therefore your capacity for change?

And how much do you know about economics? I'm getting the impression that you may get your knowledge on economics from conspiracies or from anti-establishment hippies but I could be wrong.
CIA's involvement? The CIA is like any other corporation. If anything, it's managed far worse than most private-sector organisations due to its strong ties with the public sector. The CIA does not generate wealth - they spend money that's created in the private sector. Their influence on the ECONOMY is negligible. Whether they have the power to change the leadership position of one puppet for another, makes little to no difference to the economy, and when it does its typically for the worse - public sector intervention (in whatever form) is typically bad for the economy.
What am I ignoring? the conspiracies?
I hardly ignore them. I in fact enjoy laughing at them, very much.
I do think this world is an accomplishment, and I also think it could be better. They are not mutually exclusive.

Whether its their fault or not is a matter of context, and determinism does not imply fatalism. People can be held responsible for their behaviour.
My experience has been different. My experience has been the opposite in fact. I've found that many people are more than capable of change.
Once again, I was not referring to individuals who do not have access to the information. I was talking about residents of first-world countries.
No. I am assuming three things. One - they are human. Two - they are not mentally ill or physically incapable of learning. Three - they live in a first-world country.

So lets change the paradigm for a moment.

Lets assume I am correct, that it is not a natural born evil that causes such ignorance but instead a lack of a certain kind of intelligence, that has been either suppressed or conditioned to not exist either purposefully or not purposefully.

IF, that were true would we agree then that, each of us, is responsible for the acts of each other individual because to see the world in such a way puts everyone in a state of accountability and no one in a state of blame.

If we can understand that and assume it is true for the purpose of the dialog, the question is how might I deal with you, knowing that you have taken the view that you are not responsible for others actions because you are not them.

Will i really be able to educate you to the idea that water beats fire best, by hammering you with a fire tactic? I think it would be destined to failure.

Depending on the type of fire water can make it worse.

Well not sure I agree entirely. Sure from a holistic perspective it's all interdependent, but also from such a nondual view it doesn't matter.

On a level of cause and effect, you are responsible for your actions. There are a lot of skillful ways one could take.

By first stating that another person needs to "educated" it would seem, according to your analogy a fire tactic.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using 2+2 Forums

I think I would be happy if we agreed that we cannot suggest that the level of cause/effect is not the only level. Or not the fundamental level, or the more valid one.

Yes by the current definition of education I would agree. But by understanding the difference and importance of 'fire' vs 'water' we might learn a different type of education. Which leads to a different type of intelligence.

If everyone had an increased sense of accountability over themselves and their life many of today's problems would disappear quickly. Also, just because I may hold my self responsible for my own happiness does not mean that I will help others less, particularly if helping others comprises that happiness. Its a rationally consistent viewpoint.

Ya its rationally consistent maybe but not necessarily optimal. Especially depending on the circle of our concern.

We're a little derailing but its fine and still on topic, but in relation to OP, will we instill this in others by alienating them?

I think it can be shown we are others, and that helping others is true happiness, but not happiness for the self necessarily.

Who said anything about alienation?
This statement is contradictory. Define your terms better.

I think I did. In relation to the link in OP where others are calling for a banning and the thread is locked and left as an example.


I think I mean if we are looking for self happiness through helping others we are just heading in the direction of greed.



Here is a video with Malala, she goes on to say her first reaction the violence would be to hit the people with her shoe, but she goes on to say she realized that would be no better than what those that are committing the suppression. She adds that the solution is education, as a form of the opposite of segregation.





This seems so obvious to me, but our general response to our enemies is at the opposite end of this spectrum and we seem proud of it as and intelligent obvious decision.

Can you please define greed here? If helping others can fall within your definition of greed it seems to me you are defining this word far too broadly. It's a bit like spiritual people in this forum who define everything as God, or as consciousness - its meaningless.

When we help others with the intention to increase our own happiness we fuel an unneeded/unwanted aspect of the human spirit/psyche. We could normally show this with logic, but for those that have this psychological entity that is falsely created, they also have a foundation for logic that is not correct.

To see this correctly, the construct of validating the 'self's' well being, especially over others, must be put to rest. Then logic falls into place and shows that such a false sense of self is really just a manifestation that leads to false conclusions about our duties in this world.

Only the self can validate itself. Even if Jesus said 'you must validate yourself', one still must decide for oneself that Jesus word is correct. It doesn't matter who is the authority, any external validation must pass through self validating self.

A self validating self is only logical to those that have validated themselves under self validating logic.

I'm sure 99%+ of the population would disagree, but when 'guru's' are talking about self awareness, self knowledge, self and the like, they shouldn't be referring to the path the self takes and the understanding of the journey, but rather they should be referring to understanding the journey of the self is meaningless. This how 'self knowledge' should lead to a dissolution of the self that seeks for its own liberation.

'Self' is the jail cell. Therefore self cannot be the key, nor the jailkeeper/jailbreaker.

Self disagrees with me, but although its logic is sound, the foundation on that logic has no substance because it self validated itself.


(edit: to be direct to your question, the act isn't as important as the context of it, helping others to make ourselves feel better is (at the root) towards the direction of greed)

The intention to increase your own happiness is most often not a conscious decision. Your brain has evolved in a way that rewards you when you behave altruistically and help others. Thus, almost every time you behave in this way, you feel happier. Whether you believe you are doing it out of selflessness or selfishness is largely irrelevant - both intentions generate the same result (helping the human species thrive). Since both intentions generate the same result - from a utilitarian perspective the entire species is better off. Consciously helping others so you can make yourself feel better produces the same result as helping others through deluding yourself into thinking you are a selfless human being. I say 'deluded' because almost every action and behaviour that you take is out of self-preservation and selfishness - and to deny this requires a form of mental masturbation that I'm not particularly fond of.

If the notion of interdependence is established, I think we have a question of what would actually constitute a selfish act? If what we do affects others through subtle connections, no act is totally isolated.

I think intentions do matter to that degree and the results differ. However, I agree our intention is generally unconscious, hence making the practice of bringing our intentions to consciousness more important.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using 2+2 Forums

Then I wonder if we feel we have control over which happens more often.

Mine maybe, but does everyone function like that. The other thing to point out is we are not all (or at all) educated well in being able to determine what is truly altruistic, and what is actually at its root only for the self. Or is for altruism but turns out to hurt the world.

Well I think we have some ability (through education) to control what makes us happy, to control our utility. But also what happens if we consciously decide to act in a way that doesn't address our own happiness?

Well I think it has a great psychological impact on the individual. And this impacts, for all reasons I said above, what the person does with their daily lives.


Its true perhaps if a selfish person and a selfless, commits the same act, it may produce the same result. But each person does not act the same. The also do not learn the same.

I think this is an assumption. I'm not sure you can suggest each person acts in the same direction so I don't think these are so easily equated. How is it a solider that acts altruistically, including towards his enemy, can justify killing that person?

Well it might be almost every action now, in an uneducated world. To 'deny' is the words used when we think that acting not for self preservation is not possible. I'm sure we can show it is.

The real problem is that the self will ask for proof that the self should not care about itself, and there will never be any, but just because there can be no proof, doesn't render it valid.

We see a psychiatrist before we hurt ourselves and those who care for us.
If he is killing someone then by definition he is not acting altruistically.
Its not possible. Even a decision to sacrifice yourself so that your child may live on could be viewed as selfish decision (the genes that have passed on to your child are younger and more fit - than yours - to perpetuate the existence of those genes/keep the species surviving). Selfishness is hardwired into the very genes that program who you are. Every decision, no matter how trivial, is selfish in its roots. This includes altruistic behaviour. If you help others, they are more likely to help you, increasing the survivability of you and them.
Just because there's no proof of a flying spaghetti monster (or insert whatever in here) living in my closet doesn't mean its not there. Your axioms of belief are inherently flawed. Evidence comes first, conclusion comes second.

I don't think that implies we will hurt ourselves. I think deciding not to act for our own happiness, simply suggests any action does not come from a selfish root. I guess you might argue there would be no utility to move. But my question is what will our actions be when we take no utility as our root.

I agree. But I meant to point out that there is certainly a difference in the result between those that actually help others and those that kill the enemy in the belief that they are acting holistically.
I did have this belief once but I broke through it in an indirect but effective (logical) way.
What about a decision from no root? It may not be holistic, but I don't think it could be said to be selfish? Or better yet, (in a way) we might indirectly deal with such an impasse: What about action from no decision?
It must be a step towards wholism if we decide we cannot act selflessly but we will act selfishly AND holistically in every way we can?

I'm not sure they are, and I am not sure they are axioms. To be honest I view it as a breaking of the axioms we all are given.

This is the axiom I question. It needs itself to show itself to be true. If I say 'where is the proof' you must say 'test it! Because if you make a test where results support the axiomatic conclusion, then it must be true' But I think such a statement is just a reworking of the axiom itself.

It seems logically absurd but only if we start from the axiom. If we see through such roundabout justification, we can not only understand duration talked about in so many ancient and philosophical texts, but we can also understand why our current axioms hold true, while not being true.

A decision from no root? This is like asking 'what about the effect that has no cause'? If you accept the strong mountains of evidence on causality and determinism then you wouldn't be asking this question, which begs me to consider that you either do not know the basic laws of the universe or that you believe in quantum uncertainty. I am doubtful about the latter.
I have no reason to believe there is a flying spaghetti monster living in my closet without any evidence to suggest there is. Following your axioms of belief, the flying spaghetti monster does (or might) exist in my closet although I have no evidence to suggest so. Do you see the absurdity of beliefs that can result from this?

Also yes, theory can come first, and then evidence, but this is not scientific. This is pseudo-scientific (unless the theory is built on solid mathematics - which it rarely ever is).

Evidence-based reasoning is based on causality and if you do not believe in causality then you're talking about philosophy and not science. More semantic masturbation I'm not particularly fond of.

I think if you expand this i can put it into a context that shows we can make a decision from no root. Or I should say it is action from no root, that doesn't have a decision to enact it.

evidence on causality relies on causality to be valid. By our own rules of logic such evidence is not valid. I don't think its fair to get emotional (most people do) and claim its absurd of me to say, when their further proof of my illogics is more causal evidence.

I've recently realized that we don't especially use the word causal the same way, I mostly mean that present is a product of the past, I don't believe that can be shown to be true, unless first we assume that it is true as an axiom.


The quantum paradoxes disappear when you see things from the vantage point I am explaining from. I'm not super knowledgeable on it all, but as much as I've looked up, we assume causality and that skews everything to becoming not understandable at the edges of our knowledge. The basic laws of the universe don't really hold up to the magic of our existence, this is why science has never successfully refuted religion.

But you believe causality and then test it with the belief as an axiom?

So if you say, 'no lets assume its not an axiom and test if its true'. Then you create a test: if this then that. But suggesting your test proves causality assumes that if your test is successful then causality is true, such an assumption assumes causality. Because if causality is not an axiom then your test might give a positive, yet causality still may remain a false belief.
Following it further the monster does/doesn't exist and both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Do you see how this falls in line with time travel and dissolves paradoxical issues such as killing your grandfather. It also falls in line with both multi dimension theories and ancient books that predate Christian/judaic ******edness.

I'm trying to suggest that your beliefs on time are just that, religious beliefs. You might argue yet you count your years in Jesus years, likely celebrate Christian holidays, likely have a Christian name, and so on.

No its real. Science itself admits you cannot prove something by using itself as an axiom. Seeing this world for what it is, without conditioned belief, is the only true way to see it. We should not disregard such truth, just because it sounds silly compared to what we current believe and what currently shows to be true based on those beliefs. That isn't objective investigation its just proving what we want to prove

evidence based reasoning assumes causality. And I am aware that science is too limited to address such an obvious observation. But science also says that the markets are self adjusting and people pay the fair price, but that is a gross misunderstanding of the author that laid down those foundations. Our academics is not separate from conditioned belief or things such as political and economic influence. If it was there would be no studies showing marijuana causes cancer (these are old biased government studies) and weed and hemp would be the most widely used medicine and commodity.

As for semantic masturbation, I fully expect your exit from something that questions your beliefs in a meaningful way.

With golden quotes like this, I think you need to spend less time in RGT and more time in SMP. Even instincts are based on subconscious decisions. Every action you take is based on a decision, whether at the conscious or subconscious level so please stop with this before you dig a hole too deep to climb out of.
You're assuming a pseudo-scientific method once again.
The basic laws of the universe explain our very existence. Perhaps your own understanding of the basic laws of the universe does not sufficiently account for our existence but mine certainly does.
You don't 'test' for causality. You observe it in the evidence around you, and then you conclude that there is causality. Once again, you're talking about pseudo-science above. In science - you first gather sufficient evidence in order to be able to make a conclusion (which proves true at least 99% of the time), you don't make the conclusion first and then look for the evidence to support that conclusion - this is pseudo-science and its an illegitimate method known as 'cherry-picking evidence'. Do you understand the difference between the two methods? In science, evidence comes first, so please stop insinuating that the conclusion comes first. Under the scientific method, without the evidence, one does not see a conclusion at all.
Yes, but do you see the absurdity of beliefs that results from such axioms? Instead of the spaghetti monster, I may postulate that Hitler lives in my closet, and according to your axioms this can indeed be true - but this is simply not true without any evidence to suggest so.
Your beliefs on time are however founded on no evidence whatsoever, nor are they practical or useful to anyone or anything. Trying to dismiss causality equates to trying to dismiss the notion that 1+1 = 2. The only way you'll ever manage to do this is through an exercise in semantic masturbation whereby you take incoherently defined concepts and string them together in an arbitrary manner without any evidence for any of it whatsoever. In terms of 'methods of inquiry into reality' this method stands to teach us little to nothing.
Once again, you're referring to pseudo-science.
Science doesn't say that. I research economics and commerce, and no scientific journal article ever written on the subject makes those claims. It only makes predictions, for which it acknowledges the possibility of being wrong.

There are no studies showing that marijuana causes cancer. Not that I am aware of? Link me to these studies.. As far as I'm aware, there are only studies suggesting that it might in fact help people suffering with cancer, and that it may even prevent certain types of cancer.

Yes, because you assume I haven't read any philosophy. Everything you've said equates to nothing more than armchair/pop-culture philosophy. Its not enlightening in the slightest.

They don't appreciate me posting there.
This may not be the hole you point to. Perhaps then (and it still might not be) I am referring to unlocking the power of the subconscious. But I am not so sure that science fully accepts the subconscious either. But I think we should look at the effects of a conscious that has grown the belief that acting upon the subconscious, or trying to act for the subconscious is the proper way.

Yes we should both be aware by now that science admits these things are beyond its limits.

I don't think that science has decided that it knows the cause of 'this'. It does not know where we come from, and does not know why we are here. It does not know what this is.
That is a causal test. Its like saying 'Im a wizard. Let's test if thats true. Yup, I'm a wizard therefore it is true'.
Yes and I watched Feyman explain this in his lecture, he explained the limits of science. It allows us to do many things, but he also admits its a model, not the real thing.

Yes and that's under the scientific method, but what about the scientific method itself, how can it be shown to be true, without using the scientific method to prove it?
Yes the former of this part is the direction to go to see that what I am suggesting is correct, that latter cannot be shown if we assume that the scientific method is the only truth. To say it another way you are asking me to show or explain to you why the scientific method isn't necessarily valid, but you are forcing me to use the scientific method to do so.

So far all I can do is present those that understand all this the same as I do. But the ramifications of such an understand are blocked from those that refuse to reject their conditioning on time.
You are correct. And I would be pleased to address each of the issues you find and bring up. They are all addressable, and it does show we can still make conjectures some even if you disagree. To be clearer than what you said here, 1 = x. This is why causality passes the test because under the understanding that 1=x, 1 does in fact = 1. This is of course absurd to those that don't recognize 1 = x and view this statement from the viewpoint of 1 = 1.

We should be able to both agree that even if I was correct, trying to convey it in terms that science doesn't see as incoherent would be impossible.

I think non science is a better description.

The popular understanding is that the markets regulate themselves. This is why the names of market regulations are things like Free Trade Agreement. North American Free Trade agreement etc. The wealth of nations laid out the foundation of how the markets in a fair and intelligent system, regulate themselves as a whole. Perhaps I am saying this wrong, or maybe you agree. I understand there has been much work since such as Keynsian economics, which I haven't studied yet at all, but it believes the markets can and should be corrected I think.

I could give a link of a lecture at yale, the experiment creates two groups with buyers and sellers. The point of the experiment is on average everyone pays an equilibrium price and sells for it. I do recognize I get flamed for mentioning the E word tho.
I meant to express the side that agrees with your quote here. Of course it doesn't cause cancer, and cures it...what is the logic that lead us to making it illegal? I think its 1 = 1, and fight fire with fire.
It shouldn't be. Enlightenment, when we delve further into the silly notions of non causality, is just a construct used to project a future in which we become. Enlightenment involves time, and that means its a false process. Process itself is false.

You accuse me of asking you to use a scientific methodology (evidence-based) in order to disprove causality or 'the scientific method' but this is not what I intend.

I am trying to make you aware of the fact that every action you take and every decision you make stems from evidence. How is it that you do not walk into every tree when you go for a walk in the park? Because of your eye-sight and the information that's taken from the reality around you and decoded by your brain into something meaningful (e.g., avoid tree, because hitting tree damages you and lowers your chance of survival). Therefore, everything is based in evidence, whether you choose to believe this or not. Evidence broadly speaking is everything you receive through your senses (e.g., receiving information about the location of a tree through your sense of sight).

All that science does, is take this evidence, and build conclusions from it. It doesn't unnecessarily postulate the existence of things for which there are no evidence. The philosophy you're trying to perpetuate is an outdated form of thinking (which serves no real purpose), commonly referenced to Socrates in "the only thing I know for certain is that I know nothing".