Everyone knows what is morally good or bad

Virtual reality has another being in your reality besides you, thus it is zero sum. Virtual reality is AI, and AI suffers … stop trying to put words in my mouth.

We know there is at least one more person in this reality because we are having our consent violated.

My posts may be violating your consent, if they are, then you know that there’s at least one more being than you in your reality.

I will try, if that is how I am coming across. There’s little I despise more than people putting words in other people’s mouths.

Why wouldn’t you choose a reality where people violate your consent?

There’s an interesting line in the film “The Matrix”, obviously a work of fiction, but I think it holds truth:

Where is the challenge if people aren’t challenged? Where is the relief when there is no pressure? You might say that realities where relief is pre-destined (at least eventually) are guaranteed are 100% consensual. You might not, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth.

If I’ve learnt anything from the industry with the most to gain from figuring out what motivates people the most: gaming, people prefer challenges that are the most satisfying to overcome, and that can be overcome. Many knowingly prefer things working against their consent a great deal before they finally overcome the challenge.
If I’ve learnt anything from neuroscience studies of the dopamine response, it’s that dopamine not only responds the most when the outcome averages out at 50%, it responds the most in anticipation of this outcome. Basically people most want that which is reasonably expected to be 50% non-consensual - albeit in the way in which they want to consent. Nobody likes challenges they can’t do, or they can do too easily, where the potential losses are too much or too much. The potential losses just have to be of the right type, and average out to little more than random.

Like I stated before…

Think of an aspect of life like a roller coaster, and think of some parts too hard for some people. They just say “no!” And teleport off the roller coaster to safe consensual ground.

Now use the analogy of hell… most people would teleport out of it in 1/1000th of a second, but some people might want to ride hell forever (consensually)…

Someone may decide after a million trillion years that they want to try to go further on the roller coaster than 1/1000th of a second, but it’s all CONSENSUAL!!

In a 100% consensual reality you can choose, consensually to always have your consent violated, by simply never saying no! To hell. Of course nobody would actually choose that, but it’s there.

But people do choose it. Some think they deserve it. Some think they must suffer because others are suffering. There are other reasons. Not everyone, but a lot of people and perhaps even most in some area of their lives. People stay with people who do nto treat them well. Or people are with someone who is generally fine, but never stand up for themselves in relation to a certain pattern of treatment that feels bad. This can be caused by anything from feeling like the other person is more attractive and will leave (and this need not be correct) to excusing the other person on ridiculous grounds - their job is tough.

People often have ‘this is simply the way reality is’ internal voices that keep them from challenging the status quo. IOW a part of them begins to think that something is fucked up and an internal voice says ‘this is the way reality is and you are fucked up to expect anything different’. And so potential change and improvement gets cut off.

Yeah but like I stated before…

How does the person know whether saying “no!” is always the best moral good without 100% knowledge and wisdom (i.e. in hindsight too/prescience). I mean your thread title is “Everyone knows what is morally good or bad” when clearly they don’t - and can’t without future prediction and 100% knowledge and wisdom.

Are you trying to say that in a 100% consensual reality, they would? I mean the reality would have to be twisted to fit their consent unless they knew and were wise enough to completely understand the consequences of their reality.

That’s the only way I can make sense of your utopia. Somehow everything they consented to would magically turn out to never result in a negative consequence for them? And presumably everything they 100% consented to would also magically turn out to always result in a positive consequence for them?

Some people will consent to always being surprised and some won’t … if we’re all in our own reality of 100% consent, it shouldn’t matter to you which one they choose. So long as it’s 100% consensual and non zero sum. We have all the ingredients from platonic eternal forms, enough for everyone to get what they want without hurting others.

Everyone knows what they judge as morally good or bad. There is no consensus. See abortion.

Umm… you’re totally missing the point of my entire thread. Abortions only happen in non consensual realities. Non consensual realities are my definition of evil.

We live in a zero sum non consensual reality: evil

We can live in a consensual non zero sum reality: good

It’s not really my opinion, it’s true by definition.

My definition is not my opinion, as I further clarified.

Your definition is your opinion. If I don’t consent to you doing something and you do it anyway, that makes it wrong by my standard, not yours.

I’m talking about the difference between zero sum worlds (ours) and non zero sum worlds (good)

I assure you I don’t care.

He’s right, you don’t understand what he is saying and your counterarguments are not counterarguments to his position. He bears some responsibility for his communication in this confusion and also the idea he is putting forward is not a common one. That said, saying you don’t care in relation to something where you probably have some clues that you might have misunderstood him is impractical by my standards.

This, as it applies to Ecmandu’s fantasy arguments, is irrelevant.

In his mind, we all have secret special powers, to create our own Utopia universes, where nothing bad ever happens to us and there is no suffering of course. Of course, he never explains how what spells or sorceries we must learn to make this happen, only that it can be done.

Trixie,

I’ve seen more miracles of hell than you can imagine.

From this, I know what can be done.

And I know what needs to be done.

The thing about existence, it doesn’t tolerate lose scenarios for all beings …

zero sum realities force the hand of existence itself

Existence doesnt actually care about human beings and will eventually make the entire human race extinct which is the ultimate lose scenario for every one
No non zero sum reality can stop this from happening as existence will carry on regardless so it is basically just another version of Utopia [ Ecmandu version ]

Even if non zero sum reality is possible it will only be digital not biological which renders it useless
Because once biological beings become extinct then it does not actually matter what replaces them

You need to upload human consciousness into a non zero sum reality to make this existence better while there are still human beings
As there is absolutely no point to it otherwise because less we can actually experience it for ourselves it is a complete waste of time

In reality as opposed to Ecmandu Utopia there is only one non zero sum reality and it is death
Because death is the end of consciousness and free will which means an end to all conflict too


No conflict at all in death so if you want non zero sum reality that is where to go

Death is the answer Trixie that is the one and only way it can be done
By the way how is your version of Utopia coming along ? Any progress ?

Listen up you two : Utopias never ever work so stop dreaming about them because they are all doomed to failure
Think about death instead because not only is it real but it is also eternal so devote your energies to that instead