Makaze

Dammit Makaze you're killing me here :/

I'm not even going to bother asking other people because I know you'll tell them not to tell me.

So I'll just keep thinking of you as a sexy woman.

I'm just curious honestly. And if you want me to be really honest, I find your intelligence and general manner of speaking quite sexy, and am wondering if this will change if I start to think of you as a guy.

----------
Then you probably shouldn't judge someone who would feel the same about someone in their dreams as inherently wrong... There are all kinds of values, and one of them being more 'healthy' is meaningless when they are functionally the same.
----------
Fair enough.

----------
You're welcome. Hopefully you will reach the point I spoke of a long while ago yet...
----------
Doubt it :D

On an unrelated note,


You are listed as a female on your profile but Saxima and other people call you "He" all the time and I haven't seen you correct anybody.

----------
It depends on whether or not you consider them a friend, doesn't it? Or what you consider a friend. Some people would label your conviction catering to or sympathizing with neediness.
----------
I suppose it does. I would think it wrong to ignore my friends to do drown myself in a game, and would be mad if a friend did so to me.


----------
Hence why I try to convince people. Like I have been trying to convince you. I think we would all learn a lot more if we didn't limit ourselves to one view of the world.
----------
I agree. And you've made me do quite a bit of thinking, which I appreciate.

----------
Wrong, you say? Wrong in what way?

Technically games are made by people and it is still interaction with a person. It could therefore be compared to drowning yourself in one person as opposed to society, so I am not sure what you mean by "wrong".
----------
When you put it that way it makes sense, what I mean is, it would be wrong to ignore a friend who wants to spend time with you to drown in video games.


----------
I don't really think so. I mean, it isn't as useful because no one else will believe that it happened, but that's because they're like you. If everyone were like me there wouldn't be a lot of incentive to believe in reality, even for you, would there?
----------
I suppose not.

----------
Yes, but it is only neglect if your friends think it is. The game personality does not experience the time gap so it not the same as neglecting them. If not talking to them for long amounts of time affected your relationship in-game like it would affect your relationship with a real friend, your priorities would change similarly to how you would change them for someone who felt neglected in real life.

Valuing a real friend over a friend in a game is subjective as well. Think of people who would rather drown themselves in a game than socialize. While you may value your closest friends more than your other friends, this is just because you think they are more fun than the game friends. It isn't so simple as 'real or not real', it is about who you have more fun with. That could change, you know.
----------
No, it's because they're real, and I value reality. I consider those who would rather drown themselves in a game than socialize to be wrong.

----------
God does not have objective values because he is an entity that does things based on what he observes just like you. The scope of his knowledge does not matter, if he makes decisions separate from yours and he is not you, then his values are subjective. You may not have the same values, and yet you observe the world, and so does he—the only reason why you might share values is because like you said, you choose to follow him. Without him you would come to completely different conclusions.

By definition, a being cannot know if anything exists outside of its range of knowledge. The only way to tell if you do not know everything is to compare to someone who knows more than you. Even if god knows more than any entity in existence, he cannot know that he knows everything that could possibly exist because it would be outside of the range of his experience. He would have no one to compare to. A blind man cannot know the concept of colors, et cetera. If you wish to argue that god is the universe and does not make conscious decisions, then fine by me, but again:

God is just like the person you would have asked to prove that they were not a hallucination. You are asking your imaginary friend if he is real and accepting his answer. You cannot verify the existence of something using the thing itself as an instrument.
----------
Fair enough.


----------
If it is as good as real, then it happened. It happened to you alone, yes, but that is 'as good as real', you just admitted. Why do you care about what others experience so much? Isn't it better to worry about how you see the world first, and then bother with others, acknowledging that there will always be a difference?
----------
I suppose so. It still matters though.

----------
Let's say that full-on 3D alternate reality games were created where you could basically have a dream that was a game. You turn your head, you see stuff in the game. You move, you move in the game. Probably something you already think would be awesome and would love to see invented.

Now, let's say you have a conversation in said game, a conversation which that in-game character will remember later. Perhaps it grows your in-game character's bond with that character. I will assume that you will enjoy this conversation and be satisfied with it even though the person in the game 'is not real'. If you lost your save, you would be pissed because you lost it, just as if someone forgot a conversation you had with them in real life.

In denying a dream conversation, saying it does not satisfy, you are merely being a bigot and refusing to acknowledge that what satisfies you is completely under your control. You may not be satisfied for the same reasons, but you are satisfied with the game just as you would be with reality if you had a conversation that improved your mood. It is an arbitrary notion that satisfaction levels are not up to you even if reality really can be divined and is not meaningless.
----------
Yes, that's true, but the reality of the person in the game makes me think differently about it (You yourself admitted it is fair to do so). For example I would not think it right to neglect my real friends to spend time with my virtual friend, but would see nothing wrong with neglecting virtual spend to spend time with my real friends. Because he is not real.


----------
But that gain is only perceived based on what you personally value, it is not objective. What is subjective can change. You are able to change your values such that you do not care if you had an effect on the world. Do you stand to lose by changing what you value? Not by simply not getting something while you still value it.

Also, I do not think you had the wrong word. To effect is to bring about change, to affect is to be a factor in change. You are not so important as to bring about a change all on your own—if all of this is real, that is.
----------
But you forget, I believe in God, who has objective values, and so my values are objective.

The problem is that I said "I want to have an affect", that is wrong, "Affect" cannot be used as a noun that way, if I had said "I want to affect the world" that would be correct, but "Wanting to have an affect" is wrong, you can only "Want to have an effect".


----------
But again, these effects are perceived, and you do not have to value them. Meaning does not exist without someone to observe, and more importantly, a thing has no meaning unless someone chooses to see meaning in it.

If there were ten people like me in the world, we would all exist to observe meaning, and we would place meaning on subjective existence and not what we considered meaningless; objective experience.

If no one existed who saw meaning in 'shared reality', then the concept would be meaningless. It would have no one who gave it meaning. A painting is not meaningful or beautiful if there is no one who would say it is such.

Therefore you choose to value reality while you stand to gain nothing from valuing it. Of course you will feel bad if you wake up and realize that you have been dreaming your whole life, and that all of this never happened, but that is only because you choose to value things that way. You could just as easily say, "You know what, I don't regret that because it made me who I am today and if I were asked I would say it was more meaningful than the reality I slept through because I did not experience that reality subjectively, and it did not affect or effect me as a person, but instead only affected what I call real."
----------
If this was a dream, I would not regret it. This dream is, as you have said, as good as real, and I will take away from it what I will. But I will still acknowledge the fact that it didn't really happen.

----------
Pretty often, and that is actually very close to one of the most emotional lines that have ever been written. But it doesn't defy practicalism to entertain the idea that someone isn't physically real—you still share happiness with someone, the experience and feelings are the same. You do not stand to gain by refusing to share happiness in a dream. In fact you stand to lose the chance at further happiness

Watch Into the Wild for more info about that line, or just for a great movie in general. My favorite movie, actually.
----------
Sharing happiness in a dream does not satisfy me. It's not that I refuse to do it, it's that it doesn't make me happy. I can dream (Not while sleeping) of having achieved my goals and having done everything I want to do, and I can dream of a fake person to share it all with, but it does not satisfy me the way really doing so would. That's a big difference.

I watched Into The Wild many years ago and am failing to remember its discussion on that quote...or much of the movie at all, actually.


----------
But if you won't be there to observe these effects then they become meaningless.

Also the chances of you having an effect on the world are low even if all of this real. Furthermore, if it isn't real, then consider this: if you are the world and the world is you, then if change yourself and purge all that is negative within yourself to become a better person, you change the world. Sound familiar?
----------
But I stand to gain by believing that I have effected (And I just realized that I used affected when I should have used effected and I want to shoot myself in the face) the world. On my death bed, I will be able to rest easily and ready to die knowing that I have had some effect on the world, however small.

You say I have a low chance of effecting the world, but I already have. Not some huge change, not some revolution, but I have changed lives I have been involved in for the better. I want to continue to do so, and I want to to matter.
Yes, and that is an interesting thought, but I believe that the world is real.

When you put it that way I suppose (And I think I have already said this), that I suppose that the reality of something does not matter, in terms of use, but in terms of meaning (i.e. it means something to me that I have made a difference in someone's life), there is a difference, and it matters.

You know, spellcheck has been telling me this whole time that "Practicalism" isn't a word, and when I googled the word the first result was "Pragmatism", and i was going to bring it up, but then I thought, "It's Makaze, I'm sure she's right in some way or another."

Well, the main reason is that there is never really a dull moment. It always seems that there is something "interesting" happening. I have a short attention span, so if I don't get side-tracked with what I read, I considered it to be "good." I hope this makes sense.

Also, you're writing style does help with depicting your dream more.

Hm, three, so far. I'll probably read more, today.

----------
Ah, fine, I back down.
----------
I will never forget this. :'D


----------
I say that the US is the worst because I know of no country that is as ready to invade another as the US is. I know of no country that could say, "If our economy goes down, you will too," to most of the world. I know of no other country to have used nukes on a foreign nation. I know of no other nation to have engaged in a civil war that killed more people than any war they have been in since. I believe that the US was one of the last countries to get rid of slavery, and even then, they reinstated it in the form of black codes and vagrancy laws which still affect society today.
----------
On the economy comment you mentioned, I'd like to say that the "If our economy goes down, you will too" part has come as a result from globalization starting to take place more and more. Trade allows countries to specialize in whatever production they have an advantage in, thus producing more in total, and then trade with each other. Country A can produce 4 cans of butter, or 2 cans of butter and 1 carton of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs. Country B can produce 4 cartons of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs and 1 can of butter, or 2 cans of butter. With trade, they can produce at their advantages of 4 cans of butter in A and 4 cartons of eggs in B and then trade so they each have 2 cartons and 2 cans. Making them both better off than if they produced everything in their own country. Unfortunately the downside to this is if a recession occurs and a country can't afford to trade, it thus affects the other countries that depend on it, setting off a chain of dominoes. I personally like my country of Brazil because of how self-efficient it is. 90% of our energy is hydroelectric and we're even starting to make our own oil and we're even starting some nuclear power plants. Our cars are flex-fuel so they run on both gasoline and ethanol, the latter of which we make a lot of. And because of this self-efficiency, our economy has been largely unaffected by the US entering a recession. The only problem that I've seen is that to maintain this type of self-efficiency, there are a lot of taxes which results in foreign products being much more expensive than they actually are. Now whether or not globalization or self-efficiency is better is up in the air. Both have their pros and cons.

As for the nukes, well the US was the first and hopefully the last from the looks of it. I should add that the two nuclear weapons that the US used were detonated in the air to cause less damage. They still caused a lot of damage in comparison to other weapons but the point of using them was more to stop a war that needed to end than to decimate a whole lot of people for the kicks. I will not say this justifies the use of them but unfortunately there are some necessary evils that need to be taken at times. It was efficient.

As for the civil war comment, that makes sense in my head. Unlike other wars where there are French, British, Russian, German, Italian, and American deaths. In a civil war, there's only one opponent. Your own countrymen. So every kill is an American death and the more heated it gets, the more your own countrymen are going to die. I believe the Spanish Civil War has had more Spanish deaths than in any other war they've been in just like the US.

I will not argue the slavery point because I feel that I can't say anything against it. Gotta know when to fold them.


----------
There are other countries with bad histories, but the US the most dangerous nation in existence today. If you are not a US citizen, when you think about a nation that poses a threat to you, the US probably poses the biggest threat for several reasons.
----------
Agreed.


----------
I know well of Britain's empire, but for some strange reason I have heard so little about any country being as imperialistic as the United States for at least a century other than Nazi Germany as to make me assume that the US is the most imperialistic nation alive today.
----------
I consider the imperialistic attitude of the US at the moment to be different than the imperialistic views of the countries from the past. As you said earlier, the US seems to police the world at times trying to stop wrongs and replacing them with what it believes to be right. But it doesn't seem to expand its own territory by claiming countries it has defeated. Instead it tries to help them start up a new government. How right or wrong this is just meh in my opinion. I would prefer that it stay out of some countries' businesses but can see it being helpful in other cases. But I personally find this better than expanding your own territories into another country and annexing their land, effectively robbing people of what's theirs, and then sucking the resources out of the land dry for yourself and then leaving a old husk behind when you're done.


----------
The US has invaded however many nations in the last generation, occupied them, inspired 9/11, and gone to war over it. The US has the largest largest number of inmates per capita in the world (or that was the case last I heard, it was a pretty big gap though so I doubt anything changed). The number of blacks in prisons is higher than the number of slaves at any point in the nation's history.
----------
I'm sort of missing how the latter half of this part, the part about inmates and the numbers of blacks in prision, is relevant to what we're talking about. xD It feels like it came right out of left field.


----------
If you can out to me where those empires have done as much damage as the United States has in the past, say, fifty years, even if they combine to be equal, I would appreciate it.
----------
Well there's a reason none of those empires have done as much damage recently. After WWII, most of them couldn't afford to. Only Soviet Russia and the US could be effectively imperialistic. Which one caused more damage is a subjective opinion. In the end, both of us can acknowledge that they did a lot of stupid ****. Which one was worse is up in the air. I will also add that the US is also becoming less imperialistic from my point of view because just like those countries in the past, it can't afford to.

----------
GGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSS

That isn't fair, they locked the thread on me.
----------
I know. D: I was like "B-b-b-b-b-b-but ; ~ ;" when Mish asked for it to be locked in the Premium section.


----------
Yeah, I want to see some statistics about those other countries invading and slaughtering like the US has done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. And then show how they have occupied half of the land the US has.
----------
Unfortunately I can't give you hard statistics. I was mostly going off of causalities from various wars(primarily WWI and WWII). The battle strategy for WWI, until the US came in, for example was basically "We have more reserves than them!" so the body count wasn't exactly low.

Here's the full extent of the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the French Empire, and Soviet Russia for your viewing pleasure. To put it simply, the expansion of these empires weren't peaceful. The British Empire is a shining example too. It was the world's biggest empire(only Genghis MOTHER****ING Khan's empire is close in size) and at one time it used to have sway over 1/5 of the world's population.

I want to see some sort of evidence that shows me that the US has "slaughtered" more people.


----------
Because I haven't heard anything about them doing that I get news from several countries. I mean every nation has a history of bloodshed but the US is guilty of genocide. Just consider the Native Americans—it might not have been purely about race but I'm pretty sure that wiping out almost an entire continent's (well the space of the Unites States anyway, whatever you call that) worth of people is something that none of those on your list can claim.
----------
Pinning all of that on the US is a complete disregard of what has happened in history. All of the empires(British, Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc.) that decided to expand into America are very much responsible for what has happened to the Native Americans(I'm counting both North and South America). While some Native Americans were assimilated into society peacefully, others were enslaved or exterminated in long wars or by European diseases to which they had no immunity. Ever hear of the Conquistadores? The adventurers who conquered new land and expanded the land of either the Spanish or Portuguese Empire(They conquered more land than the total area of the US). You should at least know of Francisco Pizarro and Hernán Cortés. Modern Peruvians consider Pizarro to be one of the biggest reasons for the destruction of their indigenous culture, language, and religion for example. And have you ever heard about the Scramble for Africa? I wouldn't think it outrageous to say that those European countries had a huge hand in the current state of Africa and its countries.

And are you going to argue the other things I said in that thread?

I wanted to read it, just out of curiosity. I find dreams to be fascinating. And so far, I like yours.

Nevermind, I found it in your signature...

Hey, Makaze. I remember you saying that you kept an online journal about your dreams; may you give me a link to them, if you do not mind? I would like to read them.

----------
Why does that concept matter to you? Why does it matter if others can see me? Furthermore, what if those others are just like me? What do you gain by caring whether they are real or not?
----------
Well, for one, I want to have an affect on other's lives. And...I just can't imagine being the only one who exists. How often is it said that happiness is worthless if you have no one to share it with?


----------
You cannot know that I will exist if you die, so why do you believe that? On what basis are you able to believe that the world will still exist without someone to observe it? Furthermore, what is better about believing this that than not believing it? Why do you want to believe that the world will go on even if you die?
----------
The world would not exist without anyone to observe it. I want the world to go on after I die because I want to have had an affect on the world.


----------
No, it is not correct. You have weighed the likelihood once before or been taught that it does not exist, and you choose to believe that for all later instances unless the evidence for it suddenly is more convincing than what you previously decided. Let's say that you have two vials. One of them is filled up to a certain point with information that says Hogwarts does not exist. Because it is the first vial you come across, you focus on it and practically ignore the other. The other has a little bit of proof in it, and it is not more proof than is in the first vial. The second vial begins to fill over time, and you continue to ignore it. It fills, and fills, and fills. Finally, when the level of proof in the second vial is greater than the first do you even consider focusing on the second vial. And even then you are skeptical, because the first vial is more familiar to you.

I, on the other hand, watch both constantly, constantly keep a watch on the proof of the second vial as well as the first, and when asked, I will assess the likelihood anew. You are staring intently at the first vial and when asked will not even look away from it; "It's not as full as this one so it isn't important."

I weigh the likelihoods constantly and I refuse to accept any vial as 'good enough' at any point in time while there are other options. You decide far ahead of time what is good enough and ignore everything else until a new vial presents itself. If you do change to the second vial, you will do the same thing, only now you will be focusing on it. It is your attitude towards all vials that bothers me, not each vial itself.
----------
You're right. I will be more open minded about such things from now on. I will pay attention to both vials. Thank you for this assessment.


----------
And yet you willingly choose to limit your ability to realize things. Why?
----------
Although I understand what you have said, I do not believe accepting practicalism will allow me to understand more things.


----------
Exactly. This is called being closed-minded. You have just explicitly stated that you are perfectly happy with not thinking outside of the box.
----------
Yep, that's correct. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am closed minded about. The idea of nobody existing but myself is one of them.

And is what they think you think of them what you actually think of them? (This could get confusing very quickly...haha) And besides it may not be directed to those you're debating with, it seems to be very specifically directed towards your friends. I get the impression that those you're friends with would know it already if they were. Or is it directed to KHV as a whole?

It's very personal, I think. Kinda a snapshot of the warmer side of Makaze. Even after a very cool response to someone it's just a little reminder that you have a soft side too haha.

Thank you :) It was Dr. Victor Frankl on his time in Auschwitz, paraphrased from Friedrich Nietzsche who was a German philosopher. I like yours too!

Okay.
I'll see you then, Maki.