Here’s some memetic cross-pollination
Getting back to Truman vs Neo I don’t think there’s a major dilemma or paradox. In the case where you truly cannot be aware of certain things, then they effectively have no consequence. If there can be any consequence then axiomatically there must be a method by which you can gain that awareness. In either case the obvious ideal algorithm is simply “live in the moment”.
I guess the point is, we should have preferences and do things, but not be overly psychologically attached / emotionally addicted to the outcome if we intend to avoid suffering.
Right, right, but what if you want to help others do the same? Isn’t helping others part of our nature?
Yeah…this sounds like stoner bullshit to me. I mean I’m educated enough to know what these words all mean, but they don’t make any actual sense in the configuration you arranged them in.
This sounds like a philosophy for people who don’t need to figure out where their next meal is coming from.
I ask myself am I a participant in someones experiment, perhaps a thesis ?
Am I an intellectual pawn in a random game of choice ?
Is this world the real world, or am I being subjected to excessive verbiage as an audience for some ego massaging b/s from some entity, perhaps a pseudo intellectual, who would like to consider themselves above the norm, but can’t ask a lucid question, let alone offer up an intelligent, or for that matter, intelligible argument ?
Is their a god ?
Who shot J.R.?
Why do pubs have car parks ?
Why is there only one Monopolies Comission ?
If a box of notepads is on a truck driving at speed, does it still qualify as stationary ?
Whats it all about ?
Alfie ?
Why are we here?
Why am I here ?
Why did I read this thread ?
Truman, Truman, Truman.
Rhubarb, Rhubarb, Rhubarb.
Maybe I speak a different language than you. (Hint: define symbols and language in Computer Science terms, then in Chomskyian terms, compare and contrast the similarities, then answer the question of what a language is and how you learn it…)
Wikipedia’s English might be less orthogonal to your English than mine is. So try the following: famous guy other smart people suspect might have been smart. Does that help? :o
Are you too dim to understand that it’s a joke? Guess what, that was a joke too. Thanks for playing 
And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?”
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair—
(They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”)
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin—
(They will say: “But how his arms and legs are thin!”)
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
The people are playing the game to optimize the distribution of dollars, the dollars are playing a game to optimize the people to optimize the distribution of dollars better, over and over again, and the dollars are getting smarter than the people. (Did they already cross over? What really happened during the financial crisis :o What was it about? Complicated financial products? Automated trading? What what what? :p)
Ok.
**msmith537 **should consider people who do need to figure out where their next meal is coming from: people in the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar who eat Tasty Wheat. People like Morpheus, Dozer, Trinity, Neo, and, of course, Mouse. Then consider people who don’t need to figure out where their next meal is coming from: people like Cypher.
It was a meta-joke.
You’re still making this quite quite difficult for me. Difficult, but amusing.
Kozmik Do you want to make a bet? Right now, are there more Trumans reading this thread too scared to pipe up and be embarrassed, or more Neos reading this thread not saying anything for our own good?
I think it’s an interesting bet, and I pray to “God” (I’ll just say God, is that ok? Don’t need to worry about the details yet) that “He” will let us find the answer to that question as best he can.
But then again, I’m not sure he’ll ever be sure either, except provisionally, because how to do count the conscious entities? So let’s make it a small bet and have it bounce back and forth forever (we’ll just remember the exchange rate at every discontinuity between currencies) as we figure it out.
Let’s make it one dollar, just like in Trading places. I can be Eddie Murphy, and you can by Dan Aykroyd. Sound good? I’ll make my bet: more Neos 
o:o:o
The color of quarks. Think about it :o
So Neos are lurkers? Does this make God tomndebb?
Does everyone know it?
Why not?
If **hoenikker **is wrong then does that mean msmith537 is right?
I’ll settle for being the wisest man in this thread.
This thread is the kind of nonsense which gives philosophy a bad name.
No claim or argument is being made, but we’re supposed to respond with “Wow, that’s really deep!” or “Makes you think…” or something.
Wow, that’s really deep! :rolleyes:
Makes you think…
Reported for promoting illegal drug use.
I beg to differ. If ever there was a thread that showed how drugs can ruin your mind, this one is it.
Hehe
In fairness I actually think jackdavinci was getting at a serious point, just in somewhat trippy language (unlike the rest of the thread, which is in trippy language and gets at nothing).
When discussing the nature of reality, two points are often made:
- We cannot be sure that what we see is real (in the sense that we might be living in the matrix or whatever).
- Therefore, it’s irrational to behave as though everything around us is real.
But point 2 doesn’t follow; it does make sense to behave as though what is around us is real, without being sure that that is the case.
I think that’s what jackdavinci was saying and I agree with that.
(I can give a full argument for why I hold that position, but I just want to give a short response for now :))