Naval

 Socialism is competition that looks like cooperation.

 Capitalism is cooperation that looks like competition.

 I understand that being unattached sounds unappealing to a lot of people.

 It sounds like you go through life without ever really forming connections or having close relationships.

 But in my experience, it's actually the complete opposite.

 And when I'm unattached, it's very easy for me to form close relationships.

 It's very easy for me to feel close to people 

 because I know there's no possibility of getting hurt.

 So because there's no possibility of getting hurt, there's nothing holding me back.

 For someone that's really serious about getting there, what I would say is

 you have to understand how these problems arise.

 And more specifically, you have to understand that they arise purely in the mind.

 They do not come from circumstance. They are a 

 projection of your own thinking and nothing more.

 With the notable exception of the physical problems, hunger, pain, and so on,

 all problems are simply situations that you want to be other than the way they are.

 And when you really understand that, you realize that all problems are of your own making.

 And if all problems are of your own making, why would you make problems?

 I never presumed to speak for anyone else. 

 I figured me for jumping in to your question

 substance of what he's saying, mathematics is a logical

 system and the fundamental thing, as Navarre was hinting at, is this idea of the excluded

 middle. It's either X or not X. Both can't be true at the same time.

 This is the law of non-contradiction. It just says things are true or they're not true.

 There's no middle ground. Either I'm here 

 delivering this chit to you right now in air chat or I'm not.

 It's not simultaneously true at the same time here in this universe that I'm both doing

 the thing and not doing the thing simultaneously. It's one or the other.

 What mathematics does in formal logic, even more foundationally, is build upon that simple

 idea that there is such a thing as necessary truth, and accepting the fact that contradictions

 should be avoided, what follows. Let's assume this 

 thing, and let's say what logically follows from that.

 That's what logic is, and mathematics is sort of the superset of logic.

 So, I think what Keith is saying is, you know, conversation becomes impossible if you deny

 that. If you start denying that mathematics is a way of formalising the process of reasoning,

 then what you're saying is, we can't talk about stuff because there's no way in which

 either of us can persuade the other that what the other is saying contains an error,

 contains a falsehood, could possibly be wrong in some way.

 And if that's true, what's the point of having a conversation?

 There's nothing more to say on the matter.

 way that we can make any progress here because

 we just have to both sit on our assumptions 

 both agree that the other person's assumptions

 are just as equally correct as ours, even though we 

 disagree, that the disagreement is only apparent not real.

 The whole point of having a conversation is 

 to have fun in trying to find out if there's

 any area of disagreement, at least for me.

 Just agreeing with people all day long, I mean, there's something to that.

 With your friends, you sit around, you have fun agreeing with each other about how ridiculous,

 you know, the latest thing that Donald Trump 

 has said, or Joe Biden has said, or whatever.

 You laugh, and laughter and comedy is about agreeing with stuff.

 But at the same time, disagreeing with the thing that you find disagreeable about the

 person you're talking about, or the claim that you're laughing at, that kind of thing.

 That's where the real bullseye of comedy is.

 But again, you can only do that because you two are agreeing that there's something to

 disagree about. And if there's nothing to disagree about, then comedy loses all of its force.

 Conversation is pointless and as Keith says, you know, maths is broken and that's what

 you're saying. You're saying that there's no 

 of way to laugh at stuff because there's nothing

 to disagree with. There's no reason to have a 

 conversation because you already agree on everything and you think

 that everything that anyone ever says anywhere, anytime isn't true or false because there

 is no true or false. It's all just mere appearance, 

 which goes back to what Navarro was saying that if you

 don't have this dichotomy operating in the world between possible and impossible, true

 and false, good and evil, name your dichotomy, then everything just becomes this grey mess

 of kind of opinion. There's no factual matter that 

 can ever converge on and it would be a boring world.

 I have a experience with hand-to-hand combat and a history of violence that

 I don't ever really talk about but that I'll share in the context of raising my

 sons to be quick to learn and hard to kill which for me 

 is the A to Z of my parental pedagogy. I might delete this.

 I think there tends to be a over-fetishization of Europe. People like

 to think it's some sort of paradise on earth, especially compared to America, but

 what people have to consider is that Europe is basically a retirement

 community inside an amusement park protected underneath the US shield. If it

 wasn't for the US military might and having a lot of European countries as

 its allies, I don't think Europeans will live such the luxurious high quality

 life and social benefits that they enjoy. I don't think that would really be a possibility.

 No, the government's not good at telling 

 other people what to do. I agree in one sense, but

 they're just a special case of the broader 

 sense that no one is good at telling anyone

 else what to do. That's never the case. But!

 The reason I say that David Deutsch, for example, is the greatest living genius

 has less to do with the fact that he discovered, 

 invented, created the theory of quantum computation

 although, tick that box, that's why he's world renowned.

 Less to do with the fact that he's made advances in 

 advances in physics and the understanding of the multiverse.

 Put all of these great accomplishments aside.

 The reason he's the greatest living genius is because 

 understands how knowledge is created better than anyone.

 And so he understands how to have fun, how to have a good life

 and he personally is doing exactly what he wants, moment to moment, day to day

 and making advances in all these other areas.

 Why? Because he gets it. He gets how learning works.

 As Feynman did, as Popper did, as Einstein did.

 These guys just know how knowledge works.

 Not because they are pursuing one particular thing because it might be useful in the future.

 No, they were just doing the thing they found fun at the time.

 And they understood how problem solving worked.

 It really is a shock coming from an academic environment and maybe being

 successful in an academic environment getting into the elite schools and then

 starting a real job or trying to start a company and seeing that that same

 skill set doesn't apply. I mean sucking up to your mentor and working harder

 than anyone else at your tech accelerator doesn't mean that you're

 gonna create a successful company. I think this is why people sometimes

 develop an imposter syndrome because those skills that they learned at school

 that they were good at aren't translating to the 

 real world and they wonder if they're smart at all.

 Two rules of ideology. One, from the point of view 

 of ideology, a lack of ideology looks like ideology.

 Two, ideology looks like an absence of ideology to itself.

 I may need to rephrase this to be more elegant, but there is something here.

 And yes, it's meant to be somewhat paradoxical.

 There's a bright line between persons and AI, between the thing that programs and

 the thing that is programmed, but somehow or other people think that, well, you know,

 the Doomers, they've got this idea of escape velocity, you just keep adding

 more and more tasks to this system and suddenly it achieves escape velocity,

 suddenly it becomes the opposite to what it is. Namely, instead of being a

 perfectly obedient task performer, it suddenly becomes a disobedient creative

 thing. The two are unrelated, they're opposite to each other. How does one

 become the other? They don't. It's silly.

 Oh, Hemingway showed me what real writing was, and there's a great story behind it.

 So, when I was about 26, I did this backpacking across the world on no money,

 and I lived a very, very interesting experience.

 When I came back, I wanted to write about it.

 and I thought I would write a short story.

 I've noticed a certain difference in the use of the word historical between Europe

 and the United States. When Americans say their school is historical or you know

 has historical heritage, whatever, they usually mean that it's named after some

 random fur trapper guy who played a minor role in the siege of a local

 hill fort during the War of Independence and he brought matches that blew up the

 fortifications with four defenders or something like that and owing to that

 four towns, five mountains and 16 rivers in the neighborhood are named after him

 and so is the school in question. Whereas in Europe when you say that your school

 has historical heritage it means, as was the actual case with my high school, that

 the building used to be the Gestapo headquarters during the Second World War

 and that the basement where we went every day to change our street shoes for

 slippers, because that's a European thing obviously, and where we had PE classes

 in the improvised gym and so on, well the basement was the interrogation chambers

 cellar alone to change our shoes and you

 know 60 years before that people were hanging upside down from heating pipes

 in that very cellar getting beaten to death by the Gestapo. So yeah that's what

 it means in Europe for a building or an institution to be historical. Not being

 named by some rando who killed five raccoons and two Confederate soldiers. European supremacy transmission over.

 Truth and trust share a bi-directional relationship.

 Where there's trust, there's truth. Where there's truth, there's trust.

 Your goal is not to like or dislike people, your goal 

 is to check whether you can trust them or not trust them.

 Thus, the outcome that gives the largest number of players the most amount of sovereignty is an 

 agreement that every player is a sovereign over some definition of their own domain, and no 

 sovereign is allowed to infringe on the sovereign rights within the domain of any other player.

 And this is where you get different types of entities 

 claiming sovereign rights over various aspects of their domain.

 And sometimes when there's nothing left, brain entropy rises, which gives rise to creativity,

 which solutions to problems spontaneously happen. But there's no, there's no you that

 could force them out. They just have to happen spontaneously. And these spontaneous guesses

 happen as a result of an understanding of the problem itself. And understanding is,

 understanding is a strange thing. Understanding, because you could have somebody who knows

 everything there is to know about the color 

 red, right? But if they're colorblind and they know

 red, they have read every book about red. They've,

 they know about the wavelengths, they know about the theory, they know about everything else.

 And then there's a medical solution that cures colorblindness. So,

 so they're able to see the color red for the first time.

 When they see red for the first time, they will learn something new.

 So understanding is that extra step. When you really understand a problem,

 it's that extra step beyond knowing there is everything to know about a specific problem,

 is understanding. And you could actually understand something without knowing

 everything there is to know about it. Understanding kind of transcends that.

 Because a baby could see the color red without knowing about wavelengths, right? I could move

 my hand without, without knowing about biology, without knowing about kinesiology. A doctor who

 living can move his hand no better than I can

 because the understanding is there. And problem solving is like that.

 If you could understand a problem, then your 

 guesses for the solution are going to be far better

 than if you have a superficial knowledge of the problem itself.

 Competency is not creativity. Conforming to an instruction is not the same as

 disobeying all known lessons. Following a library

 of instructions, no matter how big that library is,

 and mashing it up into new forms that are surprising to people who haven't

 encountered such a huge volume of knowledge before,

 piece of knowledge. These are different things. These are categorically

 black and white different things, and I would suggest that

 that's been ignored here in the discussion so far.

 This is in the beginning of the book, so immediately we start 

 to get the gist of things and maybe a little bit of answers why.

 Even encouraged to fight over them. Bullying was considered a virtue, his younger brother Kimball says.

 The big kids quickly learned to punch the 

 little ones in the face and take their stuff.

 Elon, who was small and emotionally awkward, got beaten up twice.

 Near the end of the first week, the boys were 

 divided into two groups and told to attack each other.

 It was so insane, mind-blowing, Musk recalls.

 Every few years, one of the kids would die.

 The counselors would recount such stories as warnings.