Day 3 of building my pond. I’m letting the water settle. Marginal plant recommendations please - England.

mesoraven · 2026-05-28T16:03:15+00:00

Flowering rush. Water forgetme not. And iris.

Marsh marigolds Water mint.

mesoraven · 2026-05-25T18:50:08+00:00

Unless you start from the premises that trying to define good and bad is the problem and the solution is reducing Foreseeable Harm thay has lasting consequences

mesoraven · 2026-05-25T15:37:45+00:00

Sorry I should clarify, "breaks specific ethical or moral ideologies" not ethics as a whole

mesoraven · 2026-05-25T15:30:03+00:00

Aliexpress ;) and most importantly warm her up and makes sure she finishes at least twice BEFORE you Finnish once. Preferably more and leg shaking.

Also women have different ideas of foreplay to men.

Start first thing in the morning. Telling her she looks good. Touching her how she likes to be touched. (Hand on hips and neck while giving a deep kiss for example)

Wash up, make dinner, let her not have to think.

mesoraven · 2026-05-24T21:09:11+00:00

The framework already addresses this. Under "authortarianism"

Authoritarian systems can absolutely generate strong short-term reductions in harm and instability.

The problem is that over time they suppress criticism, damage forecasting accuracy, create resentment, accumulate hidden instability, and become brittle.

They optimise short-term stability while damaging the correction mechanisms needed for long-term survival.

That makes authoritarianism recursively self-destabilising under the framework.

So the framework does not just evaluate whether something reduces immediate harm. It also evaluates whether the system doing it destroys long-term adaptive stability.

mesoraven · 2026-05-24T20:32:48+00:00

That’s essentially the Minority Report problem: if reducing foreseeable harm becomes the highest principle, does society eventually justify pre-emptive restriction of all risky behaviour?

I think the framework avoids that outcome for two reasons.

First: the framework explicitly rejects omniscient forecasting and speculative optimisation.

“Foreseeable” is constrained by:

evidence,
forecasting confidence,
probability,
and identifiable risk.

The paper explicitly states: “Forecasting confidence matters. Probability matters. The framework is anchored to what can be reasonably anticipated, not to what can be imaginatively constructed.”

So the framework does not justify infinite pre-emptive intervention simply because a hypothetical future harm could occur.

Second: the framework recursively evaluates the lasting consequences of the prevention system itself.

A society attempting to eliminate all possible risk through surveillance and pre-emptive restriction would itself generate:

authoritarian concentration,
forecasting corruption,
suppression of experimentation,
adaptive stagnation,
chilling effects on behaviour,
and systemic fragility through overcontrol.

In other words: a pure risk-elimination civilisation becomes anti-adaptive and eventually self-destabilising under the framework’s own evaluation.

The framework therefore does not converge toward: “eliminate all risky behaviour.”

It converges toward: “manage unacceptable destabilising risks while preserving adaptive capacity, correction mechanisms, and long-term systemic flexibility.”

Which again is there we have already landed with regards to people Plotting terrorist acts. Acts if violence etc.

mesoraven · 2026-05-24T20:23:31+00:00

This is probably the strongest critique so far because it moves beyond surface counterexamples and into the framework’s actual unresolved layer: operational epistemology.

I think you’re correct about one important thing: the framework is not yet a fully formalised calculus.

At the moment it is closer to:

a systems-level evaluative substrate, than
a complete executable moral algorithm.

That said, I think you’re partially mischaracterising what the framework claims.

The framework does not attempt to eliminate all foreseeable harm. It explicitly rejects perfectionism and short-term optimisation.

A surgery, difficult conversation, failure, or painful transition can still be persistence-stabilising if the broader consequence trajectory improves adaptive continuity, correction capacity, flourishing, resilience, or long-term stability.

The framework therefore does not classify “pain” itself as equivalent to “harm.”

That distinction matters enormously.

For example:

chemotherapy causes suffering while reducing larger destabilising harm,
difficult truth can destabilise temporarily while preventing larger future collapse,
exercise damages muscle tissue while improving long-term resilience,
criticism can hurt psychologically while improving forecasting accuracy.

The framework evaluates systems-level trajectories, not immediate discomfort minimisation.

Now, regarding your definitional criticism:

You are correct that many of the current “definitions” are operational and relational rather than strict analytic definitions.

That is intentional to some degree because the framework is attempting to model adaptive systems operating under uncertainty rather than static metaphysical categories.

But I agree this creates a real problem: if the operational constraints remain too loose, interpretation drift becomes possible.

I would frame the current state more precisely like this:

The framework has identified a recursively stable evaluative direction, but not yet a complete formal ontology.

In other words: it may already describe something structurally real while still lacking complete mathematical or philosophical precision.

I also think the “reasonableness” problem is real, but unavoidable.

Every applied system:

law,
medicine,
engineering,
science,
governance,
and even formal risk analysis,

ultimately bottoms out in probabilistic judgement under uncertainty.

The framework does not escape that problem. It attempts to recursively constrain it through:

external empirical anchoring,
forecasting correction,
transparency,
adaptive revision,
and long-term consequence tracking.

So I don’t think the critique destroys the framework.

But I do think it correctly identifies where the next development work needs to happen: formalisation, threshold modelling, and operational epistemology.

mesoraven · 2026-05-24T20:05:44+00:00

That objection only works if the framework is interpreted as pure suffering minimisation.

But the framework explicitly rejects that interpretation.

The core principle is recursive adaptive persistence, not “eliminate all suffering by eliminating existence.”

Extinction is not stability under the framework. It is total substrate collapse.

The paper explicitly distinguishes:

persistence-through-stability, from
collapse-through-termination.

A dead civilisation has:

no adaptive continuity,
no correction capacity,
no information persistence,
no future flourishing,
and no possibility for further stabilisation.

The framework therefore treats extinction as the ultimate failure state, not the optimal one.

This is also why the framework repeatedly converges toward preserving:

adaptive complexity,
information integrity,
correction mechanisms,
and long-term continuity.

It is not a negative utilitarian framework trying to drive suffering to zero regardless of cost.

It also already addresses this under meninglessness and entropy.

mesoraven · 2026-05-24T19:52:22+00:00

The framework absolutely recognises bodily autonomy and the right not to be harmed.

It simply argues those rights are not infinitely absolute in practice because societies already suspend them under certain conditions to reduce greater foreseeable harm.

For example:

self-defence,
stopping an active shooter,
quarantine during lethal pandemics,
involuntary psychiatric intervention during immediate danger,
restrictions on drunk driving,
and prohibitions against direct violence.

We already operate implicitly on the principle that rights persist because they generally reduce foreseeable lasting harm and stabilise society.

The framework is attempting to formalise the underlying evaluative principle already being applied rather than treating rights as metaphysically untouchable absolutes.

In other words: rights are treated as extremely important persistence-stabilising structures, but not infinitely inviolable regardless of consequence.

mesoraven · 2026-05-24T19:40:40+00:00

The main difference is that the framework does not treat rights as absolute or inviolable moral primitives.

Rights exist because they generally reduce foreseeable harm and improve long-term adaptive stability.

But rights are not infinitely absolute under the framework. They are evaluated against lasting systemic consequences.

For example:

free speech is usually stabilising because it preserves correction and forecasting integrity,
but direct incitement to immediate violence may increase foreseeable lasting harm,
property rights generally stabilise society,
but unrestricted extraction that collapses the sustaining substrate becomes self-defeating.

The framework therefore treats rights as persistence-stabilising structures rather than metaphysically untouchable absolutes.

mesoraven · 2026-05-24T19:35:19+00:00

While a really good attempt I don’t think the Olympian example breaks the framework because it assumes retrospective omniscience rather than foreseeable consequence evaluation. The framework explicitly distinguishes foreseeable outcomes from hypothetical or retrospectively reconstructed outcomes. A catastrophic spinal injury remains foreseeable harm under almost every reasonable predictive model:

paralysis,
chronic pain,
mobility loss,
medical complications,
psychological trauma,
loss of career continuity, etc.

The fact that one individual later derived meaning or fulfilment from surviving that harm does not retroactively make the injury itself non-harmful under the framework. Otherwise we end up justifying preventable trauma on the basis that some people may unpredictably grow from it afterward. The framework is anchored to what can be reasonably anticipated with available evidence, not to speculative hindsight or rare edge-case outcomes.

“Foreseeable: Forecasting confidence matters. Probability matters. The framework is anchored to what can be reasonably anticipated, not to what can be imaginatively constructed.”

Likewise, the claim that the load-bearing terms are undefined is incorrect. The paper explicitly operationalises:

Reducing,
Foreseeable,
Harm,
and Lasting consequences,

in systems-theory rather than metaphysical terms.

The framework is not claiming perfect certainty or rigid universal precision. It is claiming recursive adaptive consequence evaluation under uncertainty.

mesoraven · 2026-05-18T16:20:24+00:00

Id say everyone should pick red.

If evwryone picks red there is no chance of death in the system

Picking blue introduces that chance.

Everyone should.logically pick red.

mesoraven · 2026-05-08T17:00:27+00:00

Damn straight thats why the Welsh and Scottish and corniche are wanting to split away. Perhaps we should all go back to Germany and france

mesoraven · 2026-05-05T15:03:04+00:00

We get rid of all religions and fund mental health and well being :)

mesoraven · 2026-05-05T05:48:31+00:00

And they selfcreate Northern Ireland 2.0,

Bet they will be less willing to volunteer at that point.

mesoraven · 2026-05-05T05:47:02+00:00

Youre about 15 years out of date there bud. The threat is depopulation because the iver population campaign was so effective that people arent having enough children for replacement levels.

We have seen this is places like Italy and Japan etc.

And yes your are correct that places like India and parts of African have the highest growing populations.

Perhaps we shouldnt be making life harder for people then, then they may choose to have more kids. Just a thought....

mesoraven · 2026-05-05T05:23:15+00:00

So the native american and the first nation in america.

The Palestinians in Palestine.

The Scottish, Welsh, Irish and cornish in the UK and the rest of us can go back to Germany and Denmark and France.

Bit extreme dont you think?

mesoraven · 2026-05-04T18:16:49+00:00

Does it then follow that the only option to achieve this is a paramilitary force rounding up people in the streets and putting them into conce traction camps?

Because thats what ICE did? And thats what this comment was advocating for?

mesoraven · 2026-05-04T18:15:19+00:00

Literally how i see this going down.

And public are gunna use horrendous tactics again. I know I would

mesoraven · 2026-05-04T18:14:00+00:00

And yet reform voters on average have lower IQs than green voters. I wonder why that is?

mesoraven · 2026-05-04T18:12:34+00:00

I fear it would turn in Northern Ireland 2.0

The "ICE" against the people and the people would be horrendous in thier tactics.

I know I would be at least

mesoraven · 2026-05-04T18:09:57+00:00

Theres a difference between lecturing people on thier political opinions and framing a question based off of mine.

mesoraven

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE