Yes, monke strong together. Good monke.

Possibly because the consequences ‘evil’ people get is effectively more like living in their own shit than external punishment. If you only look at direct repercussions it looks like they’re making it pretty well, and even by their own estimates it might seem like that, but they’re really just rising to the top of a story social scale. If you value that it will be frustrating.

You just mean they would have different standards. Dogs will happily eat shit and we happily chew mint which supposedly will keep entire species away from an area. If they were sentient robots would obviously be attracted and deterred by different things than we would.

That’s fine, it’s the group that makes giving worthwhile not necessarily each individual. There will always be those who only take, and some who seem to only give. Build things because there is a chance that you will benefit by how others extend it before you die if that makes it seem better, but we usually benefit by progress and the chance of guessing which progress it will be it’s almost always wrong.

Sure, but when did that happen? After the first board was replaced? As soon as the first board was damaged?

It seems obvious that the whole thought experiment is just semantics. One of those things that interesting to think about the first time, but after awhile it’s just illustrative to point out how we just define things imprecisely and that I’m almost all cases it is far more convenient and practical, but if you look at anything from the right perspective, the lack of precision stands out. Even ‘walking out of a room’ doesn’t have a perfect description if you slow things down far enough, but practically it’s pretty useful to describe it as a distinct event.