@thunderdragon900 Totally! I'll try to keep it a reasonable length😂 I meant to say self-defined as in: I believe an entity protects its body (foundational interface with reality) on a certain level relative to its possessions, which is true for people, animals, and companies (entity is to mean a force which the energy and controling reactions of that force are within the force itself, and being is meant to describe a physical version of that; a company being an entity but not a being because the people aren't all hopefully touching at the same time)

Consentual is supposed to refer to a level of tolerance that people have to allow each other the most room to personally experiment while giving everyone the same amount of room (which isn't the same as resources) Which, I'm proposing to be that, if people can choose their position at some point in their life and they are also given the option to make purly their decision, that they can't blame other people for those people being themselves within their space (as in, if the things Individual A does doesn't change the way that Individual B sees people in general or their ability to accomplish their goals in their environment, individual B has to tolerate what Individual A does so that Individual A can learn everything they can to find themselves, even if it's destructive only to themselves or the people that agree to it)

By complexity, I'm trying to use a term that describes the universe as being one level of "complexity" in all of it's reactions until considering life (which I'm definining as a process which creates the ideal environment for it's own continuation -- so if a computer just started building it's own factories for new computers autonomously, I would consider it to represent the same complexity level as bacteria, in that way)
The levels of complexity I'm using are Motivation (like bacteria), Planning (like a mouse), and Logic (Defined as a being creating it's own list of things it needs to find out how to learn)
The fact that the result of what life produces is both similar to the original and a catalyst for its own creation are the most basic "concepts" (building blocks of complexity on top of the basic complexity level of what things are happening) because, to process the fact that the result is similar to the input, you need to process more about them than just all their exact qualities and outcomes on a trial by trial basis (because, to the universe, life is just a bunch of processes happening and it doesn't consider them similar or dissimilar it just processes what happens because even the slightest change can have huge effects) but it's beneficial for us to group reactions to create an ideal environment for ourselves (pretend like all slight changes will have slight effects and then figure it out from there), and just that fact that we care (because caring helps us create a better environment for ourselves), which is a subjective process, is also the basis of concepts because it's a way of comparing reality in ways that aren't perfect representations (based on our bias and needs)
So complexity is just saying a specific part of reality where things are happening, and it's ideal for as many things to be conceptually happening in the smallest advantageous area because 1. it doesn't take more energy to create more complexity 2. if we could continue the universe into the conceivable future, which is the most inherent goal we could have if we had any other goal, it'd be ideal to have the most complexity to choose from possible for natural selection 3. the closer we can bundle our resources while keeping them safe from mass corruption, the less leakage we could have over all (which is also really important if we're going to continue the universe)

lol, and

Okay, yeah! I can definitely see where you're coming from; Personally, when I think of ideal self, to me it means that one is the best one could be in that moment, even if it isn't doing the actions it wants to do; I find it interesting you mention mistakes, I believe my ideal self for this particular universe will also make mistakes, but be in as good of a conceptual place to recover as possible, because mistakes don't inherently end badly, just usually; is that something you feel disagreement with?

It's completely true that people have their own preferences! My idea is that, maybe even though a lot of people have not been able to define "good" perfectly enough to keep beings who just wanted to live their lives unconventionally safe, maybe it's still possible... And my goal is actually becominh to define exactly how much people should be able to do whatever they want before it becomes intrusive to anyone else (and ideally, thus good, because people have to do everything they're possibly allowed ro to have the greatest range of complexity)

But I definitely think that the inward reflection represents probably the most important part of moral/behavioral growth! Maybe I should have said it in a way that was supportive of looking for things to react and grow from also, so maybe it's important but not just because they are those books themselves

I find your definition of ideal self really intriguing! If you don't mind, when you say potential given to you naturally I wonder, how much would you condiser it to be natural potential for people to constantly look for new interests and dissenting belifs on purpose?

@dv8 Haha yeah, it's helpful to write the words down on paper, and it will always come down to our follow through!

@swiley I don't think everyone has necessarily consented to their morals, I think actually accepting our morals is the goal of the inner process of asking what our version of perfect morals would look if we created it ourselves

Morality, in my opinion, is an all-inclusive attempt at creating the most effective action paths to general (or any) life goals, so I think they can be how a person treats one's self as well

Each person in a group should probably make constant efforts to add discussion to (in the case of disagreements) and work to consent to the living, growing idea of what morality should define as acceptable within that social dynamic, and if I'm correct in feeling strongly that people will never define specifically enough to just be done thinking about what parts of their morality serve their purposes least effectively, then it's worth discussing new bases of morality (even though it's always scary to think of implications we could miss with new forms of morality, people could always find ways to take advantage of rules we place either way)

Other words, people will never be able to describe what will protect the most complexity in each situation with one blanket statement, but if people can agree that complexity is the actual goal (which, the definition of that complexity and the method to achieving it are what I'm proposing my ideas towards) Then we have a basis for a general morality

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, from my perspective, seem to base morality on the inherent value of being a human. That makes sense since that's who it's for, but if we get to define what humans are, we easily get to tell people how to live. We easily get to say that there are certain things we are allowed to keep them from doing specifically because it's our moral duty to protect them as humans (not developing minds). There's nothing in the inherentness of being a certain type of species that describes how to protect the outliers of the group, which is partially why I find it important to think about some new ideas for morality

Our basis of law, on another hand, is primarily protecting society. That's fair, but ultimately, if we protect society to the point of killing the development of eccentric or unconventional ideas that have negative impacts but are over all good for society (Example, if we made talking about socialism illegal -- even if you believe it's a bad concept -- we'd be killing discussions that are important and potentially contribute something useful), and we are more than defeating the point of human civilization, I feel, because we are now both forcing people to be part of our societies (which is the part I am in disagreement with the most) and providing them with societies that don't even allow them to reach their potential through the most possible experimentation (which is hard to do, fair, but something never to stop striving for)

There's a lot of implications to the ideas I'm presenting (For example, there's no way we could tell unmarried non-parent-being people not to do any drugs at their own home) because it describes a social system where people are allowed to do whatever doesn't affect anyone's view of people in general or their ability to accomplish their goals.
I believe this freedom to do things that aren't necessarily beneficial (maybe even destructive to one's self) is still experimentation that people need to be allowed to engage in to fully develop themselves
And, I guess, I'm attempting to go about this by asking people's reaction to this concept