zurew

The point isnt that he would necessarily choose those extreme and violent things, the point is to challenge the idea that it would be just as meaningful/meaningless to him. If the idea is that one can have complete power over what meaning one attaches to things, then it shouldnt be an issue to be a rapist or a serial killer ,because you can choose how things strikes you and or you can have a mindstate completely detached from what you do and what happens to you. So if you have two people: one is enlightened and in presence mode and the other isn't enlightened and both are forced to rape people every day and to eat shit every day - there is a high chance that one would be miserable and highly suicidal, but what about the monk? Could the monk maintain a blank mindstate and would the monk (since he is completely present) find the whole thing just as blank and devoid of meaning as if he would solve world hunger? Or would the monk have the ability to find solving world hunger to be horrible and atrocious and being a rapist to be highly meaningful and positive? And im not talking about a situation where your mind completely detaches from the situation as a defense mechanism so that you don't need to live through the horrible things that you go through or you don't need to remember the horrible things you did - im talking about being completely present and living through all moments.

For example could that Zen monk find being a rapist or a serial killer just as meaningful as being a monk or a teacher?

This is where I am skeptical, because it doesnt necessarily follow. Going back to my point - just because there isn't anything that is objectively beautiful , from that doesnt follow that you can freely choose or change what you find beautiful. Or just because gastronomical realism isnt true (there arent facts about what is delicious, its based on the subject's judgement), from that doesn't follow that you can freely choose and change what you find tasteful and what you find disgusting. same with morality, just because there arent any moral facts, from that doesnt follow that you can change your moral intuitions (what you find morally reprehensible and what you don't) The same goes for meaningfulness - just because we go with the antirealist position from that doesnt follow that you can have power over what you find meaningful and how meaningful it is for you. Some people are okay with that kind of life, others arent - and im not sure whether everyone can be okay with it or not (again going back to my issue with the changing of preferences and intuitions) But maybe in a truly egoless state what you are saying is true, because there arent any preferences and moral intuitions about anything (maybe) - but im agnostic on that for now . And the reason why im agnostic is because in egoless or kind of egoless states I tend to be calm (and other practicioners who are much better at meditation than me tend to say the same) and its not a blank state (its calmness and spaciousness) - so 1) im not sure whether some of the things we are talking about are depended on our egos and its just purely survival related or its something much more deeper that goes beyond that 2) Even If it goes beyond surivival there can be still facts about consciousness (just like the calmness and spaciousness that comes from the egoless states - and there you cant just choose that you want to be angry in those egoless states - there seem to be certain qualities that comes with states. So basically regardless if its survival or not survival related - the question about what you can change related to these things seem to be open (for me)

I have an antirealist position on aesthetics,morality ,meaning and I think the same line of thought applies to all of them. Even though there arent any objectively true/correct answers to what is beautiful, what is moral, whats the meaning of life - our relationship to these questions isn't arbitrary - there are patterns and facts about our meaning-making, about what we find ugly and beautiful and about why we have the moral intuitions that we have.

I think thats a good move to 1) object to the realist position about meaning and 2) point out the confusion that the sentence has to be interpreted in a negative way or that its objectively true that negative implications come from that sentence. You point out well that there isn't any "true" conclusion that can be inferred from the sentence "Life is empty and meaningless" . The inference that one draws from that won't be based on any oughts (there isn't any fact of the matter what that sentence has to mean to you and there isn't any ought about how the sentence ought to be interpeted and what facts ought to be inferred from it) But the meat of issue with respect to negative meaning or the lack of meaning still remains: 1) Just because we go with the anti-realist position from that doesn't follow that one can freely change what one's relationship is to the "life is meaningless and empty" sentence (when it comes aesthetics and beauty , just because there isn't any fact of the matter about what is beautiful from that doesn't follow that you can change what you find beautiful) - it can be the case (as others have already pointed out) that its largely based on and explained by our biology and our biological structures (the idea is that biology largely defines what kind of meaning you will draw from certain truths and how it will make you feel). 2) Even if it is the case that one can change their relationship to that sentence (for example changing it from negative to positive), its unclear how hard it is to do it So even though making your point ( clearing up the intellectual confusion about what kind of implications come from the anti-realist position) can be helpful with destroying some of the negativity and depression surrounding it , it only settles one slice of the issue. The next part of the problem is basically diving deep into the patterns and facts about meaning-making - and it seems from your other reply that you are well aware that just because the anti-realist position is true from that doesnt follow that meaning making is arbitrary or that there arent any facts about how we create meaning ( or in other words - just because there isn't any correct/right way to give meaning to things, there can still be facts and patterns about how we assign meaning to things). As a sidepoint: even if there would be objective meaning to life (the realist position would be true), that wouldn't help with solving the issues that I pointed out - because it would still be about our meaning making and our relationship to truths and not about what the correct meaning is - its irrelevant what the correct meaning is , if your meaning-making machinery attaches negative meaning to things.

- Someone uses lanugage in a technical way and says that using language this way isn't a bad thing reply: "it can be bad in certain context" (very deep and wise objection that couldn't possibly be brought up in any other context) "its problematic because it isn't truth and it wont lead you to truth" - where was it implied that being intellectual or using language this way will alone lead you there? "My objection is that if your goal is truth then being intellectual is problematic because it wont lead you there and even though this objection applies to its negation as well (being anti intellectual and non-intellectual wont lead you to truth either), I still think this objection has to be brought up"

If lack of authencity would be an issue, then 95% of the forum would have been banned a long time ago - not because of AI use, but because of uncritically parroting actualized catchphrases and thought patterns. I have seen more novel thought from Nilsi than from most forum members. I think the implication that Nilsi won't recognize when AI rephrases his sentence in a way where it completely changes the intended meaning he was originally trying to convey, seems very absurd and doesnt make much sense. Like imagine you are trying to communicate X and then AI produces Z and then you say "Fuck it, even though I was trying to communicate something completely different, lets run with it anyway"

Whats the issue with AI rephrasing things, if the same (intended) meaning is conveyed ? I can see being annoyed with people who use AI to make arguments for them or to think for them, but when they produce their own thoughts and then check their thoughts for grammar (and sometimes let AI to rephrase a given line to convey the intended meaning in a more precise and coherent way) - I think thats all fine. I would rather people use AI to rephrase their thoughts in a way that I can understand and follow , than them to gibberate and make incoherent statements And I say this as a guy, who has the exact same issue as some of these people, because English isn't my first language either and doing philosophy and talking about very abstract spiritual concepts is already hard (in your native language), let alone in a non-native one.

You are not even remotely equipped to make arguments, im sorry dude. First of all , the conclusion doesnt necessarily follow from the premises (the argument is invalid - you couldnt even establish a deducitvely valid argument) and aside from that , every atheist can accept the conclusion and maintain their atheism. There are a bunch of other issues with the argument, because almost each premise can be easily challenged and you presumably have no supporting argument for any of those premises. This is one issue with actualized.org , some of you guys are way fucking overconfident in what you can offer and how much of a deep thinker you are. This is supposed to be a layer 1 argument and its already fucked and the conclusion is something that isn't even something that you want to establish and we havent even talked about supporting arguments and supporting arguments for the supporting arguments.

Im 99.99999999% sure you are not a Christian because you were intellectually persuaded. -- Even if all of what you said is granted thats all is compatible with jesus being a wizard with supernatural abilities and him not being God. Its also compatible with aliens staging the whole thing and Jesus was beamed up when he "resurrected" Its also compatible wuth jesus being some multidinensional entity who fucked with us and he actually resurrected but he wasnt God and he didnt create the Universe And we can generate a bunch of other hypothesis that can explain all the data wuthout needing to necessitate that Jesus was God

Sam shamoun LOL, that is one of the worst you could bring up. At least try to pick some philosophically literate apologist

Not just that but if they have a non-universalist view (where its not guaranteed for everyone that they will go to heaven), then having children is basically immoral, because you gamble with your kid going to hell. I have no clue why non-universalist christians are not anti-natalists.