zurew

Do you think its possible to have beliefs (not knowledge) about your own knowledge? I am trying to imply with that question that it is possible to make a non-knowledge claim about your own knowledge. Like "I dont know what im talking about" can be cashed out as "I know that I dont know what im talking about" and it can be also cashed out "I believe that I dont know what im talking about". I wouldnt categorize the second as a knowledge claim, I would just categorize it as sharing your own belief about something (and in this specific case sharing your belief about your own knowledge)

@Ziran What do you think we disagree on and what do you think I said that was false? (because based on the reply you gave I dont think you understand what im saying).

Im not tracking whats the issue is. What you do is you for some reason categorize the proposition as an assertion and you take assertions to mean declarations of knowledge. And im saying the proposition doesnt need to be an assertion made by anyone. The proposition can be true indepedent from anyone asserting it to be the case. You are adding extra stuff to it that isn't there. You could for instance imagine a scenario where a computer tries to check whether the proposition is true or not. And Im also saying that even if the proposition was uttered by someone (noticed I didnt used the word asserted), even in that case - you dont get a contradiction , because the person who utters the statement doesnt make any single knowledge claim and therefore even though it is the case that the proposition includes the person who utters the statement, thats perfectly fine because the person who utters the statement doesnt know whether the proposition that he utters is true or not, he just utters the statement.

By that you mean the scenario where we interpret his statement as an actual knowledge claim?

It was solved by the hypothesis that your subsconscious mind can pick up on very complex patterns. In this specific case it was about introducing people(who needs to stare at you) in a pseduo random manner and it turned out that the subconscious can actually pick up on the fact that it wasnt actually random and just from that info they managed to guess better (even if they couldnt consciously recognize the fact that their subconscious actually picked up on the introducing rhythm). After they adjusted and after they didnt give any feedback anymore (after each round about whether they managed to guess the staring right or not), the chance went back down to 50%. What I said there was just a pragmatic argument mostly, it doesnt show that what you said cant be true or that it is less probable, it just states once we make the move towards supernatualism, epistemically we get more fucked because it becomes much harder to make sense of things and to predict things. Here I question what you gain by affirming supernaturalism: Here I give further reasons to why reject it: ----- And yes, I agree with the thing you layed down about naturalism adjusting. Its unclear how we even define these terms in the firstplace and we are possibly challenging the edges and talking past each other. One thing is that there are always moves avalaible in order to maintain naturalism, but not at 0 cost. If I need to give a 1000 auxiliary hypothesis to explain the same set of facts (the set that supernaturalism could explain with one relatively simple hypothesis) then eventually it can become really intellectually dishonest and pressing to leave the fucking naturalist paradigm. Sorry this was a lot, but if you want we can go through this by one piece at a time. Edit: Added quotes so it can be closed and it wont take up half the page.

I already addressed this earlier, but I will lay the reasoning down again why what you said there is not true: You can utter statements without knowing whether the given uttered proposition is true or not and without being justified. You can accidentally utter true statements without knowing that the statement is true. And the other issue with that kind of move is that no one needs to utter the statement in the firstplace. You can just take the propositon and check whether you can derive a contradiction from it (if taken to be true) and you can't. What you do there is you dont just take the proposition as it is, you add extra things to it that isn't at all entailed by the statement. You add that someone needs to say the sentence and that the person needs to know what they are talking about in order for the sentence to be true. But none of that is true. The proposition can be true independent from the fact whether someone say it or not . The truth-maker (what makes it true or false) for that proposition isn't the person saying it or not, the truth-maker is checking whether there is someone who knows what he/she is talking about or not and if there is at least one person, then the proposition is false and if there isn't then it is true. But, even if what you said was true, you wouldnt derive a contradiction (you wouldnt show that the proposition is true and false at the same time) you would just render the proposition false at best. You would just establish that a person uttered a false statement. In the liar's paradox case, the same couldn't be said. There you dont just render the proposition false, there you can show that the statement is true and false at the same time.

Are your referring to the NDE stuff or are you referring to Sheldrake stuff? I know one possible out when it comes to one of Sheldrake's studies - John Vervaeke managed to give a reply that is consistent with the naturalist view and once that additional thing was considered it rendered the ability back to just chance and it wasnt better than just guess. I will look into that NDE stuff because that sounded interesting, and I am also looking into fine-tuning stuff , my issue there is just that there is a fuck ton of things that one needs to know to even have the ability to track and to make sense of some of the arguments there.

How is that relevant to what I just wrote there? You understand that if we go with the idea that I knew what I was talking about there , that doesnt get you to a contradiction, that would just render the proposition false. You wouldnt show that the proposition is true and false at the same time.

No. You can utter statements without knowing whether the given uttered proposition is true or not and without being justified. You can accidently utter true statements without knowing that the statement is true. And the other issue with that kind of move is that no one needs to utter the statement in the firstplace. You can just take the propositon and check whether you can derive a contradiction from it , if taken to be true and you can't.

No, thats fair that you interpreted in a different way. The reason why I pushed back is because its different from the liar paradox in that you cant derive a contradiction from the claim , but when it comes to the liar's paradox - you can derive a contradiction. And if you take contradictions to be unintelligible ( in the sense that they cant be true), then you wont have the same issue in this specific case, because there isn't any trivial contradiciton that can be derived from that statement.

I think i know what you are talking about. By Relativity you dont mean a flat plane , you mean an ever deeper, possibly never ending hierarchy of transcend and include views. What you dont want to admit though, is the possibility that there are higher level christian or whatever else views compared to the mickey mouse one. For the sake of the argument people can grant here that the y axis for consciousness is something metaphysically legit and not just an epistemic tool to make sense of things. And I can even grant for the sake of the argument that you managed to transcend some low level christian views and low level other religious views. From none of that follows, that there arent higher christian or other religious views that actually transcends your mouse.

If thats the case and you admit that, then I dont have issue with what you said.

He can lay down reasons why he is against it (I dont think it is just bias) My understanding is that It mostly has to do with the fact that once you push your priors towards supernaturalism, the set that contains reasonably possible explanations for any given event or phenomena explodes and from then on the flying spaghetti monster wont just be a logically possible thing, but it can become a reasonable thing to consider. And why is that bad? Well, its harder to pick between hypotheses. We lack the tools to properly pick between hypotheses already and that just becomes worse once we extend that set of things that we consider. But yeah, updating priors is what we need to do once we are confronted with things that cant be cashed out under naturalism. One of the biggest challenges there is gonna be the problem of evil (if you take God to be a tri-omni God). If thats not the case, then that wont be an issue.

You guys dont know the lore behind it. Destiny stole that joke from a dude who btw has a phd in philosophy.

Its not though, the claim is perfectly intelligible and the claim can be true irrespective of how justified the author is who asserts the claim.

Some of the criticism are such that having an Awakening doesnt solve those issues. Its an internal critique of mystic epistemology and appealing to awakening is precisely not the thing that can solve the issue. Its not about not having access to some truth, its about the process by which you acquire that truth. Those comments apply to you, thats why you making your comment about me and others to get to your level is non-responsive to the presented issues. Even if all of us would get to your level, that still wouldnt give a response to the issues I brought up. Look, its fine to say that thats the best epistemology one can go with - whats not fine to say is to pretend that there isn't any epistemic issues there and its also no okay for you to make absolute statements about how developed other mystics are.

You gonna have a bunch of issues with that kind of reply and thats just confirms the issues I pointed out about the epistemology that you rely on. If lack of that depth means just what you said there, including the idea that one is even wrong about what depth their insights have , then that means that whatever conclusion you have right now is potentially subject to what you just said above and you have a strong argument against you having high credence in any of your insights (including in the mickey mouse one). And we are not just talking about the content of the awakening being partial or flat out wrong, but also about your ability to judge how deep that given insight was. What is precisely the epistemic foundation that you have that they lack that would save you from being deluded ? Thats an interesting reinterpretation of what was said there. Christian mystics can also have that view about other people, but earlier you didnt imply that, what you implied was that their view was logically incoherent and at the same time that your view includes their incoherent insights. Its either the case, that your view includes the thing that you take to be false (which wouldnt make much sense) or it is the case that christian mystics actually disagree with you and there is a substantial disagreement surrounding identity. Now, you can label "minutia" if you want, but you cant claim that you guys are just on board on all the main things - unless you want to claim that disagreeing about identity is just minutia. But in any case, we can search for other disagreements with other mystics and spiritual people, the point was to check how you navigate these disagreements and it still seems to be the case that your reply is subject to the exact same epistemic issues. I will repeat this again - its still the case that you dont have direct access to their awakening and your judgement relies on making inferences. If a christian mystic would tell you that they started with the mickey mouse awakening and then they transcended that with a christian awakening, then you wouldnt have any satisfying reply to that other than just reversing their claim (where christian awakening is below and transcended by the mickey mouse one).

Identity is really complicated. There are many different theses for identity and its easy to equivocate in between them. Just because under one sense of identity a view seems logically incoherent that doesnt mean that the view is actually incoherent if a different sense is used. Thats why I said that he is just not engaging with how they use the word. Its basically an uncharitable and lazy move.

Is there any possible claim where that couldnt be said? Thats just not engaging with how they use that word and you are just begging the question against them there. Interesting, because if we go with what you just said earlier about their view being logically incoherent , then your view includes logically incoherent things.

If by transcend you mean something that is compatible with their view but provide a more holistic picture, then no. For instance: Under some of their views mystical union is participation in God, not identity with God. They believe the human person remains a person even in union with God. But in any case, even if the were the case that all mystics agreed on the same set of facts , you still can have disagreements about levels (which one is deeper compared to the other ). But Im not convinced that there is an agreement on the facts, and it isn't just that they wouldn't categorize mickey mouse the same way as you do, some of them wouldnt even consider mickey mouse as something legit that needs to be put on a level hierarchy and some of them would reject that there is even a hierarchy in the firstplace. Thats not your conclusion, your conclusion is that you are correct. Given your epistemology you will never know, because all you know is your current perspective about depth that can be undermined at any given moment by a deeper awakening later. Your very idea about how much depth your insight have is depended on a comparative epistemology that can be undermined later. You never know whether your next insight will completely restructure and reorder your hierarchy of previous insights. You have 0 clue about the level of depth others have, you make inferences based on your awakenings, but you have 0 clue whether yours is deeper or theirs. The fact that you interpret it as "best" shows how you think about this question. You treat it as a race, where you can be better than others rather than just treat it as an epistemic question related to the issue about investigating fundamental truths about reality. Comparative questions are easy to answer once the conditions are agreed upon and set by which we can compare things and if it is the case that we have access to the variables that contain information about said conditions. Here you have an issue with agreeing on the conditions (about what deeper even means) and then you have a further issue (that you dont have, when it comes to the math question) - namely, that you dont have access to the info about the conditions (you have no direct access to who had what awakening and who has what level of insight) ----- None of this necessarily undermines your claims about reality, the purpose of this whole thing is to question your certainty in your claims and specifically in the idea that you got it more right than other mystics.

I dont think those are just minor differences, especially when you bring in christian mystics for instance. They will affirm things that you definitely wont. The question begging issue comes up when you try to explain those differences by appealing to depth. Each mystic can say that "we agree on absolute truth,but here is a set of things we disagree on and our disagreement is explained by none of you guys reaching the level of depth as I did". How do you check which one had a deeper awakening or a deeper insight? And then whatever the answer to the question above, why cant each one say the exact same thing?

it is complicated, because your position isnt just the consensus mystic position. You affirm things that most spiritual leader dont affirm and my question is precisely related to those differences. You dont just say that you guys agree, you want to say that they are wrong and that you are more correct about certain aspects and im pushing you to give an explication how you defend that in a substantive way without begging the question.

Thats fair, but whats the reply to the epistemic question about the clones?

The issue isn't that you cant explicate the content of the awakening, the issue is the inferences that you make from there and your refusal to acknowledge that those are potentially faulty interpretations and inferences. People can mirror your epistemology, do all the drugs as you did, do all the spiritual practices as you did, read all the books as you did and then have different awakenings or have the same awakenings but infer/interpret different conclusions. You dont really have any satisfying answer or deep epistemic tool when those issues are brought up other than a dismissive "you are not on my level". And when asked given all the facts (given the mirrored epistemology and different conclusions) how do you reach the "you are not on my level yet" conclusion rather than the "I have a serious epistemological issue here, given that I really have no epistemic tool in my hand to figure out whether I am wrong or whether the other guys are wrong" then you dont really have anything of substance to say about how you get there. I can also put it this way so we can skip the you being special special move - Imagine cloning you a 1000 times (exact same life journey , genetics, completely mirrored epistemology and drug usage and spiritual practices) and then each clone of you has a slightly different conclusion than you (a conclusion that is incompatible with yours). What can you actually tell to those clones about why they are wrong and what epistemic tools can you appeal to or use in such a situation?

Given that notion - is the motivation for the claim that higher level intelligence includes better character and more care is something like: To be intelligent is to care about and to recognize fundamental truths about reality - It is metaphysically true, that reality is fundamentally love and that everything is ultimately one and being aligned with that truth means to recognize that fact and to live aligned with that. So It is basically a completely different way/mode of being, where you process and filter information differently and if you are not in that kind of mode of being , you dont have access to / cant recognize certain truths.