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.

Yeah thats a good way to give an intuition pump about the difference between propositional and procedular knowing. You can read 10 books about how to ride a bike and learn all the facts about it without developing the necessary skill to do so. I mean procedular knowledge is literally stored in a different memory. You can have a brain injury where you forget a bunch of facts about bicycles and still not lose your ability how to ride a bike.

It seems to me that John Vervaeke's framework of different ways of knowing would be very useful if it was applied to other things (not to just philosophy and cognitive science). Like when it comes to dating the idea that you can solve your issues with propositional knowledge is just false. You dont just need to learn skills but to when and how to apply those skills in a dynamic environment. For that to work you need to be in a completely different way of being (the things you find relevant and how your brain aspectualize the world and people is completely different) . So you either need to go through some serious self transformation (where most of the work can be done well from your subsconscious mind) or you need to be good at actually playing certain roles (where you can embody a given character so fully that you see and process everything through that character).

There is only one thing that is absolute and I very much appreciate you bringing it to my attention. This is the fact that men are spiritually superior by their nature compared to women. I feel dumb, since this is common sense and obvious. If anyone will challenge me on this, I will just go meta and show them how much they dont appreciate how deep relativity goes. No one understands how deep relativity goes (especially women).

Let me combine neo-advaita with Jordan Peterson to drive home how much I appreciate your intelligence when it comes to going meta. What do you mean by each of the following terms [you, how, do,know,that,exist,thats,relative]? After you answered that my next questions would be: Who is the you in that question? What is the 'you' that is knowing? Where is the 'you' that suppose to exist ?

How do you know that me not being sure is actually relative? Thats relative. Please go on and continue this - I want to virtue signal how meta I can go to other actualizers as well (its not just you).

Im not so sure about that since everything is relative. (I thought you knew this already)

Thats right. Next time I will eat concrete to up my dental health and my nutrition game.

You can go with whatever epistemic standard you want to have and you can relativize these things as much as you want and you can question it if you want to , no one is stopping you from doing that. But dont forget that going meta when someone is questioning you wont impress or persuade anyone. If you want to - you can have an epistemic stance where drinking poision is as likely to kill you as eating a carrot. "Ohh , so since we are questioning my standard about drinking poision and eating a carrot, who gets to say when the questioning should end? Will it end ,bro ? Why cant I question you questioning my standard, bro? Do you see how meta I am going here bro?" No you should say "You go on entertaining nonsense possibilities. You can play those games, existence allow for it" as a response when they question your standard.

Yeah its not at all that OP explicitly emphasized "nature" multiple times in his post. Its not at all that the fucking title of this thread is about women's nature. Like please tell us more about how we misread the situation. Its also not at all like you showed resistance multiple times to the idea that the collected facts should be questioned. The idea that women werent forthcoming with their spirituality and that there were witch trials and the idea that women didnt want to become gurus - those are nonsencial to you and shouldnt even be entertained and you are super confident that the collected facts are an accurate representation on this issue. It would be very hard to say "given the limitation of the data we have, the indication is that men are more oriented/likely to pursue spirituality". No, for some reason we have to say that we have very high quality data on this.

Since we know that testosterone is what makes you a truth seeker, have you guys seen that highly advanced and conscious guy called Ronnie Coleman? If you want to advance your spiritual game, you need to take some shots.