zurew

I was half-joking. I dont think he cares much about money, but I personally dont think its responsible to test a new chemical with your audience, where you dont even know your audience. Like you wont filter all mentally unstable and schizo people with an interview. I expect some wild shit to happen there, I dont think most actualizers are properly grounded.

Now it makes sense why the dude calls others 'rats'. Its the perfect opportunity to use actualizers as lab-rats to check in action the effects of the completely new research chemical and frame it as an opportunity. Earn money + collect data - double win.

You have an assymetric approach to this and it doesnt make sense. You hold to the position that the chance of enlightenment cant be elevated but at the same time you are against doing certain things like conceptualization. How can you hold to the position that the chance can be lowered but cant be elevated - Why be against anything if none of it matters and it is completely random anyway? When the Zen master hits the student with a stick that as unhelpful under your view to get the student enlightened as infinite conceptualization about random shit. If the idea is that "because conceptualization about enlightenment isnt enlightenement" - then my reply is - why is that bad? You hold to the position that nothing can have any causal effect on it ,so again, why care about who is deceived? You hold to the position that a guy who meditated and did yoga 60 years constantly in a cave has exactly as much chance to get enlightened as any given random infant who was born 1 second ago.

I agree with most of the things you are saying, and I share most of your intuitions about identity and persuasion, but I dont have a strong conviction in it, because I havent done any deep research on persuasion when it comes to human psychology (I only rely on an inductive case that is based on my very limited sample set and it relies on the explanation that explains that limited sample set - but the explanation can be wrong and it can also easily be the case that sample of people I encountered with arent representative of the population we would try to persuade) and also given that this is very clearly an emprical question, I wouldnt be quick with being blackpilled on persuasion, I think its an open and valuable area to research. I disagree that it wouldnt be persuasive or that it wouldnt be as persuasive. I personally dont limit hypotheticals to physically possible things and a good chunk of logically possible hypotheticals can be very persuasive (if the interlocutor is an honest actor). There are scenarios where people dodge the logically possible hypothetical on the grounds of "but that cant happen in reality, because it would violate the laws of phyiscs" or some shit like that, but there are responses to those kind of objections and you can walk people through on the utility of such hypotheticals. For example, I dont think that if we would be in a world where mentally disabled individuals wouldnt be possible or wouldnt exist, that in that world most people would have such moral intuitions that they would be just causally okay with answering "yes, I would be okay with slaughtering my mentally disabled relatives". I think your point make sense when it comes to things people cant relate to and cant conceptualize at all, but I think there are many things that can be conceptualized and reflected upon that arent actual in reality, but still hold compelling ethical force.

I dont want to defend the drugs (because I dont care about that, I care about being accurate about enlightenement and whether it is random or not), but the inference you gave so far doesnt establish the idea that enlightenement is random or that nothing can increase the chance of it. The entailment of what you are saying is that there is no such thing as enlightenment work and even Ralston probably wouldnt want to say such a thing. Even your dream analogy doesnt hold up - its like saying "getting hit with a hammer in a dream cant cause you /induce the experience of pain, because you are absolute". Your absolute nature wont prevent from the dream having certain patterns to it and it doesnt necessarily have to be causal patterns. It was the case, but enlightenment is the recognition of that truth and recognitions are time related - this is why you can talk about stuff like "you are not enlightened at t(0) but you are enlightened at t(5)". If you grant that enlightenement is recognition related , then lets talk about things that can help with (not necessarily cause) recognitions. Anything that can drive or spread one's awareness or attention can be relevant to enlightenment work. The pattern (your absolute nature) that needs to be recognized is always "in front of you", its just that your awareness and attention never "catches it". Just think about what the entailment is when you say stuff like "you can recognize it right now" - what does that mean? It means that it is always available to you regardless of time and place, but it also means that you need to fuck with your awareness and attention (otherwise the recognition would have already happened). Its like there has always been a screen in front of you and you havent recognized that fact yet , because you were distrated by focusing on the forms on the screen and the experiences the screen created within you (your awareness and attention was distracted from the relevant fact that it is a screen and this is why the recognition couldnt happen and the pattern [the screen] couldnt be recognized) I know the analogy with the screen isnt perfect because screens are spatiotemporal and we are talking about non-spatiotemporal stuff (there is no specific space or time to focus you attention to or on), but you still need to fuck with your awareness and attention or "spread" it for the deep existential recognition to happen.

Im not sure if you want to establish objective morals there or you rather you just want to make a claim about intersubjective values (namely, that most people fundamentally value and respect the self in others). I personally dont think objective morals makes sense and I dont think that it would persuade anyone even if it was true. I think some arguments can perusade people - because argumentation is one tool to create enough friction within a person's psyche so that they are forced to change (but yes, this only goes for honest actors). For example, if you would be able to make an argument that would show the consequences of one's action with as much clarity as the example, where pushing one button will kill 100 people and not pushing the button will save those people, then there is no way that a normal person would push the button (and this is true almost regardless what normative ethics he is subscribed to) It seems that you were trying to make the case that moral arguments are a waste of time, because in most cases it isn't about fundamental value disagreements, but rather about descriptive disagreements (where in this case your claim is roughly that because of their cognitive dissonance people cant percieve / recognize certain facts to be the case - like recognizing the self in animals). I think this is generally true, because from what Ive seen, most debates about metaethics is about talking past each other and not having enough ability to communicate one's moral semantics or its about motivated reasoning (like one guy is religious and thats what he is appealing to - which btw in most cases even within their own framework doesnt make any sense, because under most religious views you are not required to eat meat)

But this line of thought just doesnt make any sense, just on the fact that it isnt a real dichotomy. You can do both - him being vegan wouldnt prevent him from engaging in activism or in any other activity. Its just trash reasoning and he knows much better. Just as you said like none of this would fly in any other context "let me rape and kill people, because my negative impact is so infinitesimal compared to how much rape and murder happens on an everyday global basis , and let me also make some youtube videos about how rape and murder is wrong , because that has more effect than me not doing those things" To respond to the where the line should be drawn question - If I care about the environment the smallest thing I can do is to not litter. Like we are not talking about some incredibly high standard that couldnt be met like "you can only buy items that are all 100% eco-friendly" - we are talking about as low of a standard as , "just dont litter".

Yeah thats very much true and its an interesting thing. The "currently living through it" gives you the ability to train your intuition to recognize certain patterns that otherwise would be much harder to detect and explicate and also gives you the vocab to transfer the concepts much easier. @Scholar Here is the paper I was mentioning if you are interested (responses to inefficacy objections) https://philarchive.org/archive/MCMAIO

I think thats easily true, but when it comes to the actual academic stuff and reading papers and such I think he lacks a lot - based on how he wasnt familiar with semantics that everyone is familiar with (like possible world semantics - a very powerful conceptual tool to think about how possibility and necessity can be cashed out in different ways) who just dips his toes in SEP or IEP articles. ( and then there is philpapers). The other thing is about arguments - like you find can 7-8-9+ layers deep arguments, not what Leo presented in his video for God. Its not premise premise conclusion , its an argument and then there is a defense (a supporting argument) for each premise and a defense for each defense premises and on and on like that 7-8-9 layers deep and it turns out that just the defense of premise one will be backed by like 30 supporting arguments. So it turns out that those "rats" as he likes to call them (btw someone who very much likes to pretend that he cares about the principle of no-namecalling) much more equipped in a lot of ways than him and he very obviously cant track most of the arguments that are made by those "rats", thats why he needs to rely almost exclusively on equivocation.

None of your thoughts and ideas and philosophy is unique and this goes for Leo as well. You extremely naively think you are unique up until the point it is pointed out to you that there are and there were a bunch of other philosophers who articulated those thoughts much more eloquently hunderds or thousands of years ago. The funny and ironic things is that a good chunk of you just parrot Leo's myopic view of (basically constantly shitting on academics), without first you studying and looking up in depth actually what academic philosophers can offer and what they study.

This is only with philosophy again that people think they can skip the study, but no one would accept this when it comes to any other thing like science. "No no no let me teach you about biology and physics without ever studying those subjects" Like some of you are the Terrence Howards of philosophy.

I agree with this, I dont take Alex to be knowledgeable in those things like not even remotely. He has some understanding of philosophy and a kind of good understanding of the Bible and theology but thats it. Maybe I would mention politics as well, because he has a better understanding of it than a layperson, but nothing else comes to mind. Again I understand you point because if you frame it this way you can make this an empirical problem rather than a philosophy problem, the issue that I see is just that that lack of ambiguity will probably come back really fast once you start to search for those answers empirically, especially if you will inevitably largely rely on surveys and relying on people introspecting. Obviously the hard part is always about the hidden variables and mechanisms that are incredibly hard to recognize and to explicate. --- I agree btw this empirical approach and I think that philosophers sometimes waste so much time trying to answer certain questions that are not even necessary to solve the given issue. Like the idea that you need to defend objective morality, because otherwise global coordination is impossible - its just as you said the framing of the problem is the problem.

I understand your point that you try to frame the problem so that it is more graspable and it becomes more clear what action one needs to take to "solve" this issue, its just that to me this just pushes back the issue one more step. We can have a definition of holistically healthy where it includes having purpose in life and having meaning in life, but then the issue becomes how the fuck can one become holisitcally healthy? It just seems that you take the problem and you put it inside the "how to be holsitically healthy?" problem and then we think that now the target is more clear, but I honestly dont see how.

This seems very straightforwardly false depending on what is meant by holistically healthy, because that is what needs to do all the work here and it is not at all trivial what that means. There are many examples where people have meaning in their life but they wouldn't be considered holistically healthy - like when you have a kid you sleep less, you have less time to do sports you start to have a dad bad etc. The idea that one can have meaning and purpose in their life without being holistically healthy seems very trivially true.

It was an interesting discussion, I would love it very much if Dr K would engage with philosophy more deeply, because he could realize that some of the things are justifiable and rigorous arguments can be made for them. He is well-versed when it comes to bringing up studies to justify his view on empirical grounds (like talking about mediation and the effects of it), but when it comes to justifying his philosophy he lacks a lot. I would love to see a discussion between Dr K and John Vervaeke, cause John could do all the heavy lifting when it comes to philosophy and they could talk about meaning and purpose and the meaning crisis and meditation and awakening and intuition etc. ---- I dont want to derail but @Scholar whats your take on Alex changing from being vegan to being non-vegan? His moral philosophy is the same, its just that he brought up the casual inefficacy objection (like one person being vegan wont change the meat industry and farming), which has very good responses (there are articles and books that respond to this kind of objection and explain why it worth it even for one person to change and they show it in tangible ways).

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/maga-ai-bot-network-divided-trump-epstein-backlash-rcna219167 https://www.info-res.org/cir/articles/unmasking-the-fake-maga-accounts-stolen-photos-and-digital-lies/

That wasnt the point , one point is that bots can pretend to be unhinged leftists and then other bots can amplify the fuck out of their posts. Im not saying there arent any crazy leftist, im just saying this is one straightforward way to create more division (and pointing to bots that were created by nations that are interested in creating more divison - like Russia ). There can be , but they sure arent for helping the left, they are pretending to be crazy leftists (if there are any leftist bots). The fact of the matter is that there are lthousands of bots (probably mostly russain) and they are trying to create more division . There are a bunch of maga and conservative bots that are setting up new narratives and talkingpoints and they are ragebaiting. No its not, its pretty much a fact and it is documented. This issue isnt a new thing at all. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-leads-efforts-among-federal-international-and-private-sector-partners | https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4ng24pxkelo I will flag this again that your knee jerk reactions shows me again that you arent interested in engaging in a serious way with the answers and the info that is given to you. You are dismissing things based on feelings without doing any research or checking at all . This is not your first or second time doing this "inferring my way through politics, without doing research".

Those bots are pretty relevant. They can create and set the stage for narratives and new talking points. If you have enough bots and bait enough people you can set the new narrative and what people should be focused on and what they should be talking about. A bunch of accounts on twitter are bots and a good chunk of the likes are coming from bots as well. Twitter is exceptionally bad when it comes to this. Like really fucking bad. A good chunk of the bots are very obviously just ragebaiting and trying to create more divison.

I think there is a good chance that he was a leftist (as far as I know we still dont know his exact motivations why he did it), but there can be many contributing factors why he did it. If you have leftist values, you dont need to hear any mainstream or alternative media leftist labeling Charlie Kirk a fascist to be outraged by him. I dont think that labelign him a fascist was a main contributing factor, it was much more about the actual positions he held and the rhetoric he used. Also just the same way I could just randomly pick other random facts about his life and speculate that those were the main contributing factors - like attacking mormons and conservative familys , and claim that the reason why he became the way he did, is because of the conservatives methods and how they raised him. For example, when it comes to trans issues, regardless how you want to categorize them (whether you want to claim they have mental illness or not , the reality is that most conservatives including trump and charlie never cared about them - like imagine if you think they are actually mentally ill, then why not ever talk about treatments and why only obsess about girl dick and about attacking their identity - in what other context would we be okay with attacking mentally ill people? ) And again this is only if we go with the idea that they are mentally ill , even though I know very easy ways to cash out why not all of them are mentally ill and how you can be a trans person without needing to claim any false thing or be delusional about anything.

You didnt "question" things , you were using rhetoric and smugness while being ignorant about certain facts (which wouldnt be an issue, if you wouldnt have been smug about it and a "just asking questions guyys" while not actually caring about the answer). "I dont understand whats the left's issue with Kirk LoL" isn't an honest inquiry and you know that - this is why I called you dishonest and the reason why I called you spineless and no balls is because you pretended that you used devil's advocate once you realized you were looking very silly being your honest self. Your actual honest position is that you think Kirk was a good guy and also that either the left is worse or just as bad as the right - none of that is playing devil's advocate for you, so you shouldn't pretend otherwise. There is also a reason why you had such an emotional response to the video @Recursoinominado posted, you almost immediately banned a guy for posting a very recent video (that you claimed to be old, which is wrong, it was posted 1 day ago). And once again to the centrist, high consciousness, unbiased virtue signalers - being a centrist doesnt mean that you both sides every issue , rather that you call out things as they are and if one side is much worse than the other, then you stick to that and dont pretend otherwise. Nothing is centrist about claming that the guy who shit his pants is as smelly as a guy who didn't shower for 1 day.

@Leo Gura Next time you will call people rats again I will remember how much you actually care about namecalling and sticking things to the guidelines you dont abide by. Infinitely rewarding narcissistic and dishonest behavior and demotivating people from calling it out is also a good norm to uphold here, it will do wonders to the quality of the conversations.

I dont know what that means and what "intelligent" breakdown means in that statement. You probably think that the maintream breakdown is stupid, because you cant imagine that Fuentes actually embraced a bunch of those views. Imagine being a slave saying "let me not call my slaveowner a slaveowner, because thats violent rhetoric and let me also hear him out and do a conscious deconstruction and articulation of his views, because we are doing conscious multiperspectival politics here bro" What do you mean, what kind of democrats do you think are endorsing those views, like where is the support and tolerance for this? Surely you wont show me views where by socialist they meant something wildly different and by their ideas they meant something wildly different right? Surely you wont betray your incredibly high standard how words and terms are defined and you will look for the exact same level nuance and granularity cashing out the term socialist and communist and antifa and you wont just assume the worst case scenario and put that meaning behind all the cases when that term comes up or when someone embraces these terms , right?

Phrasing it this way sounds more accurate . If he said something like this that sounds like that he actually changed his view on it (assuming he didnt lie) Im guessing here, but my assumption is that he would be for some kind of white democracy, where only could white people vote and or be elected.

That doesnt sound like a view change, that sounds like seeing pragmatic and implementation issues, but that doesnt mean that he wouldnt go for it if he would have the pragmatic means to do so. Its like some socialist saying that socialism is a foolish fairytale because other countries would need to play by those rules as well.

Wait what do you think wouldn't be applicable to Fuentes from your list? Surely you dont think that he is for democracy, right?