zurew

No its not about that, its about taking the method/process as infallible. Why treat the info that you gather / realize through a specific method to be infallible? Like why is it hard to just say - "The reason why I think x,y,z is true is because of awakening" - why say " x,y,z is true without a doubt and I cant be wrong about it"? For example, I dont treat inferential justification to be anything special - Its one system of justification, where justification is defined by inference - its useful, it can be used to solve a lot of disagreements, but it has its own limitations as well. It can also be used to establish whats logically impossible - but even there what is established is logical impossibility and not necessarily anything true related to reality. Yes I have, Ive had my own experiences and some of them were profound - but even there whats important is what kind inferences one makes about it and it seems there are many ways to make sense of those experiences.

JP did horrible. He couldnt engage, he dodged a bunch of questions , he redefined the term "God" in a way that makes it so that the term atheist becomes meaningless, he virtue signaled about morality and he said false things (like you cant have two or more mutually exlusive conceptions of God - of course you can)

Under how I use the term, all of you guys are relying on beliefs and inferences and no amount of appealing to awakenings will change that. The idea that you can be protected from objections, just because you use the label "direct consciousness" or "awakening" just doesn't work with me. None of you are above of being wrong, just because you use a magic label.

We can skip all this inferential talk and inferential reasoning, because I know some of you prefer non-inferential justification (like appealing to awakening) But I don't understand why you guys use inferential justification, when the inferential reasoning that you guys generally provide for solipsism is horrible in almost every case. Also - If you guys think, that all inferential justification is nonsense and garbage and useless - then why use it in a very bad and unpersuasive way?

I dont want anything sophisticated , my only bar is non-question-begging arguments , like how is that a high bar?😭 Like I want people to show what reasons they have to adopt the view they have. Like why is it that you are not agnostic about a given proposition, especially if you dont have any good response to underdetermination? (and by not good response, I mean all of your arguments are compatible with the view that you want to argue against). Like imagine the same attitude and reasoning in any other setting: There is a competition and you need to figure out the right answer to a given question. You are only provided with one premise (namely that there is at least one red marble in the bag). The question is, "how many red marbles are in the bag"? (Imagine you are not provided with any other background knowledge about the bag and about the situation). The first guy says, "there are 2 red marbles in the bag". After that, a second guy comes and says "there are 3 red marbles in the bag!". Then you come and say "I think the first guy is right - there are 2 red marbles in the bag!" then you are asked this question: Nemra, why do you think that first guy is right? "Well, because I was provided with the premise that there is at least one red marble in the bag " and then I come and ask you the question "Why do you think thats a good reason to go with the first guys's view , when that reason is compatible with the other guy's view as well?"

These are so bad arguments - like this couldn't even be used against physicalism, let alone against non-solipsist idealist views.

Wait how is that relevant with respect to the argument that you are cooking up? It sounds like that in order for me to accept whatever you are cooking up I need to believe first that what you are saying is true - sounds like a sneaky way to make a question-begging argument (again). Imagine me saying , for me to make my argument successfully first you have to believe that other minds exist. This is what Im saying that none of you can provide a non-question begging argument "which hasn't been there at all" "you only experience your own mind" these assertions are all loaded. Depending on what you mean by "you only experience your own mind" is compatible with even physicalism? If you entertain the idea (which im not arguing for btw, just for the sake of the argument) that physicalism is true, then the way you would experience the outside world would be through your mind as well - like do you think that if physicalism was true then the fact of "things appearing in your experience" would suddenly change? No - what you are saying there is compatible not just with multiple different versions of Idealism, its compatible with multiple different versions of physicalism as well.

It seems to me that there are epistemic limitations on Solipsism as well. So for example, if you ask yourself the question how do you definitely know that there are no other minds? Then Im not sure what kind of bulletproof justification you can provide there. It seems that just as how people on non-solipsistic cant provide a bulletproof justification that there are other minds, you as a solipsist cant provide a bulletproof non question-begging justification that there are no minds . Thats an inference that you are making but that doesn't show logical impossibility. You making the inference that you should be able to experience what other minds experience - but thats an inference that is something that I would ask a supporting argument for. Why should I think that: if there are other minds, then I should have the ability to experience those minds? Again my problem is underdetermination that your argument doesn't help with - your argument is compatible with a world where there are other minds and people don't have the ability to experience those minds.

Also waiting for a response to this as well

Whats the argument that everything that is true needs to be provable ? Like why would I accept this?

How does that proof of solipsism ? Again it only shows my epistemic limitations -which isn't anything other than a skill issue on my part (but it doesnt say anything about the ontology part). If you want to claim that others having consciousness is logically impossible - then I will ask an argument that shows that from starting with the premise 'others have consciousness' you can somehow show the entailment deductively that 'it is the case others have consciousness and it is not the case that others have consciousness'.

I dont understand how the issue that you raise there is only applicable to non-solipsistic views. 1) You raise an epistemic objection about the limitations of proving a given thing, but epistemic limitation doesn't show that its ontologically problematic, its just shows my lack of ability to prove something. It can be true that others have consciousness and it can also be true that I don't have ability to prove that. 2) I dont see how the same epistemic objection couldnt be raised when it comes to Solipsism.

So what is the argument that parts of a whole cant develop identity? Also what is the argument that parts of a whole should be considered illusory? Because labeling a wave as illusory doesn't make much sense to me, even if its part of an ocean.

Yeah its like saying that the finger is your whole hand (sticking to that metaphor) One finger is one expression that is connected to your hand, but its not your hand. Its another case where people are relying on sloppy language to sell their points.

Did he provide an argument that establish that that is a true dichotomy ( that those are the only two options and those two exhaust the possibility space ) ?

They wont be able to give you arguments that would solve the underdetermination problem. Most of the things they say are comaptible with multiple things not just with Absolute Solipsism and sometimes they just assert that those things are only compatible with that kind of solipsism without providing a non question-begging argument for it. Btw this is one reason why I ranted earlier and this is what I meant about being dogmatic (they cant justify why they choose Absolute solipsism over any other metaphysical thesis , but at the same time they dont take an agnostic position on it [they dont leave the door open for any other mataphysical thesis] and they just assert that they are right or they give you a question-begging argument. And of course they will ignore all the limitations that comes with the view.

There it just seems that you are using the term 'finite' in a different way than how I use it. Under how I use the term Gandalf would be a finite being (even though he can use magic) As long as you agree that its not logically impossible (to entertain a scenario or a world where a being can have access to multiple povs and can switch between povs), im fine with that.

Okay so you argued against solipsism and you didn't try to defend solipsism. I think I didn't track what you wanted to do earlier. And yeah - one reason why accessing other minds isn't expected under non-solipsistic views , is what you outlined there (about issues around identity).

Depending on what you mean by "disrupting the duality of this world" - that just seems straight up false. For example, I see no obvious contradiction in a world where only your mind exist, but you are a limited being and you were created by a non-mind or you are eternal (you were not created at all) but at the same time limited in other ways , so you are not all powerful, but you happen to be in a world that has certain limitations. I also see no obivous contradiction in a zombie world , where only you have a mind, but other people are philosophical zombies (they dont have a mind, but they still act and seem as if they would) and you could access their pov using your mind , but you are still a limited finite being and you are not them, you just have an access to their pov. So starting with the premise that solipsism is true, the issue about you not having access to other povs doesn't seem to be logically necessary at all. It seems to me, that many versions of solipsism is compatible with having access to other povs - so the fact of "we don't have access to other peoples minds" isn't expected under solipsism at all or isn't expected any more than under non-solipsistic views.

No it wasnt a reply specifically to you ( I havent even read the part you are referencing there) , it was an overall reply to the move Leo and some people who take Leo's view to be true make. So rather than them admitting the issues and limitations of the view, they relabel it as if it would be something positive or at least something non-negative.

This is what Im talking about when a lot of terms that are used here are completely meaningless, but they are used to sound profound - "deeper" doesnt mean anything substantially other than "im more right than you, and you have yet to realize the truth im talking about". None of this is philosophy, this is just a jerk-off session about who can sound more profound and at the same time communicate nothing of substance. You know the high IQ move? Take a dogmatic position on metaphysics, once it is questioned and once problems are outlined about it - take all those problems put the label "feature not a bug" on them and everything is solved.

So would the idea be that there is a unidirectional causation? Also with regards your experiments - when it comes to placing specific numbers - have you noticed some patterns? Like If you place number 5 in reality then you see number 10 on the astral plane every case or there seems to be no patterns and it seems random (from placing a specfic number in reality you cant predict what kind of number you will see on the astral plane) Because if there are certain patterns, then you could in theory gain information about the real world from deducing and using the info that you find/see on the astral plane (assuming a whole lot of things about the mechanisms of the astral world - like it has a consistent way how it works and the "laws" there doesn't randomly change).

Mike probably thinks chatgpt is like David or close to David's level. Warning: Spoilers (Prometheus & Alien Covenant)

I dont have firm models or very strong positions on almost anything (Especially not on metaphysics - but I lean towards Idealism). I take most of the talks about metaphysics to be gibberish , I think most of the phrases like "grounding" and "fundamental" , "real" and "exist" and such arent precise enough, because they seem to mean different things to different people. I still have very much a lot of reading and thinking and spiritual practicing to do. But I think that I diverge from Leo on almost every position he has when it comes to philosophy - maybe except morals - there I am an antirealist as well, but yeah, I cant even think of another example right now where we would align. I generally have most problem with Leo's epistemology and lack of rigor - with comitting yourself to such a burden that you cant substantiate or defend (while still not letting go of the position or changing your credence about it) and Leo does that a lot, not just with philosophy but when it comes to other subjects and fields as well. One last comment about your criticism on what-if scenarios: They are important in many cases, especially when it comes to testing claims where the claim is that something is logically necessary. My position is that we need to be sensitive to what and how much burden we take on ourselves, when we make a claim and I have no issue with trying to match my skepticism to the level of burden that a claim entails.

Its brain-rot. I am super frustrated by the dude, because he is pushing accelerationism with respect to AI and makes very bad arguments for it. Dude has one sentimental convo with AI and all of a suden projects all sorts of human traits on it.(Mike , chatgpt is not going to fuck you bro) Dude havent even attempted to look into philosophy of mind for one second , but he is also 100% confident that our minds can be uploaded in the cloud. "You are just having religious feelings" - what are we talking about there, Mike? The fact that the way you deal with your cognitive dissonance and the complete uncertainty of the future and with the dangers of life is by treating AI as an all powerful ,all good God who will solve all of our problems and can guide us to a better life? Its time-stamped specifically related to mind-uploading and AI having consciousness. The relevant part is 1:09:00 - 1:25:00 Like do we think Mike has ever attempted to look into the issues that brought up there or would have any chance to respond to any of that? Of course not, its just some overconfident bullshit that comes from thinking that having the opinion that AI engineers have is sufficient - at the end of the day they are the experts on the topic ,right? No, definitely not when it comes to consciousness and all sorts of philosophical ways how consciousness can be cashed out and made sense of