zurew

One other point - next time I think you should clarify if your really want to bring up love, that you are not talking about action-guiding normative type of morality, you are talking about reality descriptively.

I disagree, again even after consuming 100s of hours of your content, most people cant reproduce your views in detail that you would say that its accurate enough. They use your terminology, but each have different understanding what those terms mean. Instead of people having to learn a 100 new technical words, they learn 5 new terms where each term have a 100 different interpretation and application to it. Creating a semantic landscape isn't easier this way - in fact its harder - because the reader and or listener is forced to infer which definition is used under the exact same term at that particular application or moment.

But you dont start from a clean slate, in the sense that you assume that they are new atheist types and you start from attacking that foundation. Its also the case that I dont think you can really skip using arcane language, because you cant do philosophy with just using vague terms where each term can be interpreted a 1000 different ways. You are forced to define terms at the end of the day. The general population's culturally induced intuitions around metaphysics are so far removed from your view, that you need a lot of and careful explaning to do so that they wont misunderstand things . There is a reason why most of your close fans still not understand in a lot of cases what you are saying despite the fact that they have consumed 100s of hours of your content. If we were to run a test on your close fans where they would be forced to describe your views in detail in a non-vague manner where they would need to differentiate your view from other Idealist views, they would fail horribly, because even though they are using the exact same terms as you, each have a different understanding of what those terms mean.

That doesnt make much sense to me as a reasoning for why you dont discuss them. How does normie positions in any way at all less garbage and more worth discussing than non-normie positions?

The other big difference is that Kastrup is read up on the literature when it comes to philosophy of mind and he has arguments targeting those positions not just normie positions. The proposition set that Leo thinks all materialists and physicalists need to affirm just doesnt cut it, that only cuts it for normies who havent studied any philosophy of mind at all. There is nuance in how many possible positions can be taken there and there is nuance how many different notion are for physicalism and thats why you need to be sensitive in your arguments to those nuances (if you want to categorically rule all of them out or if you want to at least evidentially want to argue against all of those positions) and only targeting normies wont be enough for that.

Its either a contradiction or an equivocation, but he doesnt care about this and never gave any fuck about this point. He labels this as getting lost in the details and not focusing on the big picture, when in reality, he just isn't doing the bare minimum to try to communicate in a coherent and trackable way. But then he acts surprised or gets mad when you cant get his point or cant track what he is saying. "Of course you dont get it, because you havent realized the things im talking about" - Us not understanding what he is pointing at is compatible with him contradicting himself or engaging in an equivocation. Again, just follow very basic communication norms.

Its just not trivial to me how the proposition of "we can see without sense organs" being true would be more expected if God had a top-down rather than a bottom-up approach. This goes back to issues I have around fine-tuning and how the more vague you phrase the hypothesis the less clear it is what can be even be considered as evidence that can support that hypothesis. This is also why apriori approach is usually trash. We have 0 fucking clue what the probability landscape is. So we use random priors and what prior we start with always comes down to what abductive reasoning we use and that comes down to intellectual preferences so overall its just trash and I agree with Bernardo that we are just apes not having any fucking clue what we are doing.

Not tracking your inference. Lets say that mental and perceptual faculties exist before the events proposed necessary by naturalism. If that is true, would that fact be expected more under the hypothesis H1 where God does have a personhood over hypothesis H2 where God does not have a personhood? Because if the answer is no , then I dont understand what you meant in your last sentence when you said "could indicate".

Not sitting down to talk with them is compatible with what you just wrote there. You can get a better understanding of them without any talks. And getting a better understanding only relevant in certain circumstances where that additional understanding can directly change your response. And you are ignoring all the negative aspects that can come from giving a platform to dishonest actors or to your enemy. But now we are moving the goalpost from "We have a shared value structure, we should have a discussion, democracy is about understanding each other and hearing each other out" to "We have fundamentally different values, and you are my enemy. I will hear you out so that I can improve my war-tactics against you".

No its not, because you are pushing it as if there wouldn't be exceptions to it and you are pretending that if someone has instances where he/she doesn't want to use this rule - then he/she is wrong for it no matter how fucking crazy the proposition is. You are pretending that you get pushback because you are suggesting some normal casual thing - but you are not my dude. You are saying that if someone comes to you and tells you that he wants to sell your daugther to be a publicly used flashlight, you should sit down and entertain that discussion.

Yes you made it in reponse to DocWatts who brought up the nazis. You are being dishonest , lets get the context right - his point wasnt that one shouldnt have a talk with anyone who has a different opinion, his point was that if someone has fundamentally different values, then there is not just no point in having a discussion ,but it is actually damaging to entertain a discussion with someone who wants to eliminate and or take your rights away. A low conscious response is the one, where you pretend that not having a discussion with a fascist is the move that destroys democracy and not the fact that the fascist doesnt give a fuck about democracy in the firstplace and that he is engaging in a behavior thats non-democratic. Mr conscious guy - Spell out a meta-game that actually solves these issues (in a way where you dont contribute to these issues in any way and you dont escalate in any way) without pretending that letting your ass to get gaped over and over again is conscious politics.

This framing is beyond retarded and you are playing a dishonest and a stupid game. You make it seem like not wanting to have a talk when there is a fundamental value disagreement is what causes war, and not the fact that the other guy has fundamentally different values and that he acts on those values. You would be the guy who would say that the reason why we are at war is because a child (who got raped) wasn't willing to sit down and have a debate about why child rape is good with a serial child rapist. Diplomacy ended at the time when the child rapist decided to rape the child, and not at the time when the raped child wasn't willing to have a talk with the child rapist.

Actual subhuman ghouls. https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1qa46d8/tapper_to_noem_i_just_showed_you_video_of_people/

The self-defense claim doesnt make any sense. Giving a headshot wont stop the car from crushing you, getting out of the way does. If your goal is to not get injured or to not die, then get out of the fucking way. I dont know in which marvel universe a moving car just stops moving after the driver is dead. And this is aside from the fact that its very clear from the videos that the car was moving away from him not towards him. If your goal is to murder someone, then giving a couple of headshots (2 from completely the side of the car) and then calling her a fucking bitch and then driving away immediately from the scene without limping or any given sign of injury and without any sign of regret or sadness that he just killed somone like a subhuman does make a lot of sense. The avalaible videos make it extremely clear that his position is indefensible and that her intent wasnt to run over the guy: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1q8l8o4/synced_up_new_footage_with_old_footage_added/

Yeah, level of detail and the usage of words should be (imo) largely informed by the targeted audience. Academic papers are not for lay people though. They are for people who are specialized in an area, so you assume that they know a bunch about the field already and you also assume that they can understand technical detail and technical language. I generally prefer analytic philosophy and I like it more than non-analytic philosophy, because I would choose hardly understandable but crackable technical detail over gibberish and or natural language that lacks substance or conceptually confused (thats not to say that all non-analytic philosophy is trash, because thats definitely not true). Yes one can definitely fuck up with going too technical. Its also the case that we have a bunch of shared concepts that probably no one can explicate or define using other concepts.

This is true when it comes to reading books, but when it comes to reading academic articles (like philpapers or iep or sep articles), one's inability to track or to understand can be also explained by not doing enough thinking and reading on that specific subject or area. We would never say the same thing about science stuff. Like imagine someone saying "yeah, when I looked up what the academia has to say about physics , well I immediately realized that it is just a bunch of empty big words that I dont understand combined sometimes with unnecessary technical detail and arguments".

Its often times an ill-formed question. This is one move that I usually use, when I have a categorization problem: Think through a couple of examples where the categorization (in this case invented/discovered categorization) is crystal clear for you and try to analyze and explicate what made the categorization easy in those cases. Once you finish that, try to work yourself backwards from there (try to apply that gained understanding/insight to progressively harder examples and eventually to math).

You are saying things that I mostly agree with , the issue that I have is your level of certainty about those things. "Can I be wrong about this?" - as long as the answer is yes, I have 0 issue. Reality having a consistent set of rules is compatible with you having wrong ideas about what those rules are, and even your very ideas about what is supposed to be a law or rule - those ideas can also be wrong. The human body having a particular design which constrains what the body is capable of is compatible with you having wrong ideas about those limitations and constrains. This whole back and forth on my part wasn't to establish whether breatharianism is false or not, it was to establish that we shouldnt be 100% certain about almost anything science related. And no, this doesnt give credence to breatharianism, it is just an honest reflection on what we know and what level of certainty we can establish given the epistemic tools and limitations we have when it comes to science. I want you to actually engage and to give a direct answer. How do you know what is a rule and how do you know what you can get around and what you cant get around?

You still have 0 reply to the problem of induction. Yes reality is reality, hardware is hardware, but you have no clue what rules reality has, you just assume that you are right about those rules beyond any doubt, and the reason why you are pushed on this, is because epistemically you cant accept the fact that you can be wrong about this. What got us here is your 100% credence talk ,where you think you cant be wrong on this topic. Notice that I only wanted you to say "I can be wrong about this" - but you cant say that. You understand that you saying that "I can be wrong on this", from that doesnt follow, that you are commited to the position that breatharianism is likely to be true, right? Do you know why the snakeoil salesman shit works in philosophy and spirituality? It works, because people have unwarranted high credence in mystical shit. Do you know whats ironic about that? The fact that you have an unjustifiably high credence in your position. Do you know what the solution to that is? Its to reflect on what you actually know and what justifications you have for your positions and to iteratively improve on your knowledge and iteratively update your credence on things. Saying that there is room for error doesnt commit you to getting fucked over by snakeoil salesman, but it gives you room to update on your beliefs about reality if and when enough evidence / a good argument is provided. In certain cases it might actually be the case that its impossible to change your position on certain things, given all the pragmatic and epistemic limitations we have, but even in those cases the conclusion isn't that you are right beyond any doubt, the conclusion is that given those limitations you won't change your position on certain things, but thats still compatible with you being wrong about those things. Stop and actually reflect on how do you know that breatharianism is false beyond any doubt - again not just that it is more than likely to be false, but reflect on how do you know with 100% confidence that it is false. Check what actual justifications you have for that and how that actually warrants a 100% credence.

But even putting that aside and granting that to be true, its not like we have a super precise grasp about what humans can do. You could run studies on the whole population of Earth in the 12th century and then make inferences about how much a human can lift or how much and how fast they can run and you would infer a bunch of false things. Also its not like anyone here could actually spell out a deductive inference (starting with the premises of the laws of physics, and then from that deductively infer the limitation of humans). This is why I implied in the past that even the task of spelling out what law is actually violated by breatharianism would be a big task, because its not clear at all what (if any) law is violated.

Yeah you can use a notion of deductive that is applicable there, I guess I used deduction in a slightly different way. You can make deductive inferences where some of the premises are actually inductive or when there is a hidden inductive premise that you already take to be true (like the uniformity of nature) - so in reality, you are still engaging in induction. For example, even if you can falsify something given some precise set of conditions, from that doesnt necessarily follow that will hold up in the future (what you actually show there at best, is that given those set of conditions at that given time, you showed that that particular thing is false) but at the end of the day, you are still relying on induction, because you make an inductive inference from there that your deductively derived conclusion will hold up in the future given the same set of conditions. And yes , you are totally right about Thomas Kuhn as well, because one can infinitely delay falsification by adding auxiliary hypotheses to one's already existing paradigm.

Read just a little bit about the problem of induction and you will understand what im talking about. You need to understand how much science relies on induction. Im extremely surprised that you dont know about this. You have this very naive view that scientific facts are well justified things to the point where there is no room for any error anymore, but that couldnt be further from the truth. Science is an inductive and abductive project and it definitely isn't a deductive one, where you can have 100% credence about almost anything. I can walk you through multiple different examples to showcase the issues about induction. The black swan one is one such example, and the exact same logic is used to establish scientific laws. Just because you observe a pattern repeating multiple times, from that doesnt follow that it will definitely without a doubt repeat forever and it also doesnt mean that it is applicable universally everywhere, those things are justified by inferences and not by validation, because you practically cant validate such claims.

It is closed-mindedness , because you quite literally dont even want to entertain the alternative. The fact of the matter is that you rely on inductive reasoning and refuse to acknowledge the limitations that comes with that. You are the skeptical dude in the 16th century saying: "I'm 100% confident without any doubt, that black swans dont exist, because no one has ever seen any black swan" and also say "cmon dude, stop the bullshit and the fantasy - we are not on the same level - you are telling me this nonsense that I should be open to the possibility that there are black swans? Stop the nonsense! I have the highground, because for all the existence of humankind, none has ever seen a black swan" and you would be right, but after that you would get completely obliterated by dutch mariners who were the first to discover black swans.

It isn't too abstract. it is the difference between saying that there cant be anything shown to you to change your mind on it, and between there could be hypothetically something that could change your mind on it.

Thats not what the claim is - this is the issue "Do you actually know that the claim is false?" 'No?' "Okay, then dont say that it is definitely false." This is compatible with you labeling it as fantasy and absurd and wishful thinking and this is compatible with your argument about what should or shouldnt be entertained (which again I agree with generally speaking).