zurew

There can be an attitude and a habit to integrate and to synthesize, but to me it seems there is so much nuance when it comes to what "proper" integration/synthesis means. There is a normativity to it that is often times not specified - and because of it - talks about higher and lower perspectives becomes messy and unproductive. I can be aware of multiple perspectives ,but then I can choose properties from each perspective randomly and create an assembled mess. What makes the outcome not an assembled mess? How can I know what kind of properties are relevant and what should be get rid of given a set of perspectives? To me, the answer to those questions is grounded in pragmatism - so when it comes to specifying based on what kind of norms and characteristics I create a hierarchy of perspectives - it will be based on the given purpose/goal/function and that will automatically give meaning to terms like "better" or "higher". This provides the ability to define and to interpret those terms in a non-vague way , and this would be the opposite to the other approach where there is some kind of vague goal and function independent meaning is attached to those terms. There is also often times an underlying assumption that if the context window that one consideres is bigger (which is often labeled as a more complex persepctive), that is in and of itself better, but that is purpose dependent as well. A bigger context window might give more noise to it and make it worse.

Its not the case yet (if you interpret it literally), but as AI gets more advanced, the capability to do more harm by anyone who has access to it goes up as well.

I dont think you appreciate the level of setback and depth "shit will just break down" entails in the context we are in now. I think appealing to history doesn't work much. Times in the past were different compared to how it is now. Sure you could externalize harm, but not on this scale. In the past, a seriously bad actor could only do so much damage (even if he had all the wealth and all the necessary people), as time passes -especially with the rapid advancement of AI - the potential for a single individual to cause significant harm is increasing at an almost exponential rate, without any need for substantial wealth or for a powerful network of people. The idea that we will have a casual setback in a society, where each member can have at least a nuclear bomb level effect on a global scale, while having perverse incentives , misinformation and a bunch of bad actors is just naive and not realistic. We wont go extinct, but there will be a serious and chaotic setback.

Is this the classic move of "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao' ? - the moment you try to formalize and strategize a plan you've already lost. But regardless, what does "become totally unbound in your own becoming" mean in practice?

I dont share his idea, I just shared his view, which is simiar to yours in that we have no fucking clue what we are doing.

Thats roughly what Jordan Hall is saying. Jordan Hall would say that we have no fucking clue what we are doing and from where our motivations come from and we should connect to God and act based on that not based on our ideologies or random motivations. The idea is that whatever our intellect will come up with will be dogshit and useless , so we might as surrender and let the transcendent show the way.

I dont think I am tracking what you are saying. The premise is not that we are fully in charge of what we are becoming and what we are doing - the premise is that our actions inevitably affect nature and to the degree to which we have control over those actions (even if its very little), we should use that wisely.

I think there is some truth to that (the need for control and the need for taking credit), but on the other , it is also about this - given that we are here and we are planning on staying here in the future, why wouldn't we try to do it in a conscious,wise rather than an unconsious,unwise way?

If you agree with the premise that there are problems that pops up and maintained by Game A dynamics , then if your solution doesn't involve something that takes care of that , then it might help with gaining time, but its not really a solution that prevents from shit breaking down in the future. I don't think you can realistically maintain a game A world without there inevitably being civilizational collapse. In principle, its not impossible to solve these problems in game A, for example using power and other tools of persuasion you can theoretically make everyone to do what you want them to do, but maintaining this long term is just as unrealistic as transitioning to game B.

I think your sentiment makes it impossible to progress on anything. Its one thing to be realistic , but its another to not even attempt to work on the problems and then because of it - make it a self fulfilling prophecy, where the solution never comes (not because you establish that in principle there cannot be one, but because your attitude make it so that you never even try to work on one). So if we are actually solution oriented there are multiple moves - even though its extremely unlikely, still giving the transition a chance and or given that shit will inevitably break down, thinking about how to deal with once it breaks down.

I dont think they would disagree with that. I think the idea was to come up with the necessary and sufficient conditions that a solution must satisfy, and if by its nature it makes it so that it is extremely unrealistic and absurd, then so be it, but it being unrealistic or unlikely in principle won't take away from the need that it has to be done. Or in other words, if there is no other alternative option other than an extremely unrealistic one, then you try to implement that. Its like if its a fact that you will have an MMA match with Jon Jones in two weeks and there is no possible way to get around that, then you will try to do your best with what options you have, even though the chance of you winning the fight is basically 0. But yeah, it seems that you don't even agree with the premise that there is a meta-crisis let alone with what necessary charactersitics the solution must have.

By that you mean that there isn't much substance to what they are saying? Im sure that you agree with the thesis that there is a meta-crisis, you probably disagree with the prescriptions and with the way they outline how the solution supposed to look like.

Have you looked into Forrest Landry's stuff? Jordan Hall and maybe even Schmachtenberger suggested that he is the smartest guy they know. this is more recent - timestamped (59:50)

Everyone can project whatever meaning they want on the Bible depending on what beliefs and biases they have. In this case, one can project nonduality on it and pretend that the authors of the Bible were writing about nonduality and God realization. I don't know why the exact same thing couldn't be said about any other random text and why the Bible should be treated special. If I try hard enough, I can redefine enough things so that I can say that the founding fathers were actually talking about nonduality and they were trying to teach about God realization. To me, this move seems like a desperate attempt to try to maintain a Christian identity while also trying to be "spiritual" at the same time.

Gandalf is good enough for me

I don't see how any of those are good arguments for God and I don't see how those are pointing to God. Because the chance that an all powerful God would create physics this particular way , with these entailments from the infinite set of other possibilites is also extremely slim. Why would he prefer life over no life? And after answering that, even assuming that he preferes life, does he have the capacity to create life that can bear any state of affairs? If yes, then this is simply not a good argument for God ,because he could have made us in a way where we could be chilling in the middle of the Sun and have no issue existing and surviving. I don't see how thats the case. Miracles could be explained by a large set of other things as well. For example other beings using advanced tech or under the assmuption that it is not advanced tech , there could be an infinite number of beings that could hypothetically perform miracles without being all knowing, all powerful etc. God is simply not necessary to explain miracles.

These guys are really confused and beyond dishonest. Creating a hypothesis is not the same as affirming the consequent. A hypothesis is not meant to be deductive reasoning or a production of a definite proof. A hypothesis (usually) makes a specific prediction and if that prediction turns out to be true, then the validity of that hypothesis is elevated. They label inductive and abductive reasoning as "fallacious" which is stupid (especially given that they brought up court and given their epistemology , the implication is that unless you can show with deductive reasoning that a person is innocent or guilty you should just drop all cases and you shouldn't even bother coming up with an explanation) but the funny thing is that their positive claims are also based on non-deductive reasoning. "Ohh, im not sure whether we could ever really establish cause and effect and im not sure whether we could ever isolate the relevant variables or not, but look (insert advertisement around 1 hour 5 minutes) - the government and the big pharma are definitely bad and here is my buddy who created this supplement which is definitely good and it helps you to recover from all the bad effects that were definitely caused by the big bad government."

That sounds like that you are using a completely different definition of observation compared to how not just most people, but how a good chunk of philosophers use those terms. Which is all fine, but substantially your claims and arguments in that case are not impressive at all, because they can be boiled down to a set of trivially true statements that all philosophers can agree with.

In order for some being to have knowledge that being has to exist, but thats different from saying in order to know x , you have to observe x. Do you claim the latter one as well? Because, then my question would be, what about simply reasoning and applying rules of inference (and discovering logical entailments of a given claim) and deriving conclusions that way? In other words - do you deny apriori knowledge altogether?

I don't see why that is. You're assuming that necessity has to be defined negatively by disproving it not being the case. I dont assume that it is has to be defined that way, I dont take definitions to be objective, its just that necessity typically used the way I said. All these terms are related to modal language and necessity can be related to different modalities and the most common modalities are logical, physical, metaphysical. You can say that by necessity you mean "it is unavoidable" , but the meaning of that term is going to be unclear. And yes, you can prove necessity, if necessity is used the way I outlined

Saying that x is necessary (x exists in all possible worlds) means that x not existing entails a contradiction. Which is why I said - in order for you to show God is necessary you would have to show the contradiction. I dont know how else you would want to establish that something is necessary. I dont know what you mean by absolute infinity, but if its something like modal realism where all possible worlds exist, then no - I dont see why would modal realism has to be true - but even aside from that , if that is taken to be true that would lead to modal collapse

@AtmanIsBrahman its a bad argument, unless you can show the contradiction in saying God doesnt exist (because the word 'necessary' relates to logical necessity) Everyone will agree that if a necessary being exists then it exists in all possible worlds, but other than just assigning the property of necessity to God, for this to be substantial you would have to establish why God has that property. Merely baking in necessity in the definition wont do much. Most of the arguments for God are trash, and even the ones that go through, they dont conclude the existence of God, they conclude something else (like the Universe has a cause, which is btw controversial). And as a sidepoint - most arguments use a different definition of God compared to how Leo uses that word ,therefore these arguments are actually concluding something substantially different than what most people on this forum would try to argue for

You can have ADHD and not do this. You can also be a horny motherfucker and still not do this. "Im just a coomer" isnt gonna be enough here. Especially given that it seems now that he doesnt even think that it was wrong what he did because he frames it as "implied consent" which is wild. Whats funny is that using his logic (even assuming that pxie actually shared her bf's stuff without consent) if someone sharing nudes without consent means that he/she automatically consents to his/her nudes being shared without asking for their consent, then Destiny shouldnt have an issue with the hacker leaking his shit, because Destiny has done the exact same shit in the past with pxie, melina

Yeah I agree - If she actually shared his shit without his consent, then it is really a giant clusterfuck and her reputation should be highly damaged (and if he thinks he can win a case against her, then he should go for it)

Implied consent is such a wild thing in the context of what he did. I don't know why he thinks that its a reasonable thing to invoke. Even if he could prove (which to my knowledge he couldn't) that Pxie shared that video without her bf's consent, that still wouldn't make what he did better - it would only establish that Pxie is a piece of shit as well.