zurew

Said the zen master, to wake you up.

Most of that goes way above Leo's head. Your idea about where people are at when it comes to logic and academic philosophy is way off (imo). Most people here understand and use the term "logic" as "reasonableness" and as "rational" and they dont use it in a technical way like you do. My assumption is that the video will be something about exploring the difference between logically possible (where 'logic' is used in a technical way) and what seems reasonable to people (which is obviously a much narrower set that contains much less things and doesnt even remotely exhaust the possibility space). And it will be probably also about how one's sense of 'reasonable' and 'reasonableness' is informed and limited by culture and other people and other things like technology , survival and foundational beliefs. Like you shouldnt invoke paraconsistent logic and the problem of the liar's paradox, because most people dont think that contradictions can be meaningful and they dont need to deal with problems like that. But sure, if your goal is to make people realize that affirming certain contradicitons can be reasonable, then invoking paraconsistent logic could make sense.

I think now I kind of track what you meant by it being false. You didnt try to make a case for moral realism, you simply said that if idealism is true, then certain moral claims become false (on descriptive grounds) just given the nature of the world. So if a claim relies on X and there is no X, then the claim is false. But I dont think thats the case, and here is why: there is an equivocation on consciousness there. Everything is consciousness, but not every single thing is conscious/sentient (unless you are a panpsychist). And as a side note: You can be a physicalist and believe that the Universe is eternal (it doesnt have a beginning)

The default appeal is to Parvati and to the Ganas (in both cases its an appeal to the Puranas again), but to be fair to him, he is being epistemically somewhat humble and careful here. Dude is obsessed with bothering aliens. 👽

Im not tracking how being an idealist would be relevant or how it would solve any of this. Idealism doesnt presuppose moral realism and you can have any set of moral intutions as an idealist. Do you think moral-antirealism is incompatible with idealism? Also not sure what is meant by the view not being true. I understand that when it comes to metaphysics, but when it comes to moral realism I have no clue what kind of norm is invoked. Or I could ask it this way: What do you think the error is in a person's position who is an idealist and an anti-natalist at the same time?

Its also funny that post-modernism is invoked as a bad thing, as if you wouldnt be a "post-modernist" in many many domains in life. Are you a gastronomical realist? The other confusion is that anti-natalism has to be either an anti-realist or realist position. No, it can be compatible with both, its just that depending on which one is affirmed, the defense will be different for it. Its just obvious to me ,that none of you can actually establish any coherent and meaningful moral realist stance against anti-realism and even if you could it still wouldnt be motivating in any way at all for anti realist to abide by that system.

This is so confused I dont even know where and how to even begin to reply to this. "validity" and "true-ness" is indexed to the moral intuitions these people have, I dont know what you invoke when you use those terms. You already presuppose some kind of moral realism probably, but thats just simply not engaging with what these people are saying. The cricism that you bring up is simply silly, because there you presuppose that its either the case that moral realism is true or its just all fantasy, which doesnt follow and doesnt even make sense as a reply, its just a complete misunderstanding of moral anti-realism. 1) It almost as if I already predicted this here: It seems that you havent even read the thing that you quoted. 2) You just embodied people who dont understand how anti realism works. Validity is defined by their system not by something outside of their system, so when you say "they are all equal", you are making the mistake of appealing to some kind of norm outside of all those systems, which is the very thing they reject. So no, the consclusion "therefore all perspectives are equal" doesnt follow.

Said by Genghis Khan after someone objected to him raping thousands of women and to him indiscriminately murdering men and boys regardless if they were soldiers, civilians, or simply in the way.

You would automatically give all credit to the aliens when you lack the ability to come up with a hypothesis. Alien of the gaps.

It is arrogant and it is based on a very loose inference.

I dont think we usually have a well thought out epistemic process when it comes to approaching and evaluating these things. But I can tell you one specific instance where I would definitely favour the alien hypothesis over the other one. So when it comes to the Jesus resurrection hypothesis, and him healing people and walking on water and other stuff like that (lets just take those to be facts for the sake of the argument), the alien hypothesis is actually better than Jesus being God. The alien hypothesis is better because you dont need to inflate your ontology with things that are outside of time and space. So if you have a set of things that needs to be explained and one explanation can explain the data without needing to propose new layers of ontology, then you should go with that one over the other (if all else is equal). ---------------- I think we usually lack the epistemic tools so much that we really arent equipped to categorize things in a precise way. I think John Vervaeke is right that some of the imported frameworks we are working with are making it harder or sometimes impossible - so for instance, the subjective-objective divide really breakes down when it comes to categorizing certain entities and issues, and you need to construct new categories to deal with those problems (and sometimes you need a new metaphysical frame for that). And it doesnt help that scientist usually just unconsiously import modern philosophy . Some ways of thinking are so ingrained in us from culture, that you need to spend years to just gain the ability to reflect on those things, because they are completely invisible and they seem axiomatic and necessary - @Carl-Richard's crypto materialism thread just confirms this. Just because you are team Idealism, that doesnt mean that you managed to overcome those ways of thinking. If you cant explicate what epistemic process you go through when it comes to categorizing these things, that should be a good hint that you are doing it in an unconscious manner - and this applies both to scientist and to woo people.

Or you can just infinitely do the move of "ohh its incompatible with it now, therefore its either the case that future sciences will agree with it or this part of the book should be interpreted in a non-literal way".

I get the feeling that he is engaging in the "I verified some things from the Puranas, therefore most if not all of it is true". He is like a sneaky apologist who constantly jumps between "oh its just a myth and it should be interpreted as a myth" and between "No those things are literally true and should be interpreted as such"depending on what the audience is and whats convenient for him. Like be clear, which one do you want to go with, or do you want to go with both, where it both literally happened and it also has mythical import in some kind of very weird Richard Dawkins + Jordan Peterson synthesis style or what? Even when it comes to science stuff, his narrative is "Of course scientits now saying that x,y is true, the yogic sciences predicted this thousands of years ago" and I think a good chunk of that is bias and dishonest, because again other apologists play these games, where the Bible should be interpreted as a science book and when its inconvenient its suddenly not a science book anymore. Its very clear that some of the things that are mentioned in the book are phrased in a very vague way, to the point where it almost becomes impossible for it not to be compatible with what scientist will say in the future. Like the scientist could be saying wildly different things than what they are saying now and the Puranas would still probably be compatible with it. I think as much as I say this , this still isn't pointed out frequently enough when it comes to "authority figures" or pioneers. A good chunk of the work is necessarily based on making a web of inferences and not on directly verifying things, and when it comes to gurus making inferences, they are usually very bad at it, because most of the time they are uneducated and some amount of education is necessary to make more precise inferences with less jumps in logic. And of course being educated isnt enough, but creating very tight arguments is very very hard, where you can point out all the foundational assumptions you go with and where you can walk people through how and why you get to the conclusion.

@Bashar its funny btw that you think you are saying something new or something that wouldn't fit in my "worldview". I personally followed dudes in the past who planned mediation retreats in Egypt for spiritual reasons (and these dude werent originally from Egypt). The idea was that you meditate inside the pyramids at a certain time (the time was planned astrologically), and you can have mystical experiences there ( or at least thats what a bunch of people reported who went there) The background narrative is that the Pyramids were built for spiritual reasons , so that you can mediate there and recharge your energies and your aura. They also believed that Thoth was an alien and that the emerald tablets actually described valid things. Just as how this typically works, the dudes were hardcore into conspiracy theories (constellation of beliefs, you can predict most of their views and beliefs on almost anything), but the reports about the retreat were positive and many people who attended reported mystical experiences. I know a lot of random shit like this (including channelers like Bashar and other shit like that), its just that my epistemic process is again not to default to the alien hypothesis ( when I dont necessarily have a good alternative hypothesis in mind). You should be much more rigorous and you should study the alternative hypotheses, or just sit with not-knowing. For the inference gap to be properly filled for the alien hypothesis you will need to do much more work than just "you dont have a good alternative, therefore aliens". Like do you have any independent evidence that the blocks were actually moved by sound or that those aliens were actually on land (without appealing to Bashar or to the Law of One) ?

Listen to Sadhguru and you will be even more fucked The old duder unironically pushing the 'advanced reptilian beings were on Earth' hypothesis - Nagas (its just that in this case they are not the bad guys, like how they are typically portrayed in conspiracy theories)

I can speculate and generate better sci-fi and magic like hypotheses, this Bashar guy is too myopic. 1) The blocks are actually sentient and they carved themselves out and then flew to their designated places. 2) The whole pyramid materialized in a causeless way from nothing. 3) Back in the day, these blocks were weightless, because gravity on Earth was completely different and any kid could just toss these blocks around. If anyone believes that any of these might have issues, I will make sure to engage in endless ad-hoc reasoning, ensuring that none of these hypotheses can be falsified (like a good honest actor, who cares about generating good theories and not about infinitely defending the conclusion and the beliefs they already hold)

Its confused all around the place. Anti-natalists dont need to be moral realists, they can be antirealists and think given their moral intuitions its wrong to give birth to kids. The materialist comment is also confused, because you can care about suffering the most regardless if you are a materialist or not. Its just based on how you personally weigh things. Caring about suffering the most is comaptible with any non-materialist metaphyiscs as well. An afterlife can also make this whole thing worse, because you created a life, and now they have to exist forever. Again - Rather than desperately holding on to labels, you should engage with the substance thats being said, because no, it doesnt make things rhetorically any better. Engage with what I mean by the phrases I use, not what you mean by those terms. Yes, you cant ask for consent from a non-existent thing, but by creating it you necessarily subject it to a set of experiences and death. And no, it doesnt have to be outcome dependent , just the fact that kid will have any experience can be considered bad under their view, because regardless what kind of measurement you use, what matters is how the kid subjectively end up evaluating the whole thing, not what values you have. So yes, even if you would give birth to the kid in Heaven, under this view, it could still be considered bad, because you are gambling with the kid disliking having capacity for experience in the firstplace (regardless how heaven like you picture his/her future life to be like). The only way you can get around this, if you are an all-knowing God and you know that they will be okay with existing, but the moment any gambling is involved epistemically on your part, it will be considered bad. All the arguments you make for any kind of moral realism will be irrelevant, because it doesnt matter what kind of abstract moral system you think is objectively true, again what matters is how the kid end up evaluating things. And yes again, antinatalists dont need to think that their views are objectively true, they can be subjectivists. Their view is coherent, there is no contradiciton in the view. I will flag this again, I dont think it makes sense for you to make a case for any kind of objective morality, because its not motivating at all. Even if its actually true, it doesnt change anything ,because why would anyone care about abiding by the objective moral system you are describing? They will only care about things as long as their own moral intuitions and preferences are being violated. This is why going to Hell works, because its negatively motivating people to not do certain things, not because its objectively true , but because of the actual consequences people subjectively care about. If their would be no consequences that people care about, no one would give a fuck about what moral system is objectively true. The system's objectivity or subjectivity is irrelevant, only the consequences people care about matter. And this is why arguing against moral systems is a waste of time, if you dont appeal to people's moral intuitions in some way. And yes , you can reply with "okay, but who cares , I have different moral intuitions", but you are not really showing any issue with their view.

Your explanation is completely arbitrary. I could say that goblins did it. I could generate an infinite number of random arbitrary hypothesis that would explain the data, but none of this serious inquiry or investigation. Btw even in the tiktok that you linked even there Bashar tells you that levers and cranes is the answer for some of the pyramids. Even your idea about how reputability works is so flawed that I wouldnt trust a single thing you say. Harry Potter can tell you real facts about the world, but from that doesnt follow that you should trust it on all the facts that it proposes. What reasons can you list that makes Bashar reputable on this particular matter?

And thats fine. You know, from lack of ability to explain aliens doesnt follow. What you have so far is "I dont have an explanation, therefore aliens".

1) No its not 2) You should care about more than just occam's razor when it comes to epistemic virtues. Your attitude is the God of the gaps just swap God with aliens.

Yes it is, the average block doesnt weigh 80 tons

Yeah you dont even need to meditate - being bored is enough to be the scariest shit sometimes, for the exact reasons you just layed down.

What do you mean, broski was a regular person who completely transceded all material means. Thats why he collected a fleet of 93 Rolls-Royce cars

Everyone here is familiar with all the esoteric shit (including the Law of One , including channelers, and other controversial siddhi, tantric , occult stuff) , but thats not going to mean that you just default to those positions, because you dont have anwers to questions.