zurew

Nope, what I am asking for is beyond science, you cant solve this level of disagreement with just an experiment - we are talking about philosophy of science (that I assumed people here gave a fuck about, especially people who wants to criticize the scientific community). What we are talking more specifically is justification and establishing different epistemic norms to judge things by. Without establishing what kind of norms are reasonable to judge things by in this context, we end up in this fucking mess where its unclear what kind of metanorms your are using to establish that your approach is better than for instance the scientific community's approach. Without clarifying this, my random norm of 'if I count 100 insects on the street that will mean yes' will have no less weight than you asking your girlfriend whether she wants to be your wife , and she says yes. What kind of metanorms can you appeal to, to showcase that you asking your girlfriend makes much more sense to gain information about her mental state than me counting insects on the street? Or should I combine the two norms to be more holistic and give some weight to the insect one? WIthout you answering that question, we can apply the same thing to hypothesis - what does it mean to have a better hypothesis? What kind of variables do you check to differentiate between multiple hypothesis? Without having a clear idea about that , you will appeal to vague words and random norms and you saying buzzwords like holistic and it will sound profound to some people here ,but it very quickly falls apart, because you havent thought about it deeply enough. And this is just one issue, the other issue is your unsubstantiated claims when you paint with a broad brush the whole scientific community based on your personal experience. Btw do you know whats one answer to the parsing question? You can narrow down the set by appealing to studies and evidence within those studies to strengthen parts of your hypothesis, but that would be an issue for you, because earlier you had a long session about doctors being memorizing and appeal to authority monkeys. You can also appeal to scientific knowledge without needing to reinvent the wheel from scratch - but again that will go against your requirement where doctors need to question everything and independently need to verify everything. Another way to narrow down the set is by repeating the same approach over and over again under different circumstances and with different time delays with different people and trying it on a lot of people (you know conducting studies that you dismissed, because thats biased) Me asking you and giving you the opportunity to map out your epistemology where you can showcase your norms and show us why your approach is actually better and explain to us unconscious normies what we are missing is unfair (after you making yourself an authority on this topic by claiming to be the best on earth) and I am asking for too much, but you demanding doctors to play 20 different roles, and to be experts in 20 different fields and to know philosophy of science and to run experiments and to also do research and to also treat patients is realistic and a fair standard.

How is that the only "real" variable in the circumstance? There are so many other possibilities there, its just that your intuition randomly came up with "air quality" as an answer and you took at as if that would be the only possibility there.

@integral Most of your problems that you listed can be explained by other things. So for example, when it comes to your phrasing of "dismissing your lived experience" - there is a difference between you reporting your experience vs you coming up with your own hypothesis and strongly insisting on that you are right. In once case, you report facts in the other you give an explanation of the facts. You have strongly insisted multiple times that you are an expert and that you have some special epistemology, but from what you wrote that doesn't seem to be the case. Anyone can use the try-fail approach in a mindless way it doesn't take any intelligence to randomly pick and tweak things - what actually does take intelligence is the ability to pick the right things and to tweak them the right amount so that the problem is solved. "But I solved my own problem" - lets grant that , but what was the justification to pick that particular thing over picking any other random thing ? It was done in a completely random way and it was based on pure luck. "I have a 100 things that I will go over" Why did you pick those 100 things though over any other thing? "Well it was just random". Also what makes you think that you solved the root issue and you didnt just treat the symptoms? You have talked about doctors lacking rigor and granularity - you want rigor ,but you cant answer basic questions like "what makes you think that your hypothesis yielded your results and not something else that you didn't track/measured?" Appealing to the try and fail approach isnt sufficient , because of many things one of which is time delay - lets say you tried 50 different things and after trying the 50th thing your sleep quality improved. How do you know that the 50th thing generated the outcome and not the 1st thing with a longer time delay? You have 0 clue, but again, you have 100% confidence that you are right on this, even though you cant provide any reasoning that would justify your confidence in choosing your hypothesis over any other. So even assuming that you were responsbile for generating the outcome and not something else that you didnt track and was outside of your control - even under that frame there is so many possibilities and so much nuance that you utterly fail to grasp and capture in your "explanation". You need more epistemic norms that can constrain the scope and help with differentiating between all the different hypothesis that are all under your fail-try possibility set. If you tried 50 different things then you have 50! (factorial) number of combinations of hypothesis that you can choose from (the first one generated the result or the second one or both the second and first or just the 50th one or all the 50 were responsible for it etc).

I asked you very clearly what I want from you. Explain what justifies your level of confidence and explain how you came up with your hypothesis .

Do you think that you can solve disagreements about the outcome of experiments and about the validity of a given medical hypothesis without appealing to and without collecting empirical data? Do you think this is philosophy where we can just sit back and argue and solve disagreements with pure argumentation without any need to track and test shit? What do you think , why do we track the outcome? Do you think thats somehow non-empirical or something? Hint: You don't need to ditch the scientific method in order come up with a new special hypothesis.

So you are the best in a field, because you allegedly solved your problem. An interesting way to earn the "best in the field" title, but even aside from that its even more interesting that you can give yourself that title, but hey you are right, who else would be more qualified to give anyone that title (if not you), who has the nickname of the most capable sleep specialist on planet earth You have an n=1, but you are 100% confident that whatever method you used, that method was responsible for solving your problem. Since you are such an advanced and careful and holistic and tier2 thinker , you can surely walk us through your reasoning that establish why you have such a high confidence that the method you used was responsible for solving your problem and you can also walk us through how you came up with your own hypothesis (what kind of things motivated your hypothesis given all the unique variables that surrounded your case and your problem)

I assume you don't have anything like this: So you have an AI generated list of things that you run through when a patient shows up? When you run the 'Small‑N “Self‑Experimentation”' on the patients, how do you do it? Do you randomly tweak things and change things until the patient gets the preferred outcome or you have a very nuanced empirically backed way to do it where you can pinpoint and explain the reasoning behind each tweak and change?

What was the process by which you concluded that you are the most capable in that field? Run us through your process - how you identify issues and how you diagnose and then tell us how that is different from how other sleep specialists do it (because surely you have a large collection of data about how they do it and you dont just assume it) and then explain why your process is better and more reliable. And given your standards, im very sure that its not just about your fancy epistemology, where you can throw around words like "holistic thinking", but your confidence is empirically backed up by a trackrecord of you solving the root issues of many many patients.

Why do you question him, when he is:

what a real doctor should look like - runs experiments, does research, treats patients, has expert level knowledge in 20 different medical fields, good at playing and occupying 20 different roles (psychologist, gym coach, nutritionist , friend etc) , reads all the literature on philosophy of science especially on philosophy of medicine, has to know everything about the occult and non-western medicine , has to validate all experiments and all medical claims alone by himself, cause cant take anything for granted like other unconscious tier 1 guys ( " a monkey could memorize whatever they're told without questioning anything"), meditate 24 hours a day, do yoga 24 hours a day, also of course being enligthened is also a prerequisite. Each doctor should also have at least 200IQ and they should score high on all these metrics (insert your random set of intelligence metrics). If you have all those things checked for you, integral might consider you to be a real doctor.

Your "justification" was to appeal to a set of things that are all fallible or to appeal to things where you just beg the question (let me give meanings to terms in a way, where my ideal conclusion will be analytically entailed and will be true by definition). You cant live up to your own epistemic standard (and even if you could in 1-2 instances), you are not living your life by it and you are obviously using other kind of reasoning methods. Even the very idea that you would appeal to your awakenings is undermined by your own epistemic standard, because how do you know that your memories are correct about it? And even if they are correct, how do you know that the content of your awakenings has anything to do with whats real? Generally speaking what you want can be accomplished by showing a contradiciton, but that has to do with logical possibility and aside from the fact that making such arguments is incredibly difficult (thats why almost no one does it), it entails that there is only one logically possible option - but what if thats not the case? What if there are multiple logically possible options ? Then you are forced to appeal to other norms in order to narrow down the possibility set (if your goal is to choose from the possiblity set) and thats when you lose the certainty that you so much care about and bite the bullet and the limitations of those other norms.

Yeah thats easy as long as you can keep words like "reality" "exists" vague so that they are all up for the reader's interpretation and you don't need to commit to anything specific. By 'here' you mean appealing to your fallible spatial sense and lense? By 'reality' you mean presupposing that there is something other than you and that something exists outside you? By 'exists' you mean having causal power and presupposing that it isn't an illusion?

Give one example that meets that standard.

Just because its easy to do it, that doesn't mean that its useful to do it in all context. Asking the questions is easy, answering them and comitting yourself to an epistemic standard and being consistent with it is much harder. And also acknowledging the limitations of said standard without throwing the whole thing out just because it is fallible.

Whats brain rot is that you would never apply the same level of epistemic requirement and standard anywhere and you cant establish Solipsism with that. The only reason you are doing this is because you like to posture because you think running around and doing this is smart or unique, but everyone can easily do this. Its incredibly easy to play the ultimate-skeptic. Any kid can do it with 0 philosophy knowledge. Wait, you think that you can show any piece of data that wouldn't be compatible with and even expected on multiple different hypothesis? If so, then how does that "100%" certainty work there?

This kind of brain rot is largely Leo's fault (for making that kind of epistemic standard default) even though he can't live up to it either. Where do we see on this forum people making argument that establish their conclusion with 100% certainty? Nowhere. And of course, as much as we like to point to the problem of induction , there is a problem of deduction as well, but we can just ignore that because its not convenient for collecting social credit.

Goggins is a fucking menace. He is barely sweating as a 50 years old with a broken body and fucked up knees, while the pro mma fighter is on the verge of death and throwing up from the intensity of the workout

I guess its not that easy (but its still relatively easy) if I combine the two claims 1) you can pass down your lived experience 2) you can "transfer" memories with an organ transplant, This hypothesis can be disproved (outside of showing issues about theory of memory and other stuff) showing this: the person in question can't be traced back in the family tree and also had no involvement in any organ transplant in which the recipient was one of the boy's ancestors. Pretty wild claims, but I wouldn't 100% rule them out.

The idea would be that you can pass down your lived experience and not just your genes and some way its possible to tap into that. This hypothesis can be easily disproved, if its clear that the person in question can't be traced back in the family tree. I dont know whats the research on this, but I have seen stories when it comes to heart transplant, where some patients claim that they have new memories and feelings about things that don't seem to belong to them. If its indeed possible to "transfer" memories with an organ transplant, then I wouldn't rule out the possibility that you can do the same with smaller things. In this case the explanation would be that you can tap into the memories of your ancestors not that your soul or mind reincarnated in a new body.

Jordan Hall would summarize what you said with "digital vs analog" (implying constant change and the inability to pin down things) But yeah it seems that you are talking about things that would ground some of the things that I take for granted in order to make my argument possible (theory of meaning, theory of truth, what makes intelligiblity possible, what is a category etc) Those are discussions that are all beyond me and its very likely that because I dont understand how many ways those things can be cashed out, I unconsciously just use a set of theories that I can't even explicate, but my ability to analyze those things are all subject to the limitations of those theories. All those unconsciously affirmed/begged theories are embedded in my thinking every time I attempt to analyze things. But I guess this is a discussion for later, for a time when I have a better chance to track whats happening when those discussions come up.

Yeah im kind of into his work and again - yeah everything that you are saying seems to be 100% compatible with what I am saying. "There’s a direct relationship between truth and relevance realization." - would this proposition become suddenly false if I had the opinion that its false? No it wouldn't, therefore its truthvalue isn't dependent on my opinion, its true independent from what attitude I have towards it. And we can apply the same thing to the proposition of "it’s only true that poison is poisonous in so far as there is an agent for whom this fact bears any relevance."

I guess I just dont see how that contradicts what I said. I dont think I necessarily need to affirm a particular metaphysics (that wouldn't be compatible with what you outlined) in order to make the statements I made. I will lay out what I believe and assume is happening here, but again I can be wrong and Its perfectly possible that I don't track at all. Working with the poison example further - its irrelevant whether being poisioned is a relational phenomenon or not, what matters is what makes 'you dying from consuming poision' true or false. Does Trump telling his opinion about this particular matter has any weight whether it will kill you or not? No, even if Trump tells you that it will kill you, thats still irrelevant , because sure his opinion can be right, but you won't die because he said it or because he had the belief that its true, you die because its a fact of the world. We can define facts in a relational way, but I think that won't have any bearing on what I am saying (because in a similar way I can have false beliefs and opinions about those relational facts as well). Further clear up - by opinion I just meant having an attitude towards a proposition and by proposition I just mean a declarative statment that can be true or false. There are truths that are true independent from what attitude (opinion or belief or preference) we have about them - this is what I meant by objective truths and by independently true, I mean that even if all agents would change their opinion about a particular proposition, the truthvalue of said proposition still wouldn't change (in the case of subjective truths, it would change).

I might have a completely wrong read on him, but I think that he is trying to establish objective morality in the sense I outlined it, but I can be wrong. To me this is similar to how he uses the term "God". Given his definition of God "whatever is on the top of your value hierarchy", all atheists can say that they value God and that they believe in God, but lets not pretend that given this completely different sense of God that somehow he established that all atheists believe in some kind of all powerful , all good Mind. Also to be clear, it doesn't have to be transcendental in the sense that 'truth existing independently of all life' (like truth existing in some weird realm independent from this world), its just that its not dependent on the opinion of any agent or any group of agents. Its similar to the idea that consuming a large amount of poision will kill you, no matter what any group of agents say or think about it (because the truthvalue of it killing you isn't dependent on their opinion.) This doesnt entail, that the truth of the poision killing you exists in some transcendental logic realm, because it can be dependent on the laws and vulnerabilities of this particular world (where changing the truthvalue would be done by changing physical laws and it wouldnt be done by changing the opinions of people) So the definition I gave is compatible with both a transcendental realm, but its also compatible with it being the fact of this world.

I dont think thats the issue, the issue is that (as almost always) there is an equivocation going on. I dont want him to make a syllogism , I want him to be honest and not confused about what argument he is actually making. It has to do with what is meant by the term objective morality - if Peterson uses that term as something like "there are perennial patterns and acting those out will lead to certain outcomes" sure, I can grant that - but that doesn't really respond to the issue of subjective morality (the position where the truthvalue of moral statements are dependent on a subject or a group of subjects - where if they change their stance about a particular value , the truthvalue of those moral statements change as well). Peterson's "critique" is not a reponse to subjective morality, its just a completely separate claim that can be denied or affirmed completely independent from what position you have on subjective morality. What I would look for is an argument that establish that there are moral statements (statements that actually use terms like good , bad ) that are meaningful and that can be true or false completely independent from what any individual or what any group of agents think about them. So under this definition of objective morality, for example the truthvalue of this moral statement 'rape is bad' could be true even if all people on Earth would think otherwise. Making an analysis that ends with a conclusion that has a set of objectively true descriptive statements in it (like rape will lead to x,y,z outcome) has nothing to do with morality. subjectivists can agree with all of that even if some of them think that rape is good. And to be clear, I dont care about the definition game, what I care about is this - if Peterson wants to critique objective morality (under the definition how most people use it), then he should index his criticism to that, but using the exact same term with different semantics doesn't really do the job , the only thing he esablish with that is that he makes a completely separate claim ( and thats all fine as long as he isn't confused about it and as long as he doesn't pretend that he established objective morality in a different sense).

Well mr Peterson that just seems to be a descriptive claim about what set of values and what set of behaviors would be most aligned with human flourishing - but its nothing more than a descriptive claim, there is no ought embedded there. Its not just that its not an objective moral claim, its that its not even a moral claim at all. Its similar to giving a very precise physics equation about how the rock will behave once you interact with it in a certain way and then saying that it ought to be that way and that objective morality is established by that.