zurew

Can you justify this in a non-questionbegging way? (without pressuposing the validity of the metaphysics that you try to justify)

Its all a hallucination except the set of things that you pressupose with that statement and some other things that you usually dont spell out. For example, some things that you wouldn't consider to be hallucinations are (things that you would consider to be necessary and consistent elements of all dreams ; in other words, things that are true for all dreams) - You are God; There are levels of consciousness; ....

What is your argument for Solipsism? @Razard86 Can you answer this?

I wouldn't use Leo as a representative for the Left. He has positions all over the place depending on what we are talking about and he sometimes takes unqiue positions on things. But I dont think he (or anyone) takes the position that its good to express all desires and instincts without constraints. Since you are a very well-read guy, im sure you know that you can cash out a given foundational value or position in many ways and there are many ways to "solve" contradictions and objections. Just as how Christian philosophers can make a 100 intellectual judo moves to maintain their internally consistent positions, the same way some of the leftist positions can be cashed out in reasonable ways (if we try to give it some effort). For example, we can go through the trans stuff if you want to.

Can you show us how "Consciousness is the only thing that exist" necessarily entails that "I am the only thing that exist" (Solipsism). Or if you dont want to claim that Solipsism is a necessary entailment, then you have to concede that you need to do other (more) steps to get there.

Which is an appeal to vibes (and mostly applicable to the fringe left, but certainly not to all the left) , which is fine, but some of those people you mention support Trump over Kamala and they didn't just give an explanation but they tried to use it as a justification. There is a constant jumping between "here is a set of reasons (mostly vibes or misinfo or being irrational) why people didnt want to vote for Kamala" vs "here is a set of reasons why all things considered people were justified to vote for Trump". Do you have a supporting argument for this?

@Oeaohoo Can you point me to a single post about Trump that has substance to it and no one engaged with it? Because I can point you to countless posts where arguments have been made against Trump and nothing of substance have been provided in response to them.

My bad, I didnt track the convo well it seems. I dont think that makes sense in the context of what you are trying to do. I dont see why couldnt it be scientifically proven , given that you imply that you can test the theory by getting your hands dirty. So it seems that you dont imply that the given theory cant be tested in principle ,so I dont see why it couldnt be scientifically proven. What do you see specifically that you think could be counted as evidence in favour of the validity of the model?

I think you are talking to ghosts. I dont see anyone who took the position that there is 0 limitation to these models.

Yep thats for sure,this Trump Dickriding Syndrome is crazy.

Im sure you are aware that mathematically you can have different intervalls that start from -infinite and end at a particular number. Philosophically speaking, Im not aware of an argument that establish that that Universe must have a beginning.

Thats compatible with Trump being the Devil.

I think you need to do more work to establish that reincarnation is true, because from the premises you laid out , reincarnation doesn't seem to follow. Reincarnation usually presuppose more than just what you implied. It usually presupposes that you are a soul (which in my understanding refers to an immortal ego and not to consciousness in a broad metaphysical sense). But Im not read up on reincarnation, and I can grant that the term probably can be cashed out in many different ways. But regardless, my general point is that from eternity reincarnation doesnt necessarily follow. All you establish with eternity and with math is that there is a possibility space and whatever is in that possibility space - that will be eventually actualized. But notice that if reincarnation is not inside that possibility space, then even if you give it infinite time, it will never be actualized. So you basically need to give a supporting argument where you establish that reincarnation is in the possibility space. Once you do that, your conclusion seem to follow (if we accept the other premises).

Its not that deep. One can write a script about how these gurus would react to a given situation , becuase most of them are incredibly predicatable and most of the time they apply 0 critical thinking. Its all incredibly easy - if its aligned with anit-establishment then they will go with it and they will like it and they will put it in some fancy divine narrative; If its pro establishment then they will reject it and they will probably say that it is from the deepstate. So far, I have only seen Bashar not being completely brain broken. I have seen that guy sometimes giving pro establishment takes and I think accurate takes on covid vaccines as well, which is huge given that 90%+ of his audience are into all kinds of anti establishment conspiracies (and it would be convinient for him to lean into that). Read the comments. To be clear though, I think Bashar is way too dramatic here and I dont think his predictions are reliable and they shouldnt be taken seriously in any way , but its still funny seeing his audience rageing about him not fanboying Trump.

This💯 The power of silence. Which one is more fancy ? mumbo-jumbo or gibberish or worthless drivel (this last one is from oeaohoo)

None of what you said necessarily follows from what he said - So yes, you can infer that, but there are other things you can infer from it as well. I like to give room for others to state what kind of conclusion they try to establish, without assuming it.

I might be slow, but I still dont see where you provided an argument that ends with your conclusion - where a more efficient mind, necessarily leads to more energy spent. The reason why I brought up physical exercise, because to me, it seems that the exact same objections could be brought up there. You have some amount energy and you exercise and then you get better at doing/executing certain movements (you get more efficient) , but from that doesn't necessarily follow that you will engage in so much training that you will overall burn more energy compared to the past. Yeah I know. From your argument failing doesn't follow that our conclusion is right, because there are many possible scenarios. So thats clear, but I am still curious what kind of reasoning can lead to your conclusion. Even If I grant you this, I still don't see how this establish the point you try to make. This seems to be compatible with the scenario, where a developed/more efficient mind burns the exact same amount energy as a less efficient mind, and it seems to also be compatible with the scenario, where a more developed mind burns overall less energy than a less efficient mind. I don't see how you establish this conclusion. And again, even if we grant you that from efficiency it follows that the mind will start processing related or connected thoughts, from that doesn't follow that more overall energy will be spent. I can have x amount of energy, and if I become more efficient, then I can use the same amount of energy to do more. (how do you rule this scenario out)?

What does that mean to directly realize that 2+2=4 ? That terminology kind of makes sense if we apply it to Being , but to me it doesn't make any sense when you apply it to the relative domain. @UnbornTao This is the kind of category-error that I was talking about.

By 'one falling away from the source' do you mean something like - getting lost in the propositional domain (getting lost in arguing and in searching for the best arguments for or against God and hardcore focusing on whats in a given holybook and how to properly interpret the book) rather than focusing on having a mystical experience and establishing a genuine relationship/connection and deriving the insights from there?

@Reciprocality Lets pivot from the mind and from the brain for a second, and lets talk about physical exercise. Would you raise the exact same issues with workout ? If the answer is no, whats the difference?

and what is that an argument for?

Even if we grant you that all mystical experiences are delusions, the arguments for God will still stand and even if you can poke holes in those arguments, you will need to provide atheist arguments that end with the conclusion that 'God doesn't exist'. Otherwise , at best you will only establish that its more reasonable to be an agnostic rather than a theist. There are some good atheist arguments that work againts some special version of God (if God has a specific set of traits) but I don't know any argument that will refute the whole category of theism.

@Marcel Again the way to do this in a reasonable way is by starting with laying out a clear definition for what you mean by justification and knowing and from that it will follow the answer to the "how do you know" question and then to the "how do you actually know" question. But until then because of the ambiguity in the question, you cant expect a quality answer. The "how do you know" question can be unreasonable to ask, depending on what you mean by "know" because it can lead to a category error. Again there is nothing wrong with questioning if its done in a good faith way. As long as you are honest about the entailments of being skeptical of certain things, you are good. "How can we agree on things" Is one of the toughest questions philosophy deals with - but in general the following is enough to solve most problems: We need to clarify what our goal is and then that goal will outline a common ground and a context we can work in. For example, if our goal is to check how to make the most money - once we share the semantics of what we mean by making money - we can develop a set of methods and then empirically check which method will lead to better results with respect to our shared goal.