zurew

I don't really buy the "you can't fix stupid" once you have extremely advanced tech. Imagine having access to stuff where your whole psychology is mapped out and you know exactly what each person gets persuaded by and how to change their beliefs and with what arguments and or with what actions and demonstrations. Also having access to knowledge where you can alter a creature's cognition in such a way that you can make it much more intelligent and spiritually inclined and maybe even enlightened. You can also alter human DNA or whatever else necessary in such a way where you 10x or 100x each person's ability to focus , concentrate and to self reflect and to do spiritual practices like yoga meditation contemplation. Once you have extremely advanced tech, you can probably even change our memories and deepest preferences and desires and likes and dislikes.

Whats the argument for why wouldn't mature aliens make obvious contact? The free will arguments seem to be similar to theological arguments when it comes to the problem of evil, but I don't find them persuasive at all. Like why not accelerate our development or why not make us more mature in a faster way? (assuming they have ways to do that)

How do you make sense of DMT entities in terms of metaphysics (I am specifically asking ,whether you would consider them as real as the aliens you are referring to in your above statement)? Btw - do you categorize DMT entities as aliens or do you give them a different label?

Arent you doing equivocation there? If you use a pragmatist definition of truth, then the objection you are mentioning in your sentence there is not really an objection unless you are doing equivocation and you are using a different definition of truth there. Asking this question in your title ( Are things true or just useful fictions) already presuppose a theory of truth and presumably what you are trying to do here (if Im reading you and understanding you correctly) - you are trying to make a case for pragmatist theory of truth. If thats the case, then under pragmatist semantics that question doesn't really make much sense , because under that semantics, things are true in so far as they are useful to a given end. Under different semantics though your question could make more sense, given that under those semantics things being true is different from things being useful.

None of these people will provide you a non-question begging argument that can establish that the hypothesis of (that there is no external world) is more probable compared to the hypothesis that there is an external world. Just as you mentioned - Talking about consciousness isn't enough to make one more probable compared to the other, more work and thinking needs to be done. It would be cool though, if people would lay down what they mean by direct experience and by knowledge, because its not clear at all whether people have the exact same definitions in mind when they use these terms. If knowledge just means justified true belief, then there is a further investigation needs to be done what is meant by justification and then after that we need to investigate whether people accept intuitions or seemings to be justificatory or whether people only accept inferences to be justificatory. If knowledge used as " a proposition that you cannot be wrong about" or " a proposition that is true in all possible worlds (or in other words , it is logically necessary) " then the discussion will be vastly different compared to the other definition of knowledge.

I don't think you are showing a difference there. A rational , logical and clear answer doesn't presuppose that others cant contribute to it or adapt to it further. Also you seem to be making rational and clear answers exclusive to stage yellow and that seems to be a mistake. SD is about cognitive development, the notion of a stage yellow / turquoise answer or question seems to be a category error. I don't think it makes sense to categorize answers and questions in terms of spiral dynamics or to make certain questions or answers exclusive to a given stage I think you are confusing the properties of a theory with the properties of the thing being referred to: So for example: You can create a logical theory about illogicality You can create a clear theory about vagueness You can create a rational theory about irrationality Btw this is the same mistake what Leo made when he said that you cant create a clear theory about oblique thinking since it is oblique in nature. I think the question of preferred communication norms (like expecting clear breakdown of a given concept from the other party or a preference for a more poetic and open-ended breakdown of things) isn't directly relevant to answer the question of what is turquoise or what is the theory of turquoise. A relevant disagreement would be disagreeing about what a good theory is or what constitutes a good theory. But I doubt that there is a disagreement there.

No clue what any of that means. If you list a set of things that is compatible with both yellow and turquoise ,then you are not really laying out the difference between the two. This is why I asked you guys to lay out unique turquoise characteristics and then make an argument for why those things are incompatible with yellow.

To me , it seems when people pushed to provide a differentiation between yellow and turquoise, they seem to be using gibberish concepts and they cant really lay out in a clear way what the difference actually is. Challenge for someone who thinks there is a clear difference - Provide a set of characteristics which is incompatible with yellow and make a further argument where you establish why that set is incompatible with it.

So you went from "He is not talking about something unique and he only regurgitates status quo insights" to you having issue with the structure to not having issue with the structure but with the angle. When pressed, you are changing your position on things. Pretending that those 3 things are all the same is just wrong, because 3 different criticism can be generated from them, in a way where none of them logically entail the other. Regarding your comment about " so soft and babyish way of living life" , whats soft and babyish about the heruistics you listed there? Do you disagree with any of those heruistics?

Its only pretty comical if you pretend that wasn't essentially what you expressed as a criticism. We can use other words for it like new or original, but thats pretty much how deep it goes. So to be clear, you are complaining that he is talking about certain categories that others have already talked about and your issue isn't with the content itself? If thats the case, thats a pretty shit and surface level criticism, since that can be applied literally to everyone. For example If someone mentions God "well, buddy, millions of people have already talked about God, you should talk about something new or different". As if there isn't a fuckton of novel and new insight that could be generated within a given category. Just because someone has "God" as a topic in their book , from that doesn't follow that there isn't any new or original thought about God there. So generally to find out whether something is unique - you need to actually engage with the content itself and you cant just dismiss the whole structure.

Yes it is not substantive, because it is compeletely meaningless. Do you think OP thinks his work is not valuable? Obviously he thinks it is, so for you to provide a substantive critcism, you would have to go more into the detail than just saying "your work is bad bro, you should do a better job". Even implying that his work is not novel is not a good quality critcism, since the word novel is incredibly vague and can be interpreted a bunch of ways. Substantive criticism would be something like this: "Hey OP, I read your work and you made 3 claims that I disagree with for these reasons: Reason 1, Reason 2, Reason 3 ... " or something like "Hey OP, I think you made some error in your reasoning or your work is built upon some assumptions that I disagree with for this set of reasons.. ."

To be clear, you have 0 clue what the OP did, since you havent read his work. You werent radical, you were just acting like a condescending tough guy and provided 0 substance. I find it hilarous that you said multiple times "do you understand the fucking depth of what I am saying" as if you were saying something novel or as if your criticism would be something huge or extraordinary. If we apply the same standard that you applied to this guy's work, then you shouldn't have opened your mouth, since none of what you said had any ounce of novelty to it.

I don't find stance independently true morals intelligible or to make sense in any way (the truth value of the moral propositions isn't dependent on or indexed to any subject or collection of subjects opinion, preference or moral intuition). Even if someone would be able to lay down some master argument to establish that objective morals (in the sense I desribed) do exist and we objectively ought to follow and live by some set of moral propositions - I don't think most people would be persuaded by it (me neither) unless it would be in my best interest to do so. Regarding the "structures that shape our thoughts" - I think a lot of interesting work won't be done in philosophy but will be done in cogsci . Some of the core disagreements seem to involve stuff that philosophy generally don't touch and maybe beyond the limits of self reflection and contemplation - but it seems to be about sub-semantic , sub-syntactic and maybe even sub-categorical layers of our psyche and how our brain make sense of things and create meaning. Maybe focusing on empirical work in cogsci is the most fruitful way to progress on this issue, but maybe not.

it means building a worldview from scratch where you collect pieces of knowledge and practices and epistemic and moral norms from everyone and then usually not being able to integrate them together to create a whole system where each part fits together in a comprehensive way. You have pieces of knowledge and practices floating around , but you are completely cluless by what metric or norm you should judge them by and then under what norm you should integrate them together. Because of the experimental nature - you don't know what your mixed bag of things will produce and because of your unique problems and lack of belonging to a community and to a wisdom tradition - you don't know where to find answers to those problems and how to deal with those problems . Thats not the claim. I don't think the disagreement is about "you shouldn't question this set of things", because both approach involve some that (even though actualizers don't like to admit it). As a collector, what you end up doing is essentially rebulding an unintegrated and fractured religion from scratch. You will have certain set of beliefs and methods that you will start with out of necessity (essentially dogmas) and you will have certain (often unjustified and unreflected) moral and epistemic norms that you will judge things by (your progress, the world, yourself etc). Its just that you won't have some of the good things that you would otherwise have from other religions. 1) Sense of belonging and connectedness to a community where they can answer your questions and help you psychologically when you go through tough phases during your journey. 2) The community giving you the necessary context and norms to judge and interpret the teachings and your progress by (because yes, this is new to most actualizers , but you cant just always use your own epistemic and moral norms to judge things by, because sometimes you end up completely misunderstanding things). Also sometimes understanding involves using a non propositional approach as well, where you don't just read stuff, but you actually participate in the tradition.

Very shortly - I don't think this community appreciates deeply enough the things Carl listed there and the pitfalls entailed by the "I will do everything on my own" approach.

Look at the sheep - just wants to uncritically accept all dogmas and not question and contemplate everything , and solve all his psychological and spiritual and meaning and intellectual questions and problems on his own - like how the non-suicidal, non-schizophrenic, non-dogmatic, highly skilled thinkers (actualized.org users/ actualizers) do

Yeah, well, Dawkins is right that its a category-error to ask what was before the big bang. It seems Piers wasn't able to track why. Terms like 'before' and 'after' are both temporal notions and time as we understand it , was created/came into existence at the big-bang. Its equivalent to asking "what was before the existence of time?". Its a nonsense question , because it assigns a property (time) to something that doesn't have that property. The other thing is that there are responses to the fine-tuning argument and nothing really new was said by that Stephen Meyer guy

What bait, you make claims and once you are challenged on them you run away. Don't be a snowflake, you know, you should question reality. You are surely used to not being challenged on your takes and you are surely used to being able to just make accusations and claims freely without being challenged on any of them. You have rambled so much on actualized being a leftist echochamber, but once you are challenged on your claims just a little bit, you are running as far away as you can. It was your time to shine by destroying the libtards and leftist here and showing how they are biased and how that contradicts the meta approach and meta values ,but of course you lack the ability to do so . It seems that there is no room for disagreement with you, because once a person disagrees with you on something you immediately bring out the "you are biased" card without engaging on the substance, and without considering that there is a reasonable room for disagreement there. Go ahead, posture more about you being the clear headed guy who can see through all bias and who can give balanced takes. It will surely give you so much actualized cookies.

Again just as I expected, you have 0 substance to offer, just the empty talk about bias, but nothing specific to give. Whats a meta-take my guy? Do you think you can spell out something useful for once, or you are here to gibberate about things you havent thought about more than 5 minutes in your life? Using actualized word salad and hitting the actualized bingo won't help you, because I will challenge you to actually deliver something which is not incredibly vague. Do you think 'both siding' every issue and not being able to be nuanced is a balanced take? Spell out what it means to give a balanced take, but don't just use "its something that lacks bias", but actually explain what do you think the idea 'more correct' means and then spell out how your take adheres to that. Lets see what you can offer - spell out what meta values you have in mind and how they are different from leftist values and then make a deduction where you show how those values are being violated in this context. This is cute, but I would love a justification for that. If this "meta take" entails something to the quality of "but Hitler drank water as well", then thats not going to be substantive. Would want a justification for this as well.

You dont understand that your argument is weak and it works both ways. I could have claimed that the moderators were biased, but towards Trump, since he was given the extra time to speak and since he had the last say every round. And then you could say, but he was fact checked. And then I would reply with "just because he was fact checked doesnt mean they werent biased towards him". The fact of the matter is that if you want to deal with raw reality and question reality as your name tells you to do so, then you should be intellectually honest first and don't play the centrist enlightened preacher here and acknowledge that there is counter evidence to them being biased. I have seen you trying to play the centrist game here multiple times now, but I havent seen you being able to give nuanced takes about anything - you are just both siding most issues and pretend that they are either closely or equally the same / bad. Thats one thing , the other thing with you guys who preach about bias, is that you almost never point to the meta values that are being violated and in most cases its not even clear how leftist values are incompatible with those meta values. If the sentence "you guys are being biased" is just translated to "you guys are adhering to leftist values", that doesn't really hit hard as a criticism and that doesn't have much substance to it, although it sounds good rhetorically ,because you can sound smart and enlightened while doing so and maybe you can earn some brownie points by actualizers who care about empty rhetoric and virtue signaling.

Are we talking about you going on the bridges podcast or you having a private talk with Destiny? Btw I am curious how DGG-ers will react, given that they like Turkey Tom and Turkey Tom already made a negative video about you.

And, you claimed bias and they gave Trump the last word almost every case. Why do you suddenly talk about her strategy, when this specific thing wasn't about her, but about what the moderators did. Also the thing you are saying there doesn't make any sense, because they could have let him ramble on without giving him the last word in almost every round Which is a made up rule you created. Trump didn't get fact checked on everything. If you want to argue there shouldn't be any fact checking by the moderators in principle - go for it, but if you want to argue bias, you will need to make a seperate argument for that , because so far you had no good response to the times where Trump got almost all the last words in the debate and other than that, the moderators could have gone 100x more harder on Trump if they really wanted to.

Thats why they gave Trump the last word every single round. Also thats why they let Trump to not answer any question in a direct way and to ramble on. You would shout "bias", in a scenario where there are two people - one who shat his pants and gets called out for it, and the other who didn't shit his pants doesn't get called out for the same thing.

It doesn't.

Its perfect to illustrate the absurdity and the entailments of such a position. That was just one thing, but obviously I could have listed a 100 other things that would have been all bullet bitings. He isn't even consistent with it - neither with his morals nor with his epistemology. Obviously he has certain standards for both and he isn't treating other positions on epistemology and on morals as equal. Actually true, that is one of the biggest bullet to bite for him . No, I don't really see it. I have my own concept why bias can be bad, but Im not even sure, whether we have that same concept in mind. Mostly, the word "bias" is just thrown around as a negatively loaded term on here and you can win that label if you disagree with someone on a point they feel strongly about, but can't argue well for it.