zurew

From 0:25 to 1:00, yes.

That wasn't the killer, that was a troll video.

That claim seems to be false https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897

from 0:30 to 1:00 thats not the guy , he is a twitter troll who looks kind of similar to the shooter. "you've got the wrong guy " - should be incredibly obvious that it is a troll. Its insane how some media outlets fell for it or they disingenuously pretend as if that video would be true (so that they can run with the "he wasn't a republican voter" narrative). https://x.com/Shayan86/status/1812357824992718981

With this literally everyone here would agree with, but originally you didn't frame it this way thats why you got the pushback that you got. Originally you were talking about that vegans are rejecting reality just because they don't eat meat, which is obviously a very stupid statement. The analogy about crocodiles was unnecessary and irrelevant and even framing this whole thing through the lense of veganism was stupid as well. Now you can pretend that the above claim was your only point that you were trying to make, while in reality you were forced to walk back all your other stupid claims that you failed to defend.

Buddy,Im not vegan, but you are not making any sense, your explanations are weak and none of them really address any of the objections that were laid out by others in this thread. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises that you laid out. It seems that you haven't thought through this at all or you are incredibly bad at communicating whatever you are trying to communicate. The argument that you laid out here is 4chan level quality. High consciousness forum and moderators cant track the basic implications of what they are saying. This is just incredibly sad,especially given that you think you have delivered some deep profound insight here.

@integral Okay, I will get more serious and will engage since you seem to actually think that you are making some deep profound argument here. 1) Veganism is compatible with not demonizing eating meat, so your long ramblings about that is unnecessary (if you want to target all vegans) because it only target a fraction of vegans. 2) In some cases you are asserting that acceptance entails doing an action (vegans don't just need to accept that their body might sometimes crave meat, but they have to act on it and they actually have to eat meat ) and in other cases you are saying you don't necessary have to act on it (in a cannibal's or in a raper's case - you seem to be saying that they can accept that they have desires without needing to act on those desires). - this seems to be a very obvious contradiction that you will need to untangle. 3) You also seem to be making a seperate claim from all of those, namely that there are some actions that are absolutely necessary for one's survival and not doing those specific actions would be the rejection of your own biology. You keep bringing up the crocodile example, where the croc actually have to kill and eat meat in order to survive , but you are yet to establish why humans have to eat meat in order to survive.

If you are a cannibal, act on it, - if you don't act on it, you necessarily reject your identity. If you are horny and no one wants to have sex with you, you have to forcefully have sex with other people, - if you don't act on it, you necessarily reject your identity. Don't reject the biology you were born with. - Integral , probably.

Is that an average day for you?

Okay thanks, that clears it up.

I think its a very easy and important question. There is a difference between having a course where you are going to a totally new territory (lets say you have 5 completely novel practices) and you don't have any empirical evidence regarding any of those practices compared to a course where you have 5 practices from which 3 is already empirically proved to be effective. There is nothing wrong with going to a completely new territory, but epistemically it has to be acknowledged that it is on experimental grounds and it is unclear what kind of results it will produce. One way to get around lack of emprical evidence is to make some arguments for why certain empirical results should be expected from those novel practices.

No I didn't meant that, because obviously you have to create it first to be capable to gather evidence and data. I was referring to whether you will use certain practices in that course, that others have already confirmed and empricially proved to be effective.

Is that practice grounded in some kind of empirical evidence or are you talking about some experimental, novel methods/practices? And if you are talking about some novel methods, how do you know what kind of results they will produce on a broad scale?

Okay now I understand your point better given this added context. I was treating this whole thing as a philosophical "what would be the rational thing to do in this situation" question and not as a psychological "given, that I have belief x and given that I know that belief x is irrational, what should I do to drop or to change belief x?" I don't know much about psychology and I don't know much about the underlying mechanics regarding how we unconsciously form our beliefs, but I agree that, going "meta" and checking for other possible explanations and reflecting on some of the other questions that you listed earlier, might help with dropping or at the very least with lowering one's conviction in an irrational belief.

I think he would commit to some kind of modal realism. Like he would either commit to the idea that all logically possible world actually exist (any world that doesn't contain a contradiction) which is an incomprehensibly large set that contains multiple infinites or he would commit to more than that

I would argue, that even if you don't have an alternative explanation, you still don't need to choose one poor explanation (by poor in this case I mean one that would be based on a lot of uncertainty and would be based on unjustified premises). Like if an event happens and I can't explain that event and Im being presented with 3 possible explanations (and those 3 don't completely exhaust the possibility space, meaning there might be other logically possible options that Im just not aware of) I don't need to choose one. Imagine the event that needs to be explained is this: There is a broken vase in your room and these are the options you are presented with: 1) a ghost did it, 2) mothman did it 3) Harry Potter did it.

It is logically possible that you can contribute something novel to the field without reading anything, but it is very unlikely (imo). The "think for yourself" idea is directly depended on your contemplation skills and your contemplation skills regarding how deep you can go with your questions and regarding how fast you can spot a limitation and even what kind of limitations you can recognize and how much nuance you can map out - are all depended on how trained you are in philosophy and these are skills that you are not really born with, but you need to learn and cultivate. I would reformulate your question: Why wouldn't you want to stand on the shoulders of giants and and try to do something novel from there, without falling into the trap of cluelessly retreading old grounds that highly intelligent people have already spent decades on thinking about and on mapping out? I sort of understand your question though , because you don't want to waste time on reading things that are not directly relevant for your case, but I think your question formulated the way you formulated it is sort of silly (if you only care about productivity). If you want to maximize productivity and want to exclude all the irrelevant things and just only want to focus on the relevant things, then you should rather ask this question: "Is this person directly talking about the subfield Im trying to contribute to or not?" if the answer is yes, then you shouldn't care whether it goes back to 400 BC or not, because that guy has something to say that is directly relevant to the field you are trying to contribute to. But again, I would still say, that I would be very catious with ignoring certain great thinkers (even if they are not directly relevant to the field you are trying to contribute to), because you can elevate your thinking and metacognitive skills by reading about them and then reflecting on the implications of their work.

Basing your evidence only on vibes sounds highly problematic. There are a bunch of ways how those vibes could be explained without needing to conclude that demons are actually real (thats not to say they are not,but im curious why go with that explanation rather than any other? - Im looking for a justification ). But, other than just feeling their presence/energy - have you had some exp seeing them or touching them or them being able to interact with the physical world like moving a physical object in your room?

@Rafael Thundercat Whats your response to this? - How does that confirmation process looks like?

Typically role model means copying someone's way of life - which usually entails their virtues and morals. But I think the disagreement you guys have is mostly just a semantic disagreement (you guys mean different things by the same word) and isn't a substantive disagreement (I think you guys would mostly agree on the substance , after clearing up the language) - like, I don't think anyone would have problem admitting that Tate has some good traits.

Yes, ad-homs won't have any effect on the truth value of the proposition Terrence Howard put forth. If you read this thread from the beginning , you will see me writing down things that will imply that Howard's character flaws or his inability to establish his proof doesn't necessarily mean, that he is wrong. @nuwu But the main thing is that , what you described above isn't what happened here - He didn't get ridiculed for wanting to challenge math , he got ridiculed for going on side tangents that has nothing to do with the substance of his proof and they are purely rhetorical moves by him. (to avoid engaging with the actual substantive and good faith pusback that he already received from professionals [for example, from Neil deGrasse Tyson]). So yes, if he is using certain rhetorical moves that has 0 to do with the actual substance - I will react to that, and I won't approve of it and I will sometimes ridicule it . Some of you guys might call that bad, but I think it does reinforce certain social norms that push people to use less rhetoric and focus more on the substance. And again, on the opposite end of all of this, I think allowing and enabling him for going on side tangents and allowing using certain rhetorical moves is actually bad and does reinforce certain social norms that I would consider to be bad. @nuwu Notice, what you tried to do - you probably categorized some of my statements as pure rhetoric and you tried to sway me to focus back on the substance. Thats a kind of move im talking about that should be applied on Terrence Howard (and frankly thats what Ive been trying to do by the tool of ridicule). I think its good to enforce social norms like this. In this specific case, his rhetorical move was to blame everything on racism, which again - knowing all the context surrounding his case and how many people have already responded to him with a substantive criticism and given that he has shown no evidence that would indicate racism - that is a ridiculous claim. Sure, the rule Omega - we can do that , but there are certain things that are necessary for a steel-man You have to understand exactly what specific argument or point the other person tries to make, because if you don't, you will just end up creating an argument that the other person won't approve of and will just consider to be a strawman. Its on him to articulate himself well enough so that people can start to steelman his position. We have to make sure that we are talking about a proposition (A declarative statement, that has the capacity to be true or false) - if we are talking about something that don't even has the capacity to be false or true, im not sure what can be steel-maned there. Until now, I havent heard him say anything other than something incredibly vague "math is wrong, because of physics"; which I would consider as a category error . I would put it equivalent to saying "gravity has 4 legs" - thats a category error as well, because gravity doesnt have the property of having legs - so whatever gravity means there, semantically is not the same as what we generally mean by gravity. I can make that category error go away (in the gravity case), but it isn't clear at all whether that would actually cohere to the position what that person originally meant. - I could say, " I have a horse who has a name of 'gravity'"- but that probably isn't what that person originally meant by it. This is why its hard to engage with certain people's criticism who doesnt have a deep enough understanding of the subject they are trying to critique. Because they will strawman the whole field with certain positions and errors that the field doesn't really make or has - but for that to be recognized, one needs to have a proper contextual understanding of the field . (btw this is why I have been asking certain people on this forum to correct me, because there is a good chance, that I don't have some necessary contextual understanding of something that would make some of my statements either false or maybe even make some of my statement not even being capable of being true or false)

No, thats not what normal humans do. Normal humans dont pretend , that there is a reasonable room for disagreement in all cases - normal people very much understand that there is such a thing as a delusion. its only on this forum , where some of you guys pretend that you are completely agnostic about all claims and that you have no priors at all. I already brought you this very straightforward example - If Howard would tell you that he is your father , you wouldn't just say "well, yeah, there is pretty much room for disagreement there and we just disagree" - you would hopefully say: "no buddy, you are delusional" ; or you would hopefully say something that won't just enable or validate him into thinking that you two are coming from equal epistemic grounds regarding him being your father.

Stop, you are hurting my feelings bro, where is the benefit of the doubt? But, yeah true, you are pretty much right; I think there is very much merit in thinking that his ideas were rejected exclusively because of racism - I think we should enable him and ecourage him and tell him that thats actually the case (and we shouldn't ever ridicule him or hurt his feelings, or tell him thats improbable, or ask for evidence - because all of those things are very much bad and has nothing to do with truth, but enabling him endlessly has very much everything do with truth and enabling all his behavour is very much beneficial to him and couldn't ever hurt him)

Guys ,stop virtue signaling about norms that none of you follow. Truth has nothing to do with enabling endless idiocy either and the ridicule was not to establish that his proof is wrong , but to laugh at his implication - knowing all the context and given the lack of evidence for racism. None of you follow the idea that all claims have a 50% probability to be true and 50% to be false - Don't even try to pretend that you don't have certain priors and epistemic standards (if you guys want to , go ahead and show how in this specific case would be reasonable for him to assume racism as a reason for people rejecting his proof) I doubt that you two reject ridicule in principle. And if you do, I disagree with that ,I think there can be good arguments made why ridicule is good or beneficial or appropriate ( given certain contexts) and being an enabler all the time is bad. Now,im sure Salvijus, that you would give a 50% probability to all the claims that Howard says and you wouldnt ridicule him for any of them. Even if he would say that he is your father - you would go "hmm ridiculing is bad , and I cant 100% exclude that possibility,because no DNA test is completely bulletproof, so he might be right" And Nuwu, ridicule is very bad, but immediately throwing around the label of "narcissist" at multiple people on this forum ( not just this time but in the past) is cool, even though I doubt you could substantiate it . Which I dont care you can go ahead, but its nonetheless interesting, regarding applying your standards in a consistent way, because your standard about being charitable and giving the benefit of the doubt suddenly vanishes there and you choose one of the most negative interpretations from the possibility space of all logically possible interpretations.