zurew

Gotcha,cool. Btw, do you have any relatively well thought out theory that can explain Srinivasa Ramanujan's contributions to math?

I think these are seperate questions. I think you can maintain that rules of inference holds up, you can maintain rules regarding hypothetical syllogism (also known as transitivity of implication) , and also go with Hume on causation at the same time. (and one obvious reason why is because you can create a deductive inference and argument where Hume's conclusion will follow - accepting rules of inference and hypothetical syllogism doesnt commit you in any trivial way to a non-humean causation view). Logic commits you to truth relations between statements , on the other hand, metaphysics of causation is about more than just relation between statements, it is about actual truths about the real world.

We havent interacted much on this forum yet, but I dont really like comments like this. It puts the mentioned people (us) in a bad position, regardless of whether I interpret your comment as sarcastic or not, and regardless of whether I reply or not. 1) If I interpret it in a sarcastic way and if I reply to it with that interpretation in mind, then its successful bait (if you tried to bait), 2) If I don’t reply, it might seem like I agree with the underlying premise, and 3) if I go with a non-sarcastic interpretation and try to explain myself why I disagree with the underlying premise, then it might come off as dishonest virtue-signaling (since you already elevated us in the sky and now I need to fight against that characterization and also against the characterization that 'other people who disagree with us perhaps have lower intelligence compared to us to the point where their behavior disturbs us'). So it creates unnecessary tension between people and also warrants a response from the mentioned people, where they need to explain themselves for things they havent said or implied. ---- I will go with the non-sarcastic interpretation. Firstly, my honest answer to that is that I dont think that im more intelligent than other people here. You can pick IQ , you can pick spiral dynamics or other cognitive complexity chart or metric - it doesnt matter, I dont think that I will score higher than most people on this forum. Secondly, I dont think that disagreements in general (on most topics) are explained by intelligence difference related factors. Experts, high IQ people with high cognitive complexity can always disagree with each other (we see this all the time) and I think that in the vast majority of the cases disagreements are explained by non-intelligence difference related factors (And I think that applies in this situation as well).

No, I think your posts are high quality and I dont think that you will take an easy route. I did not mean to imply that you will create a low quality post. You are a highly educated and well read guy and you also consume content outside of academia. I think you will provide a deep, thought provoking post about it.

My understanding is that the disagreement between a realist and antirealist regarding causation is not about whether you can observe regularities or not. The disagreement is about the metaphysics related to what is needed to explain those regularities and whether one needs to posit an objective entity called "causation" that is a feature of the world. A Humean would say something like : "We observe that stepping on dogs is regularly followed by pain behavior and yelping. We do not observe any further entity, relation, power, or necessary connection called "causation" that binds the events together. Therefore we are not justified in positing one"

I think there is an unsatisfying "easy" answer to this under a nominalist/non-platonist/pragmatist view, but im sure you will be able to give very interesting takes under non-nominalist views.

Manipulation is when you lay down your specific case with links, lay down what you take to be the problemtic behavior, lay down your opertaing defintion of cult, show how your layed down case match with your defintion and where you clarify multiple times that other people can feel free to use a different definition. Non-manipulation and substantive engagement is when you dont give your own comprehensive case (because you say you are not interested in the debate, you are just here to make sense of views) and then you stay inside the thread , defintion and gradience rape specific bits from a comprehensive whole and then you give character and psychology remarks after each and every one of those isolated and raped bits about people who disagree with your take ( the take that you are not interested in explicating in any comprehensive manner). Non-manipualtion is also where you imply that the other person who is using a different defintion of cult and narcissism than you, that that person is manipulating you and other people.Non-manipulation and honest behavior is also, where you state that you are not interested in debates in general - and then you stay inside the thread and you show a lot of interest in debating much more substantive topics such as the character of the person who is making the comprehensive criticism. This is what did not happen - shouting that actualized.org is a cult and then not clarifying further what is meant by the term and not pointing out what is the problematic behavior. The fewer facts you take into account when you do your gradience rape, the easier it is to do it. Its very easy to show a big, wide range of explanations when you only need to explain some very specific isolated fact , but its much harder to maintain that wide range of explanations once you take a 100 more facts into account on your board. (Again, this is why you have been pushed multiple times to give a comprehensive case ). You cant address this topic by targeting one bit at a time. You need to create a throughline that goes through/connects all the relevant datapoints.

Thanks 👍.

I think this is yet again another example of an uncharitable interpretation or just simply an equivocation on the term "die". I dont think that Russel was making an argument for the idea that thinking is better than ego-death or that it is better than merging with God/becoming Love. --- If the example was just used to make a spiritual point without making an implication about what Russel said, in that case the post is fine.

@Sincerity We see certain things differently and we disagree on things. I saw that you gave some warning points to Thoughtart for the way he responded to me. I dont think that was necessary (but my opinion doesnt matter on that), what matters is that my read on you and on your character wasnt accurate. (it seems to be the case, that even though we had a relatively bad last interaction, given your ethics surrounding moderation - you managed to stay consistent with that and you moderated the way you felt necessary). Good luck with your goals!

The only thing that can be reliably inferred from the results is the % of the words spoken. (I need to stop yapping)

True not-knowing embodied right there.

Thats a non-propositional utterance right there. (Unless you tell me otherwise ) Btw, the reason why I didnt respond is because i dont know how to respond and what to respond. I need to contemplate the topic more.

@Natasha Tori Maru I wont attack your steelman. (Btw, I dont think this is something that should be done by people who dont genuinely believe in the position they are trying to make a comprehensive case for - because you wont have enough motivation to spend enough time on it) I just want to push people to provide more overall assessments and not just bits and pieces, because that way we can actually gather a set of big comprehensive cases (the scattered data and arguments make it hard for everyone to properly make sense of things). It would be cool to have at least 2-3 different comprehensive cases. Also, regardless of how much Leo disagrees, I think it would be valuable for him to address the full body of relevant evidence in a comprehensive response, rather than focusing on isolated points. (Needless to say - It would also help if he engaged with opposing viewpoints instead of dismissing them outright).

1) Leo can respond 2) Other people can make their own comprehensive , overall cases (hopefully again, using as much relevant data as possible). After that, people can examine and compare and contrast these big cases and draw their own conclusions.

So whats the actual positive case for why he is not a cult leader or for why this place is not a cult? I want to again - redirect some attention back to the fact that no one has made a non-adhoc positive case for that yet, where you actually lay down your specific theory in length with evidence and with links and where you account for all the problematic data that was pointed out by me [1 ,2 , 3, 4] and by other people in these threads [1 , 2, 3] . A case, where you demonstrate that you are informed (that you actually read most of these threads and have the relevant context ,and you dont need to get walked through literally all the info). A case, where you open up yourself to get defintion and gradience raped by a bunch of users, who will use a bunch of rheotrical questions hidden as "im just questioning parts of your theory" when in reality, they intend to spend a good chunk of time analyzing and making comments about your motivations and they intend to spend a good chunk of time fishing for reasons so that they can attack your character and so that they can end up making a bunch of implications about your character and motivations -rather than, again - directly focusing on and engaging with the overall substance of your theory in good faith and then making a good faith summary why they disagree with the overall case. Give a comprehensive, holistic case, where you account for all the problematic data taken as a whole stack or as a big configuration of facts (and where you dont just account for just little bits and pieces , while you also pretend and imply that you managed to make a good positive overall case or that you managed to defend the positive side by simply asking a bunch of questions ).

its not a clinical diagnosis if its done by non-professionals. its needless to say that we are doing armchair psychology here and it should be taken as such. But its probably more useful to focus again on whats the actual disagreement is with the specific claims that were laid down. I have also yet to see an actualizer who is willing to make a detailed , good quality positive case for Leo and who isnt just in skeptic mode or in attacker mode (where he tries to question the detailed negative cases made against Leo - not that thats an issue, but it would be cool to see a detailed positive case made for Leo where most of the facts that I pointed towards in my longer posts are accounted for and explained)

Some kind of visual representation of debates and conversations would be generally useful. But not the kind of thing that is presented on the integral site. I dont know even know how to interpret the categorization scores presented there. Like what does it mean for a position to be 3.5 rational rather than just 3.4 rational? And also unclear how many ways that 0.1 difference can be achieved or explained . Also not sure why foreground that a position is 3.5 rational rather than that it scores low on some kind of non-rational or irrational metric. But maybe im being unfair.

I think its worth it to point out the difference and to explore the difference there, but I want to point out that we might end up doing the same thing as what happened with other concepts like "cult" - where we end up largely agreeing on all the descriptive facts, we will just put a different label on those facts. I think one aspect is around control and around putting down others . Its one thing to say that you think you are better than others, its another to say that you are better than literally everyone else on Earth and its another to consistently and in an emotionally charged way compulsively and frequently put down everyone who dare to disagree with you on the fact that you are better than everyone else on Earth. Before anyone object here to the word "better" - by that I mean Leo meaning to be more conscious and with that more intelligent than everyone else on Earth (because btw he largely defines intelligence as something very closely related to level of consciousness). Another difference might be gaslighting and generally refusing to take responsibility. Another aspect might be that given some evidence to the contrary doesnt update credence about beliefs . There is a difference between being arrogant (believing that you are better than others without adequate evidence) and then between being a narcissist where the previously mentioned condition applies to you, while you also maintain a 100% or an unshakeable credence about beliefs where you have been shown some evidence to the contrary (or at the least, you have been shown some reason to doubt) - so for instance , beliefs such as 'being capable of transforming into an alien on camera' and 'being capable to heal all humanity' weren't updated and his credence about them werent lowered even though, he tried to do them and he failed.

I dont know what you mean by "acceptable" there. What I meant is that I gave 3 actionable steps (that i think) could significantly lower down cult dynamics here (once they are consistently and systematically applied). The reason why I focused on those "surface" things is because we interact online, so when it comes to the issues related to cult dynamics - online interactions - are the things that necessarily need to be changed. Now, if that change can be achieved multiple different ways (for instance, without him necessarily needing to resolve psychological trauma or without him needing to go to a psychologist or to a psychiatrist) then I would rather not delay potential behavior change and would rather not constrain down the solution space to only such options. Now, If you try to attack that and say "okay, but what you are asking for seems easy on the surface, but realistically cant be done, because Leo has deeply rooted psychological issues and he needs to heal those first" Okay, then if you are right about your trauma diagnosis, and if you are also right about what has to be done first before online interactions can be changed, then Leo needs to do that if he wants to lower down cult dynamics here. I also argued for some of the things you said related to psychology and deeper issues - but again, this is what I can do - outline issues with behavior , give my opinion about probably why he behaved the way he did (largely agree with you here about potential psychological issues and with psychotic tendencies) and then outline what I think should be changed with respect to online interactions (because again, online interactions are the most relevant to the cult dynamic issue, because we only interact online). I have no way to compel Leo to consult a psychologist or psychiatrist,and my interpretation of his situation could be incorrect.

Peer reviewed articles - one of the highest quality secondary sources avalaible. Much higher quality than youtube videos, wikipedia and other articles. It also provides one well organized place , where you can get a high resolution view about positions and arguments and it also gives a searchable place with a bunch of primary source references and links Ideally yes ,but in practice in a bunch of cases you wont know the language and you also wont know how the authors need to be interpreted because you wont have a deep and wide enough background knowledge about them and about their subtle positions on all the relevant things. Secondary sources are also useful for proividing alternative interpretations of the original material.

One level of psychosis above this is would be to say (building on that insane premise that you described there) that the whole thing was a deliberate and elaborate play (the whole thing was fabricated by MAPLE ) to consciously filter people out . Like - if it was so useful for them, then why not create a bunch of defamation articles? 😭 But in any case, I dont think they need to write anything, because there are already plenty of defamatory pieces written about them. (havent read/listened to most of them) https://medium.com/@alice.xyl/response-to-accusations-of-harm-3ffe94e5c4cb This one is from a defense piece (very interesting how they infer all of their ethics from the Buddha [as if the Buddha would have wanted to provide exhaustive guides on how to handle sexual accusations and others] and its also interesting how they approach the problem around critique validity - given their approach, practically every criticism can be dismissed) The TL;DR defense is that all the accusation are invalid and the reason why is because the accusors must be attached to their feelings (she gives a personal example where that applies), and they must have been not tough enough to properly handle the practices. ----- Needles to point out here that none of this explains the specificity of the accusations and it also doesnt explain the fact why there are certain accusers who had been there for close to or sometimes for more than a decade (if they just simply couldnt handle the practices properly). Also doesnt explain why there arent similar type of accusations given with a similar frequency towards other monasteries (where the practices are comparatively hard). The handwaving of emotions is also a red-flag. Yes, emotions can cloud judgment, but the implication that strong emotions automatically invalidate someone's assessment of things is interesting. If the content of the allegations are subtantively accurate, then strong emotional reactions are exactly what you would expect from the victims. Why would a dishonest accuser want to go back to the leader and maintain a relationship with him and with the community? I think that fact is more expected under the abusive, manipulative leader hypothesis (where he tries to bring back the victim and where he tries to mitigate defamation damage by showcasing to the community that the victim still has some kind of dependent relationship on him). Its also interesting to notice that the vast majority of the allegations are made by people who had been there and not by people who have never been there. So defenses like "you dont understand the community" and the "you dont understand the practice" doesnt have much strength (like we are talking about 1st hand accounts and not about someone telling a story about what happened with a different person).

Do you know of any Indian academic philosophy websites that are comparable in quality to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or to Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or to PhilArchive, that can provide content in English? Im just looking for something where there is careful scholarly work around the concepts and problems you described there .

Yeah im not sure. I would go with" the necessary leading to" one. But if you keep the generated scores profile-private that should be enough to get around this issue I think. Like what Claude said here: But just to take some steps back - Like fuck, there are a bunch of websites where there is an embedded general purpose AI that can be used for all sorts of tasks and services that can be weaponized against people in a billion more ways (like any site that embeds chatgpt) where a more weasel "potentially leading to" interpretation of Aricle 5 would automatically make all those websites illegal I think (or if those sites - especially general purpose AI service sites - can just stay up and they are actually categorized as legal sites, then your site should be most plausibly categorized as legal as well I think). But regardless, this is what I would personally do: 1) I would look around for legal EU AI psychology/personality trait test sites first and then contrast those law wise with your website. if there arent any such sites, then: 2) I would go a level of abstraction higher and repeat the same procedure for any AI site that can give you any kind of test and capable to display and store your test score. If there isnt any EU AI site like that, then as a last resort: 3) I would repeat the procedure for any general purpose EU AI site (any site, where there is an embedded general purpose AI ) and then you can either transform your site into such a "general purpose AI site" or you can create a mix-bag AI site, where chatgpt is embedded on the side and you also have your main purpose fine-tuned (?) AI on your site.

This is unresponsive to a good chunk of my things ,but if you want to engage or if you just want to share your opinion in greater detail about Leo and actualized.org then come to the other thread so that we dont derail @Consilience's MAPLE targeted thread.