zurew

This might get us back into the need to clarify what is being meant by 'existing' ,but how would you classify or make sense of abstract objects (objects that don't seem to be bounded by time and space)?

Without getting bogged down in the atom talk and asking you to clarify what you mean by something to exist - I see, you meant different compared to what I thought you meant. I thought 'dying from ageing' , but sure if we talk about all encompassing immortality (not dying from anything) and we take into into account the "death" of the universe , then yeah it seems to be inescapable (according to our current knowledge)

What about animals that don't seem to die from ageing?

Its good seeing you more frequently asking for clarity (making sure you understand what is being said) before you give your reply or rebuttal. I think it would be good to make it more of a norm on this forum (like people should encourage each other to ask for clarity rather than making strawmans and always assume whats being said). The quality of conversations here are often times low, 1) because people aren't even talking about the same thing and are talking past each other (they use the same words, but mean completely different things - especially when it comes to philosophical and spiritual topics and 2) because people rarely ask for any kind of clarity in usual (like not just for meaning but asking whats the overall point that is being made without getting lost in instinctively arguing every detail they disagree with)

You guys might have to clear up, what you mean by clarity

I don't think the vast majority of people (like 99%) here understand generally what you are trying to communicate (I am included, cause I don't understand most of what you are saying ). Now that can be a problem with us, but the fact of the matter is that if we don't understand what you say, we won't be able to communicate and exchange ideas. My problem is not with certain individual words you are using, cause if I see some word that I don't know, I can look it up in a dictionary immediately, but the context in which you used them and how you connect them together to form a sentence and then the structure in which you connect all your sentences together most of the cases don't make much sense to me (and I don't mean 'not making sense' in a pejorative sense, I mean - I literally don't know what you mean or what overall point you are trying to make or even some cases what specific point you are trying to respond to) For example just from what you wrote above, I have no idea what you mean by: What would you suggest for us to do, in order to understand you better?

Trump fans: Take a look at how much likes each tweet has received. https://x.com/NICKMERCS/status/1796334977744830824 https://x.com/TrumpLatinos24/status/1796304120686457077 https://x.com/WatchChad/status/1796297352510091357 https://x.com/votetimscott/status/1796301287891292427

I think most people on this forum has very differing and vague views on tier 1 and tier 2 . "agrees with me" - at least tier 2 "disagrees with me" - definitely tier 1 Imagine doing a poll about this. Take 25 people that most forum members know about and then have them sort those 25 people into Tier 1 and Tier 2 boxes. I think the results would wildly differ.

Why?

I guess this is kind of similar to other things in that as you learn more, you gain the ability to recognize more nuance and you gain the ability to make finer distinctions.

Thats interesting, I think I you have talked about the 2 axes in the past (the y and x dimensions) Now the even more interesting thing about this could be that you may add even more axis to this analysis as you progress further on the previous axes (in this case the x and y) - meaning these two axes are not the full picture about how much dimensionality you can add to conciousness.

Would you say that having a higher baseline means having the ability to have higher peakstates? Yeah but then whatever label we want to add to that state, the exact same problem arise. "How can you know for sure that your concept of full picture isn't limited or undermined by that state?"

From that wouldn't follow that your very concept of completeness or your concept of highest awkening is constrained by your cognition/DNA? So whatever you think is the complete picture will be always relative and you can never safely say that you actually know the full picture.

I noticed that your tone has changed a little bit recently and you take more dimensions into consideration when it comes to your analysis or speech. By more dimension I mostly mean emotional maturity and being more understanding.

Interesting, would you elaborate on it just a little bit?

I think you had the stance in the past, if I remember correctly, that a small set of highly intelligent and conscious elites should be making the decisions for society. Given the assumption that I remember correctly, do you still hold that position?

So if you are not qualified to make judgements about his claims, what would be the point of you watching him defending his ideas - you wouldn't be qualified to tell whether his defense is valid or not. After Howard runs his defense what will you base your conclusion on? Will you base it on the scientific consensus?

Sounds like you are not engaging with the substance matter and you write Dave's arguments off based on outside factors that are not related to the truth value of his arguments and you don't evaluate each claim seperately. I have someone for you who made an argument why this is a bad thing to do

and where can reptilians fit into this?

Now you are motivating me to bait bad faith moves out of Carl so i can finally be justified to be bad faith towards him as well.

Sure, I agree that name calling doesn't justified him being wrong, although those who did the name calling most of them did engage with his ideas and claims, and explained why he is wrong - but most of you didn't have anything to reply to that, other than trying to change the original claim for something different. - and that makes me think that you guys are hardcore motivated reasoners. Whats your reply to the professor Dave video? Thats a very weak claim though, because that could be said about literally anything. "there might be some kernel of truth in this claim or in this line of thinking". This is why I accused you guys of being motivated reasoners and dishonest about this. Cause you claim more than just the above, you think his ideas are plausibly true not just that there is a slight possibility that they are true, because otherwise you would run the same defense with the same effort and intensity for literally any idea, but you don't.

I see. You guys are freaks. Trying my best to stay epistemically humble . I can be arrogant as well about things I shouldnt be, but Its easier to stay epistemically humble, when im not dealing with sophists or motivated reasoners and some of you are generally honest about how knowledgeable and researched you are about a given question or subject. I haven't seen Carl ever engage in bad faith rhetoric towards me or being dishonest about his knowledge or about how much evidence he has to support a given claim or argument, so he makes the good faith interactions easy.

Im still skeptical of this, but I guess it is a controversial area. Is it the case that your IQ increases by 10 points or the explanation is that you get better at highly specific exercises that are usually measured when it comes to IQ tests? So for example you might get better at recognizing certain patterns in a specific context or area, but that doesn't necessarily generalize to other areas where different pattern recognition is needed. Btw I have no idea about the empirics on this, so I can easily be moved if you have anything.

He was given multiple chances already. He was on rogan, he was at Oxford and he was on multiple other shows already and most of the things he said was incoherent or outright wrong. He also wrote a mathpaper and he couldn't deliver anything, he was rambling about the Annunaki. You guys are conflating the term "open-minded" with being a motivated reasoner. Being open minded doesn't entail that you give all ideas a 50% chance of being right or 50% wrong up until it is debunked or up until it is proven right. It just means you don't completely rule out the possibility of an idea being right or true up until it is proven or disproven. That could mean that an idea has a 0.0000001% chance of being right, so you don't completely rule out the possibility, but you still recognize that its very very unlikely that it will turn out to be true. What you guys engage in is not open-mindedness, its motivated reasoning. You ignore all the times he is wrong and you ignore all the redflags regarding his beliefs and regarding his epistemology and you try to paint a picture where there is still in your mind a 50% chance of him being right about his remaining beliefs and sometimes you even overwrite some of the things he claimed in a desperate attempt to try to make it more coherent. At some point you overwrite some of his claims so much so , that its not even his claims anymore, but something different. Some of you guys would go and bring up articles from the fucking 70s or 60s regarding institutional fuckups and corruption to make an inductive argument in relation to why you don't trust institutions right now, but in this case, you don't make any inferences based on the wrong claims at all and you treat the truthvalue of each claim that comes from the exact same source completely separately.

I think this is a weak argument and if you take it to its logical end , you would need to conclude that you shouldn't study anyone ever (including actualized.org and Leo's work) cause it will corrupt your mind. The fact that the students you talk about were always quoting philosophers rather than engaging with arguments or in orginal thought, thats not evidence that the reason for that was becuase they read books from philosophers. You can learn ideas and internalize those ideas and then move on and abstract from those ideas and use them to create your own understanding. But often time what happens is what @Nilsi said - You think you have some original thought but the reality is that you have some half baked thought about a thing that other philosophers have already thought about in a much more precise and more polished way about 100s of years ago and if you would have read about them you would have managed to gain that particular insight much quicker than trying to do it all on your own. and btw the "corruption of the mind" argument goes both ways. If you don't engage with any other thought or insight outside of your own, you can easily get locked in your own bullshit as well.