zurew

Your explanation is completely arbitrary. I could say that goblins did it. I could generate an infinite number of random arbitrary hypothesis that would explain the data, but none of this serious inquiry or investigation. Btw even in the tiktok that you linked even there Bashar tells you that levers and cranes is the answer for some of the pyramids. Even your idea about how reputability works is so flawed that I wouldnt trust a single thing you say. Harry Potter can tell you real facts about the world, but from that doesnt follow that you should trust it on all the facts that it proposes. What reasons can you list that makes Bashar reputable on this particular matter?

And thats fine. You know, from lack of ability to explain aliens doesnt follow. What you have so far is "I dont have an explanation, therefore aliens".

1) No its not 2) You should care about more than just occam's razor when it comes to epistemic virtues. Your attitude is the God of the gaps just swap God with aliens.

Yes it is, the average block doesnt weigh 80 tons

Yeah you dont even need to meditate - being bored is enough to be the scariest shit sometimes, for the exact reasons you just layed down.

What do you mean, broski was a regular person who completely transceded all material means. Thats why he collected a fleet of 93 Rolls-Royce cars

Everyone here is familiar with all the esoteric shit (including the Law of One , including channelers, and other controversial siddhi, tantric , occult stuff) , but thats not going to mean that you just default to those positions, because you dont have anwers to questions.

Aside from the fact that you exaggerated about average block size and rely on a specific time-scale to fit your narrative, it somehow makes sense to you that advanced interdimensional beings would need decades to build the pyramids. "Okay, im gonna set up a camp ,stay here for 2-3 decades, and im gonna build the pyramids and then im gonna dip" Now use the same demand and check if anyone can demonstrate to you building a pyramid 1/10th scale using the methods described in the tiktok you linked. Show me how you move blocks at that size with sound

Not sure what you mean by "as long as you hold the dogma", but if it has to do with how you do the given exercise like what you visualize during the exercise or something like that - then there seem to be some evidence that it has effect on the "success" of the exercise. You can make sense of that multiple ways , one way is to say that certain aspects of your mind and body can only be turned on and accessed through the imaginal space . Its not that the thing that you visualize has to exist, its that it can be instrumental (or it might be even necessary) to success and access and activation. The metaphor I use to differentiate between imagination and the imaginal is VR and AR. When it comes to imaginal you put a scaffolding on the already existing world to help you to navigate and to notice things. It can be also thought of as a liminal space between the conscious and unconscious (which I think Carl Jung popularized first)

Generally a good heruistic to go by, but not necessarily applicable in all instances. There are things that you cant verify in principle, but you still need to take position on - like history and there are other things. There are many instances where suspending judgement given the avalaible info can be irrational.

There are depending on what crowd you are in. There are atheists who make arguments against the existence of God.

To be fair to him, I think he also said that nature is mind - he phrased it kind of that way and I think that should clear up some of the confusion, but yeah, the commenters are horny to not engage with what being said. The funny thing is that those commenters are so fucking confused that they dont understand their own view.

I could think of other ways how to represent that other than using blood and hanging human heads and a psychopath humanoid who seem to enjoy violence.

Dude the hindu deities are something else. Although Buddhists have their own weird looking deities as well.

But also fuck the people who think the part about theoretical virtues is dry. Fuck the appeal to normies, get educated about phllosophy and dont expect that you will understand any of this without doing deep studying. I hate the general expectation and attitude towards philosophy in general (that is btw never applied in any other context). Everyone intuitively knows that you wont be able to understand in depth what any expert says about any domain of science without studying the subject first, so why have that expectation about philosophy?

You dont need to give an exhaustive rundown what your personal theory is about what makes a good metaphysical theory, you can just give a 4-5 minute rundown about the usually used and mentioned theoretical virtues and then how analytic idealism ranks better given those than physicalism. People are expecting a deductive argument in the comment section, because they are confused, and they think Bernardo makes the claim that physicalism is impossible. This is why they bring up stuff like "but you didnt rule out bro, that we will find an explanation for consciousness in the future bro". They also bring up science as if that would be responsive to anything said about metaphysics. To be fair, Bernardo made it clear and said explicitly how you can do most of science while being metaphysically agnostic (when it comes to what the world is made out of) and most of the audience still managed to not track that point. I think a good way to cut through the confusion is to ask "what do you think you lose, when you adopt analytic idealism over physicalism". And this is where you will get replies about science, and then you can explain how all of science is compatible with analytic idealism and then you might get heureka moments from some of the incredibly confused commenters.

He is more and more sympathetic towards idealism. He said "Im pretty convinced that materialism characterized here is quite ludicrious"

If you would be honest and if you would take the same attitude towards all types of experiences like this, then you would need to actually engage with and evaluate experiences with deities (or with dmt entities and other types of entities) without you automatically categorizing all of those as false or as just demons, becuase you already have a conclusion in mind that you want to go with. But obviously people having an experience from that doesnt follow that it is a place or a dimension that you actually go to. And even if it actually exists, from that doesnt follow that you will go there once you die and it also doesnt follow that you going there is based on anything that Jesus said - maybe you going there or not going there is completely independent from all religious teachings. Also when it comes to your general attitude of "I dont have an alternative explanation therefore must be x" everyone knows that its not an honest explorative attitude and thats now how epistemology works. You not being aware of alternative explanations doesnt make the one explanation that you are aware of good or plausible in any way at all. I can say that the reason why my shoe is missing is because of a shoe stealing fairy and also say that im not aware of any alternative explanation - from that doesnt follow that I should go with the shoe stealing fairy theory or that it is plausible in any way at all.

He should have spent a little bit more time on laying down epistemic norms, becuase people in the comments are really confused about what set of norms they should use to judge these metaphysical debates. And the obvious answer is that its abductive - you are looking for the inference to the best explanation (so its based on theoretical virtues). If you dont start with that, then this is what you have - people confused asf fuck not having any basic toolset how to make sense of and how to evaluate different metaphysical theses. I guess this is not necessarily his problem, but an unprepared audience problem.

Im genuinely surprised that AI is still this stupid. Next time try to use claude to think for you, because chatgpt make you look bad.

Appreciate that you bring a positive image about christian mysticism (and about mysticism in general). Mysticism needs to be more highlighted, because people here have a general antagonistic attitude towards religions and they need to be reminded that there are versions of them where mysticism is taking place and a lot can be learned from them.

Okay, I changed my mind , I take it back. Now come back to the cult of free thinkers. There are only a couple thousand sheeps here.

Im here to take away your right to freely believe or disbelieve.

Yes I said that, but I didnt mean what you mean by that sentence. I meant the fact that most people are not against all consent violations in a principled way not that there cant be consent violation. There isnt any internal contradiciton shown there. Spell out the p and not p if you think there are internal contradicitions. Also, again, none of what you said shows to antinatalists that the human condition is not bad. Where do you think I made the point that those two are not distinct? My exact point is that these two things are distinct and that both of them are important to consider. Violation of consent means that you subjugate an individual to a set of unwanted experiences. Future violation of consent means that you subjugate a future sentient being to a set of unwanted experiences. Now try to apply and use my semantics and show under how I use these terms whats the contradicition or the incoherence without switching back to how you use these terms. Like knowing that once your daughter will be born she will be a sex-slave. You know before your kid is born what set of unwanted experiences she will go through and that was the meat of the 'violation of future consent' all along. This is why I implied that you using a different definition of consent that is incoherent with there being a future violation of consent doesnt really change substantially anything. Applying your semantics to the sex-slave example doesnt at all change the gravity of what you do once you decide to birth the kid. You know what set of unwanted experiences you will make her live through. Applying it to the p-zombie example, you know that once it actually becomes a sentient being for the first time and its reminded about the rape, that it will go through a set of very negative experiences. The same goes for the comatosed and the sleeping example. You having a broader definition for moral responsibility doesnt change the core of what the antinatalists saying. Using your semantics antinatalist would just say that you cant be morally responsible then, because the very act of creating life is morally irresponsible rather than a violation of future consent (under how I use the term). I was suspicious that I was arguing against AI, but now I can be sure about it. Well, in that case I will open a new tab and will argue it out with chatgpt and claude then and see what other things they have to say.