zurew

It was the agential God fucking around.

WIll leave this here for anyone who wants to dig through reported cases https://nuforc.org/subndx/?id=highlights https://nuforc.org/map/

Aladdin's rug flying around looking for Aladdin.

Oh shit.

Im not seeing you having such issues when non-solipsistic views are attacked in a similar fashion. I disagree, unless your relativize literally all epistemic norms, but given that you do ,then what you are pointing out is not gonna be an exclusive problem to the intellect, it is gonna be a problem for any kind of justification and thats gonna target everything including mysticism and spirituality as well. What I did instead - I pointed out certain epistemic virtues and given the context of those, how solipsism ranks worse than other views. With that move you dont undermine literally all views and you dont relativize everything the same way as you did. You can say that you dont give a fuck about those virtues and norms and thats perfectly fine with me, and thats compatible with me saying in so far as we are using those standards, solipsism is gonna rank worse. The "truth is true regardless of your epistemic norms and standards" is an issue for everyone and not just for the intellect. The truth is true regardless of your spiritual practices and your drug of choice and your awakenings. if you want to go that skeptical - then there is no rule in reality that awakenings have to do anything with whats true. You are demanding such a standard from me that you dont demand from the mystics. Your standards are unreasonable mine isn't, because the standards I use dont relvativize and dont undermine literally all investigation (and just to be clear again, Im not against spiritual work; I value mystical experiences and I include spiritual practices in the epistemology that I use, but if you would push me on it the same way you pushed on the intellectual norms, then a similar answer would come up - maybe none of these things have to do anything with whats true). if your criticism of my criticism is that one must have 100% certainty about what kind of epistemic norm(s) or standards must have to do something with whats true (because otherwise every criticism is just bogus); in that case, literally everything is just bogus including all philosophy and all mysticism because there isn't any rule in reality that any kind of epistemic norm or standard must have to do something with whats actually true and if you gonna claim "but there is such a norm" then you gonna get back to the bootstrapping problem that you tried to push on me and that you thought was exclusive issue to intellectual norms. Im okay with a starting point and using that starting point to filter views, and im also okay with not having 100% certainty about anything and with giving qualificaiton for everything (you not gonna see a similar kind of intellectual honesty from most actualized members though).

I didnt attack mysticism with my posts, I specifically attacked solipsism with my post. Most mystics werent solipsists.

His inference from "not affirming solispism" to "you are stuck in a rationalist paradigm" doesnt make any sense for multiple reasons , one obvious reason being that you can have a mystic epistemology and not be a solipsist and also not be a rationalist. Ralston isnt a solipsist, Rupert Spira isnt a solipsist, Sadhguru isnt a solipsist and none of them are rationalists.

Not affirming solipsism = being stuck in a rationalist paradigm. Next time I will try to do spirituality and philosophy with your approach and I will ask Leo what set of things I need to affirm. Red herring is when I bring up something that is directly applicable to solipsism and you have no answer for it. Yeah and that point is very stupid, because it is accounted for in many paradigms better than in others. And you also agreed with this previously btw and immediately ran away from it by saying "why should we care about explanatory power bro, I like simiplicity more and maybe explanatory power shouldnt be cared about bro, what matter is what true bro and what true is true bro regardless of explanatory power". You claimed solipsism makes 0 assumptions ,which is laughably false and anyone can recognize this who isn't mind raped by Leo. it perfectly makes sense. Your lack of ability to imagine that others have consciousness doesnt get you to others not having consciousness and especially not getting you to the impossibility that others have consciousness - but of course you wont recognize this because Leo paved the entire landscape of possible thought your mind can navigate through. And again there are a bunch of alternative idealist views that are different from solipsism that can perfectly account for this, but of course you dont know about them , because your knowledge starts and stops with the things Leo feeds to you. (nonduality, Bernardo's analytic idealism etc).

Read back the thing that you quoted and responded to. Do you think this is talking about the structure , or do you think this is talking about the content? Like, I couldnt have spelled out more explicitly for you and you still managed to miss it. (this isnt the first time, this is like the third post where you quote something about it that contradicts what you claim about it). Most of your claims about solipsism : for instance that it has good explanatory power, that it has 0 assumptions, and you interpreting criticisms against solipsism as "being stuck in a materialist paradigm" are all evidence that you mostly just reguritate Leo and that you havent seriously thought about or researched the objections against solipsism. For instance, its an assumption that only your mind exist; Its an assumption that you can know yourself; its an assumption that direct knowledge is possible; its an assumption that awakening is real ; its an assumption that further awakenigns wont undermine previous awakenings; when you make any given claim using your memory (even related to awakenings) those are all dependent on you assuming that your memory is accurate about those events and experiences; its an assumption that you have access to all of your mind and that everything that you experience is all there is; its an assumption that only that things that you are aware of at any given moment is all there is etc etc. Wittgenstein's private language argument is also a big problem for solipsism and I dont think Leo has any good response to that. Its also very funny that you think that its an issue for other idealist views that they need to explain and account for other minds and that is a problem in your eyes, but it isn't any problem in your eyes that solipsism doesnt account for the list of things that I previouly listed (not in this post, but in my post yesterday) and it isn't a problem at all, that solipsism doesnt account for literally anything that has to do with the content of the dream. Also notice that it almost always comes to back to epistemic cetainty and neither you nor Leo can offer literally any single objection or argument against any other non-solipsitic view that would render those alternative views impossible (so if your standard is epistemic certainty, and you only care about arguments against solipsism that shows that solipsism is impossible , then the fact of the matter is that neither you nor Leo managed to rule out non-solipsistic views).

Unconsciously internalized worldview, coupled with internalized persona (similar mannerism, similar choice of words and rhetoric, constantly in teacher preacher mode, disagreement automatically means that you are wrong and that you need to be quickly told the correct set of beliefs ). Some of these people never seriously engaged with any philosophy or spirituality outside of actualized.org. You grow up consuming years of Leo's content and that then frames your whole life. Even the ones who did some drugs and spiritual practices - how interesting, that after you internalize years of actualized.org beliefs and framing that you interpret most of your awakenings and trips inside that frame and that all of those foundational beliefs that you internalized months or years before you did any serious practice , that they are suddenly "confirmed" the moment you do the practices. Also notice how credence works with these people. After they "confirm" a given thing their credence in Leo's other claims go up infinitely and they dont treat Leo's unconfirmed claims in an agnostic way and hence the cycle continues "internalize beliefs---> internalized framing clouds your interpretation of awakenings and trips -----> your credence in other unconfirmed claims go up and you internalize them"

There is no confusion like that - what I said there was applicable both to the structure and to the content of the dream as well (because solipsism fails to provide an explanation for both; in contrast with other idealist views, that can provide explanation for the content). For some reason you seem to be very confused, because you seem to think that solipsism is the only possible view that says that consciousness is fundamental. You do understand that most mystics werent solipsists ,right? If the answer is yes, then why pretend that physicalism and solipsism is a true dichotomy and that there isn't any alternative option? And you are dead wrong about the explanatory power of other views - solipsism is the worst, but there are a bunch of other idealist views that has much more explanatory power and yes even physicalism has more explanatory power than solipsism. With respect to your comments about not caring about epistemic virtues and epistemic norms just only about truth - again whats interesting about that is that you only seem to invoke that when solipsism is attacked and you never invoke that when any other views are attacked (im pretty sure I could find you attacking other views based on certain epistemic norms). But regardless, you cant really escape this, because the moment you say anything about what method or set of methods can lead you to truth, thats the moment where you invoke your own epistemic norms. (and yes meditation, doing drugs , doing yoga etc are all included here).

No im not and you failed to track most of the things I said. You are mostly uncritically regurgitating stuff that you heard from Leo. The lack of explantory power problem isnt a problem for views that accept the Absolute as a brute fact, its a special problem for solipsism. No explanation for any state of affair or phenomena that you experience; no explanation why you are dreaming the particular thing you are dreaming right now instead of literally anything else; no explanation for why you can see,hear,taste,touch,smell in the firstplace (like why you have any particular qualia other than just adverbial qualia) ; no explanation for why you dont have random sense data in the previously listed senses (like seeing random pictures, hearing random sounds etc); no explanation for why your stream of consciousness appear to be governed by stable laws; no explanation for why you have the particular memory you have and why it doesnt randomly change, and why you have a memory in the firstplace; no explanation for why other people behave with apparent independence and complexity; no explanation for why the world can surprise you; no explanation for why you cant change the dream right now; no explanation why there is a duration to this particular experience and why it has this much duration ;no explanation for why there is a difference between your imagination and your perception ; no explanation for why you have voluntary and why you also have involuntary experiences; no explanation for why consuming certain things and why engaging in certain activies can change your state of consciousness and why other things cant change your state of consciousness etcetc - and any explanation that solipsism can provide - almost all of those will be auxiliary hypotheses and ad hoc explanations non of which can be deduced only from solipsism.

I dont know why you would infer that from the clip. If your version would have been specified and spelled out in question form , then im pretty sure his anwer would have been different. And again, the question wasn't generic, it was framing it towards the christian god specifically, given that the interviewer started his question with "you are in front of the pearly gates".

interviewer: "Hey Stephen, what do you think about food, and more specifically about eating dead racoons?" and then him answering with "I think eating dead racoons is disgusting and unhealthy" and then you clipping that and creating a forum post with the title "Lol, the pathetic and ignorant Stephen doesnt know what food actually is and how healthy it can be".

Do you often do this obnoxious notion swapping move in other contexts as well just to win arguments against other people ? I imagine the moment someone tells Leo that they didn’t like the taste of the food they ate yesterday (lets say they are referring to onion soup) , then Leo immediately goes ahead and swap his own notion of food in and corrects them that it must have been delicious because by food he means his own food (referring to something other than onion soup) and that he has a monopoly on how the term "food" has to be used in his univocal way.

Thats the ultimate move that can make you win any argument instantly here

No Im not, what im saying is that there is a variety thats never appreciated and acknowledge here - from God being absolute you cant deduce that God is love and that God is non-agential and other stuff. None of those things trivially follows from God being absolute so there is clearly an underdetermination and variety problem there. You can have an infinite number of different positions affirming that Consciousness is absolute and then disagree on other details. Yeah but all of that is applicable to any other paradigm as well (they can claim that they are true and it doesnt matter what issues you cook up against them, because whats true is true regardless your issues and criticisms against them). Also notice that all of you are making arguments against other paradigms using proxies other than just an appeal to truth (sometimes you guys appeal to internal contradictions and appeal to your own seemings and to your experiences etc). If you make that kind of "it doesnt matter how many unexplained brute facts are in your paradigm" move then a physicalist can just say that "It doesnt matter that I cant explain Consciousness, because its just a fact of the matter that Consciousness is just emergent from physical processes, but dont ask me how and why, because it doesnt matter how, what matters is just whats true bro". And even further anyone can say against solipsism ,that "it doesnt matter how many assumptions I make, because there isn't any rule in reality that making more assumptions makes my view less probable, because what matters is just whats true bro". There isn't also any apriori rule in reality that only the things that can be validated by direct experience is whats true, unless you assume that to be the case. You cant escape this, but for some reason most of you dont question this and for some reason most of you guys think that you managed to escape and solve these problems. What you guys call "direct experience" is what christians call "revelation" and but most of you will reject that with a knee jerk reaction, because that goes against your "direct" experience. But we can use any other religion or paradigm that has its own unique ways to justify why its allowed to beg the question against other views. Appealing to direct experience wont solve this, because again other mystical traditions can have direct experience as the main epistemic foundation from which everything is built, but they will disagree with each other on which things or experience should be categorized as direct experience.

Then attack the interviewer and not the guy who is being asked the question. (Unless you think its a better move in the context Stephen was in, to just dodge the interviewer's question) Its your responsibility to recognize the obvious fact that Stephen Fry wasnt talking about your notion of God. Its not like you have a monopoly on what meaning should be behind the word "God" (and if you are not autistic, then you are sensitive to the fact how different words are used in different ways by different people).

Leo's solipsism doesnt explain anything btw, it leaves you with an infinite number of unexplained brute facts. Its the most vacuous thing you can ever go with. Even a low tier physicalist view leaves you with more explained facts than Leo's view.

People here on actualized.org for some reason dont realize, but going with a mystic epistemology doesnt automatically answer the question of which specific version of God is actually correct (other than the fact that God is Consciousness) There is a reason why for instance Ralston disagrees with Leo on love. There are also many many mystics who will cash out God in slightly different ways.

Yes you can absolutely blame him, because he frequently gives a justification for why God allows certain things (often times he doesnt give the justification what you gave, but a version where the implication is that God is agential and that different state of affairs could have been realized) Constantly switching between existential language (where Love is metaphysical and doesnt have anything to do with action) vs action/agential language (where love is cashed out by what an agent does and not by its nature) is a big mistake. But this isnt just with love, this is with selfishness and with other notions as well.

Leaving no room for error and also leaving no room for substance and only leaving room for being vacuous - when it comes to Leo talking about a non-agential God being "loving". Btw - it does leave room for being wrong about the specific properties of God. You cant deduce anything specific from something being Absolute, and you will find a bunch of gurus and idealists agreeing with you on God being Absolute and disagreeing about the specific properties of God.

Yeah, but Stephen Fry made his criticism against a God, where the problem of evil is applicable (Against a type of Christian God , who is agential, can choose what world to create and will put you in hell forever if you dont abide by his commandments and if you dont worship him). Of course the argument wont work, if you equivocate on the term "God" and you swap it with your own notion of God. This is a mistake that Leo frequently makes and it doesnt matter how many times this is pointed out to him. He swaps the notions that are used in an argument with his own notions and then he pretends that he is making some profound counterpoint against the person who made the criticism (when in reality, he just fails to engage with criticism, because he only replies to a strawman, because Stephen Fry never made an argument against the type of God the way Leo uses the term "God").

Oh then I dont think that you will see anything new here. The real move that will actually work is to use your stepfather's phone or laptop and then html edit the national institute's website and write a paragraph saying "I recommend you to do your own research". I dont debate stuff like this with family members, because I know based on past experience that it wont work. Interesting , but also expected to see the "trust the experts" heruistic in action by a very pragmatic person. But given what you said there , now this sounds a lot less like about you wanting to win an argument and sounds much more like you trying to justify for yourself and trying persuade yourself using the collective intelligence of actualized.org, why it was worth spending the time (the time that you spent researching health and diet related stuff) instead of just doing the pragmatic move and using the "trust the experts" heruistic. (im doing a lot of reading into things here; im doing the retarded mr girl empath "I see behind the curtain" move here ) Btw jokes aside this is a very interesting and very complex problem (given your avalaible resources and goals, which option is better - using a quick heruistic or studying the topic deeply yourself and figuring everything out on your own - kind of a false dichotomy, but you get the main point)

Dude wants to win an argument against his stepfather so bad that he is fishing for arguments . One easy argument is just to point to history and to the fact that the standards and the recommendations have changed a lot over the years(just in the 21st century) . Also list him examples, where some of these health institutions were really wrong and also list him all the non-knowledge related things that can have a significant effect on what is being recommended by these institutions. The other thing is what @Basman mentioned - try to point out why sometimes its reasonable to do an @integral move, where you do your own experiments and where you figure out your own thing. For instance, if after taking a vitamin pill you immediately feel dizzy (and after you repeat this process multiple times, the exact same bad event/effect happens over and over again), then it doesnt matter how much the experts tell you how you ought to feel by and after taking the pill (if your experience tells you a completely different story). Or maybe try to find a close family example, where someone got fucked over by a doctor or by some health expert (maybe that would be more emotionally moving) But be careful dude, dont turn your stepfather or (whoever else who you are arguing against) into a conspiracy theorist.