zurew

+ there are a bunch of plugins that others have created that you can easily download and use

Good one, broski. I noticed a pattern in your writing, and I connected the dots together, and read your energy using my perfect , infallible intuitions and my conclusion is that all of your intuitions are wrong.

@DocWatts Most of the things you wrote down seem to be very similar to John Vervaeke's position (as far as I understand his position on this). Even the word "disclose" is a word that he often time uses, when he talks about the subject-object relationship and how you are not just receiving raw sense data from your senses and how you are not just creating objects in your mind, but there are real objects in the world, that exist independent of your mind, but they disclose themselves to you in a particular way and your perception and experience of those objects is depended on your cognition (and you are participating in that disclosure). Do you have any particular disagreement with Vervaeke regarding his metaphysics or epistemology or ethics? Btw your writing is very comprehensible and accessible (even to me who is very poorly read in philosophy), and it is easy to follow your deductions and thought process , so good job on that!

Sure - I can only talk from my pov - Im very poorly read in philosophy , especially on this particular topic and I havent thought much about it, so I don't have any strong position on any of this. I don't have the necessary vocab to have a meaningful talk or debate about this. Im mostly just here to observe and to take some notes . I appreciate the honesty about hitting your limits. If more forum members would be this honest, we would have much more meaningful and productive debates and convos.

Okay gotcha, that clears it up for me.

I meant the classical notion of an abstract object like numbers, sets, propositions. Like if you say that numbers exist , would you say that they are spatio-temporal? this is a general argument for the existence of abstract objects: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/#4 But regardless, I guess what I wanted to ask is that if you think that things that are non spatio-temporal do exist, then how do you make sense of them in the context of identity? Because it seems to me that your definition of identity presupposes that identity is necessarily being bounded by time (if I understood what you meant there, but I might be misinterpreting)

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?