zurew

Yes but they dont necessarily need to question metaphysical assumption for that , and they certainly dont need to switch from being physicalist to be idealists or vice-versa.

How does being turquoise helps with doing science?

When it comes to the substance based on the things you have said so far, you seem to agree with me and you seem to disagree with Leo. Notice that he wont make an argument that establish how his metaphysics is central to science or to the progression of science.

Cool, looking forward to reading your posts ( not because you agree with me here, but because you have things to say that are outside from the usual things most actualizers have to say).

Yes he has that series and I agree with some things that he said there but not all things and he made specific claims in his blogpost and here(in this thread) and I replied to those and now we are here waiting for him to back up his claims about his metaphysics being fundamental to doing science and about knowledge about metaphysics being fundamental to doing science or to any progress in science. Now notice again with your tone policing - you have never ever called out Leo on anything, even though there are many examples where he belittles people and where he uses rhetoric without using substance to substantiate his claims.

Good engagement again, Vynce. Tell me the false things that I said.

Yeah sure, its just that the gravity and the framing of the arguments would be different. If I would want to make a "profound" blogpost I would do my due diligence beforehand and not just purely rely on my intuitions , especially if those are central to my argument.

Long time member doesnt mean glazing at everything Leo does or says. Why is it that you have nothing to say when Leo uses a 100 different rhetorical tricks and when he bellitles people , but you are immediately hung up on when someone treats Leo like a normal human being who is not above anyone else?

You would be laughed out of any philosophy of science department for even trying to imply any such thing - since when do you think that one cant hold onto a physicalist metaphysics and make progress in science or since when do we think that observations and equations will just break down under different metaphysics? Like all of this is nonsense and stupid and this is all besides the fact that you strawmanned the fuck out of a lot of people without being able to back up any of it. Do you have data what metaphysical and philosophy of science views do scientists have? No you dont, but you build your whole argument based on your intuition on this.

Note that Einstein didn't know about you and about your metaphysics. Note that science still progressed without your system. Note that you are and your insights are not central to any of this. There is nothing to make a counter-argument to, because you havent made an argument - all you have done so far is a vague gesture towards "scientists stupid and bad, cause they dont follow my metaphysics". Notice that you dont have any good response to the rocket claim and you think that you have provided some kind of deep profound thought in your blogpost (that btw other have already made way before you - so none of that is original to you) and you are stumbled by one simple example. And then you made some claims that you wont back up - like your claim about fundamentality.

Oh yes you can, and you can still send a rocket to the moon without ever studying anything about metaphysics. So no - its not foundational at all.

The government will need to take care of it, but most elites wont give a fuck about any of the chaos.

Power will be defined by having the most intelligent robots. non elites will beg for goods and services , and most elites will self sustain. You can maintain your power without having any customers. As an elite you can have an army of the most intelligent agents protecting you 24/7 and them montioring everything around you. I dont see how any person would be a big threat to them and even if that was true there are ways around it.

Elites wont need customers in order to stay in power or to gain more power. They can just use the best AI model for whatever they want and need. They can stay and be happy in their own closed loop. I don't see at all how they would lose their elite status once there are no more customers. The resource difference will be there , it wont go anywhere and it will just grow given that they will employ AI agents that will get increasingly more intelligent and efficient.

Unless ASI becomes a silicon sage, we will be pretty much fucked

Curt seems to be impressed by Eric's theory. (Timestamped)

Then im not tracking at all. How is your position different from nondualism?

@aurum I think you should debate this guy

But your direct experience says otherwise - its peculiar that you have human thoughts , desires ,and you have an embodied experience of what it means to be a limited human - and yet in your mind none of that is finite. You dont have access to and not aware of a bunch of things right now. It can be true all the time, that what God's aware of is what exists, but thats different from saying what a limited dream character (you having a limited embodied experience as a human) is aware of at any given moment is all that exists. These are two separate claims. And to go with your definition of Absolute truth - for it to be true, its not required that you are aware that its true. Its not like , okay now you are aware of it , now its true (unless you want to take this absurd position, which we can go down if you want to). Which leads you to irreconcilable contradictions given your epistemology of "the only thing that is true and exists is what Im aware of".

You would need to move the whole "spirituality ,Consciousness" subforum there. Even your threads because people intellectualized them

You take your finite human self to not be finite? If you take it that there is a difference between being in God mode vs not being in God mode , then there will be a bunch of contentious questions about ontology there. When it comes to the idea of you collapsing epistemology and ontology - "Only the things im aware of exists" - when we invoke that , are we talking about being in God mode or not being in God mode? Because I assume that you want to make it so that there is no difference between the two, but whats the argument that establish that the same "Only the things im aware of exists" principle applies in both cases?

Yes, and hence why there is an open issue with interpretation. Every time someone talks about it, he/she relies on their memory (unless the claim is that they go through the same awakening live every time they talk about it).

Thats the right move