zurew

One easy way to deal with the worry you bring up is to leave unpaid and by that non-regulated motherhood open. If you want to be paid by the government you need to deal with x set of regulations, but you are free to choose the kind of motherhood where those restrictions dont apply to you, its just that in that case you dont get paid for it. If you just want to bring up a general heruistic, where we are catious about what new thing we implement, then I can agree with that . On the other hand, If you want to make a more broad point that it is expected that certain issues will come from blurrying the lines - then I would need to see how that would bring a novel new set of problems that isn't already present to the private-public life issue. I view this similarly to the freespeech absolutist arguments, where a slippery slope worry is brought up like "Well, if we start to regulate speech in any kind of way, then that regulation might be misused to the point where people will be just randomly banned from everywhere and their ability to speak will be taken away forever. Whats stopping instituitions and people from the misuse of power?" The slippery slope needs to be motivated by some kind of supporting argument for it to be somewhat expected. Like I imagine you wouldnt buy into a free speech absolutist slippery slope argument like "Look, childporn cant be banned because that restriction can be misused in malicious ways, where people can use your computer to upload CP and by that they can get you arrested or they can just maliciously miscategorize the content that you upload as CP when it is 100% not CP". It is true, that by the move of introducing restrictions we also introduce new possible misuses of power, but the thing that is interesting is: given the moral character of people and given the judicial system and given the incentive structures - how easy, and how expected it is that people will misuse their powers and how much damage you need to deal with if you dont implement the restriction.

Its insane that some people cant recognize and track the fact that what you are saying isn't always sensitive to empirical critcism (in this case to the content of the given awakening) because its a definitional issue. Its like saying "I discovered in my new awakening that there are married bachelors" - for you to recognize that that statement is incoherent, you dont need to know the content or the profoundness of said awakening. It always comes back to the same shit - its either the case that he is contradicting himself and he is conceptually confused regardless how profound the awakening was or it is the case that he is using the terms differently in which case his statement means something completely different and he is talking about something related to Maya.

If thats what you mean by theory of everything then we already have a bunch of them. There are many candidate possible explanations for the big-bang. By many physicists the big-bang isn't even taken to be the start of existence or even the start of the universe, its taken to be the universe expanding from an extremely hot, dense state.

Good quality debate but TK made some mistakes and Destiny wasn't really prepared to challenge things because he never seriously engaged with philosophy. First you can just reject one of the main premise of TK's argument that there is a shared set of moral intuitions/seemings across all people. This is an empirical question that isn't substantiated and even if it would be, his claim relies not just on current times, but in past times as well (and I dont see why we should think that people in the past had a shared disagreement about torturing people for fun for instance). He also confused meta-ethics with normative ethics and he confused intersubjective with objective. Moral antirealists can have the normative ethics position that torturing kids for fun is bad without them needing to have any moral realist meta ethical position. And people having a shared set of moral intuitions is consistent with moral antirealism. When it comes to his evolution argument 1) People already accept that evolution is true, so they can just use evolution to explain why people have shared moral intuitions (if they have, again this wasnt substanstiated by TK) without them needing to affirm any extra propositions that they dont already believe in. So its not like they are forced to inflate their worldview by affirming that evolution is true. 2) TK didnt make any supporting argument and he didnt substantiate how it follows from evolution being optimized for survival that people dont have truth tracking cognition at all or how they dont have reliably truth tracking cognition. He needs to show whats the actual inconsistency in saying that evolution selects for moral intuitions that are good for survival and evolution also didnt select against people having reliably truth tracking cognition. 3) Even in the context where we go with the position that evolution does completely undermine truth-tracking cognition, even in that context the conclusion isn't that evolution is false, and isn't that evolution didnt select for moral intuitions that are optimized for survival; The conclusion is that if evolution is true, then we are epistemically undermined, but that is consistent with evolution being true. Even in this case his argument would be a pragmatic argument at best that would only show how accepting evolution leads you to not being able to justify your worldview (But again, not being able to justify your worldview isn't the same as your worldview being false). He used the abductive move where he searched for the best explanation for accounting for a shared set of moral intuitions. The issue there is that when it comes to abductive reasoning, you gonna have different theoretic virtues that you will look for and by him affirming that there is a moral structure out in the world, he needs to inflate his ontology by adding extra entities that moral anti-realists dont need to affirm to account for the same facts. TK also begged the question against dialetheists. Im not even sure if he knows that there are philosophers who take the stance that there are true contradictions. This is unfortunately typical of scholastics, that they for some reason think that classical logic is above everything else and they think that there havent been any progress made in the discovery/creation of new logics since Aquinas. TK also dodged the question about the God moral question (implying that the scenario is unintelligible when thats clearly not the case). He couldn't even entertain that hypothetical even though in the Bible you can actually find at least one instance where God wants people to do something that would go completely against most modern people's moral seemings and intuitions. I am referring to God ordering the Israelites to genocide the canaanites (not just adults, but their children and their animals as well).

He did say a different thing. The answer to my original question: "Is it the case that things can exist outside of your consciousness?" Wasnt a "no", it was a conditional answer. Your answer isn't responding to that question you are only answering a question that I didnt explicitly ask "is it the case that you can imagine that things can be outside of your consciousness" - but thats substanstially different from the claim that things actually exist outside of your consciousness.

He said things like "nothing exists outside of your consciousness" in the past, so we are clearing up where he is at and what he means by certain statements.

Let me rephrase it then. Under your view - the inside-outside consciousness distinction is irrelevant, what you imagine is only whats relevant when it comes to things existing. Going with that - in the context of the infinity of Gods video, those Gods only exist in so far as you imagine them to exist and none of them have a seperate existence from what you imagine.

The implication there being that you can imagine things outside of your consciousness.

If you actually cared about people not misinterpreting you, then it would be very easy for you to clear up the confusion: Is it the case that things can exist outside of your consciousness or not or in other words specifically related to the video are there Gods that can exist without you imagining them? If the answer is no, then that whole thing in that infinity of Gods video was very misleading in how you framed it and how you walked people through your awakening; if the answer is yes, then the video has more gravity and less misleading; if the answer is "I dont know,because im epistemically limited to answer that qeustion, how would I know?" then that leaves the question open which is fine, but at least we know what your actual stance is on the issue without you being ambigous.

Lol. You do understand right that you can find more overall criticism of the field of science and philosophy and rationality on the site I linked than what Leo managed to produce in his entire life. There is this unjustified myth in your head that you just picked up from Leo and never ever questioned and just taken for granted that there is this big consensus among philosophers across positions on metaphysics, science, rationality, epistemology etc.

Whats the response to the questions I asked you ? You are using predicates in your question, that are vague and thats not how you compare theses in metaphysics and epistemology. Here is one thing I can tell you most academics wouldnt do - they wouldnt give internally incoherent statements like what Leo gave in his infinity of Gods video. Yes a lot of it is responses to responses which is good, because that can give depth to the issues and that can force the authors to defend underyling assumptions and to produce supporting arguments to the given premises. Now I dont think that the circle jerk issue is any bigger than whats happening here on this forum. For you to be able to actually respond to the given argument you need to understand what the premises mean in the argument and what kind of inference is used. You need a shared vocabulary for that and you need to be trained to understand how arguments work. People on this forum would rather not study technical words and would rather pretend that a shared terminology automatically means a shared understanding , when thats clearly not the case. This forum includes a lot of ideologically driven groupthink trashing scientist and academics without any underlying substantive understanding of the views academics are holding and assuming that every scientist and philosopher is just a new atheist rationalist.

The bar isn't to be more informed than me (although I have good reason to think that when it comes to certain fields he lacks very basic level understanding) ,but in any case the bar is to be better compared to all academics combined in a given field, because thats what Leo set his bar at. Now tell me how many works do you think Leo is familiar with from here, how many he could read and understand to the point where he could tell you in his own words what the given paper is about and then tell me why do you think that he is anywhere near remotely trained in the field and justified in giving any opinion about what level of understanding academics have related to these subfields? Philosophy of Mind (113,100) Epistemology (58,300) Metaphilosophy (13,045) Metaphysics (65,333) Philosophy of Religion (85,645) Science, Logic, and Mathematics (464,142) https://philpapers.org/ Good luck with the above.

One of the biggest weakness of actualized.org goes back to the point about language and a lack of shared precise vocabulary and the lack of falsifiability ( and here im only talking about weak falsification, where the only criteria is that there can be evidence against your view, not necessarily that your view can be shown to be false). 1) When you have a bunch of vague undefined or ill-defined terms, sure you can dodge most criticisms that comes in your way because you can claim that they miss the target. However, even good faith and good critiques will almost necessarily miss and your work cant benefit from the antifragility that comes from receiving good faith, good quality critiques from multiple different perspectives and angles, because people dont know what and where the target actually is. This is why most academic arguments are much easier to undermine, because given how the arguments are structured, and given that there is a shared vocabulary the premises are easier to target and the inferences are easier to undermine - which is actually good in the sense that the easier it is to receive attacks the faster you can adjust your inferences and premises. 2) Some of your criticisms that you apply to science is applicable to your work as well, given how it is structured. Your work isn't really receptive to paradigm change and you rely on needing to provide ad-hoc reasoning to account for the data that goes against your work. You tell others to test the things you say, but when someone does that and ends up with a different conclusion than you, from that you never ever infer that something is wrong with your conclusions and you always only infer that something was wrong with the person or with their method. You are completely paradigm locked there, because there isn't any test that can be done in principle that would undermine your conclusions, because you can infinitely use ad-hoc reasoning to maintain your paradigm. ------------------ Maybe there are arguments that can be given why even weak falsifiability isn't a good approach or why it is a limited approach, but in that context it becomes unclear how your work is superior to any other work who uses the exact same methodology and reasoning as you and ends up with different conclusions than you. Like you can always ask this question "Why cant that other guy mirror your justification and response and with that justify his own unique conclusion"? I wish

One other point - next time I think you should clarify if your really want to bring up love, that you are not talking about action-guiding normative type of morality, you are talking about reality descriptively.

I disagree, again even after consuming 100s of hours of your content, most people cant reproduce your views in detail that you would say that its accurate enough. They use your terminology, but each have different understanding what those terms mean. Instead of people having to learn a 100 new technical words, they learn 5 new terms where each term have a 100 different interpretation and application to it. Creating a semantic landscape isn't easier this way - in fact its harder - because the reader and or listener is forced to infer which definition is used under the exact same term at that particular application or moment.

But you dont start from a clean slate, in the sense that you assume that they are new atheist types and you start from attacking that foundation. Its also the case that I dont think you can really skip using arcane language, because you cant do philosophy with just using vague terms where each term can be interpreted a 1000 different ways. You are forced to define terms at the end of the day. The general population's culturally induced intuitions around metaphysics are so far removed from your view, that you need a lot of and careful explaning to do so that they wont misunderstand things . There is a reason why most of your close fans still not understand in a lot of cases what you are saying despite the fact that they have consumed 100s of hours of your content. If we were to run a test on your close fans where they would be forced to describe your views in detail in a non-vague manner where they would need to differentiate your view from other Idealist views, they would fail horribly, because even though they are using the exact same terms as you, each have a different understanding of what those terms mean.

That doesnt make much sense to me as a reasoning for why you dont discuss them. How does normie positions in any way at all less garbage and more worth discussing than non-normie positions?

The other big difference is that Kastrup is read up on the literature when it comes to philosophy of mind and he has arguments targeting those positions not just normie positions. The proposition set that Leo thinks all materialists and physicalists need to affirm just doesnt cut it, that only cuts it for normies who havent studied any philosophy of mind at all. There is nuance in how many possible positions can be taken there and there is nuance how many different notion are for physicalism and thats why you need to be sensitive in your arguments to those nuances (if you want to categorically rule all of them out or if you want to at least evidentially want to argue against all of those positions) and only targeting normies wont be enough for that.

Its either a contradiction or an equivocation, but he doesnt care about this and never gave any fuck about this point. He labels this as getting lost in the details and not focusing on the big picture, when in reality, he just isn't doing the bare minimum to try to communicate in a coherent and trackable way. But then he acts surprised or gets mad when you cant get his point or cant track what he is saying. "Of course you dont get it, because you havent realized the things im talking about" - Us not understanding what he is pointing at is compatible with him contradicting himself or engaging in an equivocation. Again, just follow very basic communication norms.

Its just not trivial to me how the proposition of "we can see without sense organs" being true would be more expected if God had a top-down rather than a bottom-up approach. This goes back to issues I have around fine-tuning and how the more vague you phrase the hypothesis the less clear it is what can be even be considered as evidence that can support that hypothesis. This is also why apriori approach is usually trash. We have 0 fucking clue what the probability landscape is. So we use random priors and what prior we start with always comes down to what abductive reasoning we use and that comes down to intellectual preferences so overall its just trash and I agree with Bernardo that we are just apes not having any fucking clue what we are doing.

Not tracking your inference. Lets say that mental and perceptual faculties exist before the events proposed necessary by naturalism. If that is true, would that fact be expected more under the hypothesis H1 where God does have a personhood over hypothesis H2 where God does not have a personhood? Because if the answer is no , then I dont understand what you meant in your last sentence when you said "could indicate".

Not sitting down to talk with them is compatible with what you just wrote there. You can get a better understanding of them without any talks. And getting a better understanding only relevant in certain circumstances where that additional understanding can directly change your response. And you are ignoring all the negative aspects that can come from giving a platform to dishonest actors or to your enemy. But now we are moving the goalpost from "We have a shared value structure, we should have a discussion, democracy is about understanding each other and hearing each other out" to "We have fundamentally different values, and you are my enemy. I will hear you out so that I can improve my war-tactics against you".

No its not, because you are pushing it as if there wouldn't be exceptions to it and you are pretending that if someone has instances where he/she doesn't want to use this rule - then he/she is wrong for it no matter how fucking crazy the proposition is. You are pretending that you get pushback because you are suggesting some normal casual thing - but you are not my dude. You are saying that if someone comes to you and tells you that he wants to sell your daugther to be a publicly used flashlight, you should sit down and entertain that discussion.

Yes you made it in reponse to DocWatts who brought up the nazis. You are being dishonest , lets get the context right - his point wasnt that one shouldnt have a talk with anyone who has a different opinion, his point was that if someone has fundamentally different values, then there is not just no point in having a discussion ,but it is actually damaging to entertain a discussion with someone who wants to eliminate and or take your rights away. A low conscious response is the one, where you pretend that not having a discussion with a fascist is the move that destroys democracy and not the fact that the fascist doesnt give a fuck about democracy in the firstplace and that he is engaging in a behavior thats non-democratic. Mr conscious guy - Spell out a meta-game that actually solves these issues (in a way where you dont contribute to these issues in any way and you dont escalate in any way) without pretending that letting your ass to get gaped over and over again is conscious politics.

This framing is beyond retarded and you are playing a dishonest and a stupid game. You make it seem like not wanting to have a talk when there is a fundamental value disagreement is what causes war, and not the fact that the other guy has fundamentally different values and that he acts on those values. You would be the guy who would say that the reason why we are at war is because a child (who got raped) wasn't willing to sit down and have a debate about why child rape is good with a serial child rapist. Diplomacy ended at the time when the child rapist decided to rape the child, and not at the time when the raped child wasn't willing to have a talk with the child rapist.