zurew

Yes it is - from an epistemic standpoint it sure is. the same exact self-referentiality is taking place (therefore you are making an innate assumption that you take for granted). Not all, and from their pov they can claim that they are more conscious compared to you just the same way as you claim that you are the most conscious on earth. ... problem of relying on self-referentiality. If asking questions that you have no answer for is being dense - then sure Im dense. You try to dodge a very straightforward acknowledgment, because its more emotionally appealing to everyone and to you if you can claim something with 100% confidence. Sure you can claim it to be true with 100% confidence, but you having 100% confidence in it won't make it automatically true. A lot of people claim things with 100% confidence and they are wrong all the time. I already listed a set of things that you take for granted and you have no way of getting around them, you just assume them to be true and then somehow claim that what you claim is 100% true without any doubt whatsoever. And who cares whether something worth anything or not? Don't we aim for absolute truth here? If the absolute truth is some valueless depressing thing ,then we should be able to stomach that. "there would be no point in awakening if it didn't guarantee truth." "If it could be wrong it wouldn't be worth anything." - and there lies you guys biggest bias and fear - you want it so badly to be 100% guaranteedly true ,because the minute you acknowledge that there is any slight possible doubt about it, the whole thing and the value of your work collapses (the very same argument is used here that you use against atheists and other fundamentalists Leo).

Probably there are ways to question my own existence, but even if thats not the case - making metaphysical claims will be different than making a claim about my existence, because I have to make more assumptions in order to make that metaphysical claim. If you guys acknowledge that you guys are participating in the same self verifying epistemology (as any fundamentalist) and making certain assumptions in order to make your metaphysical claims about reality, then Im good , but in that case you guys should have some epistemic humility as well, because by the nature of you making some assumptions - you open up yourself to the possibility of being wrong. All I care about here is an acknowledgement to the possibility of being wrong. Some assumptions that you take for granted: You are not deluded You are capable of having knowledge about the fundamental nature of yourself and about the fundamental nature of reality That your memory about your awakening is correct and it actually happened That there is such a thing as an awakening and you didn't just imagine or tripped the whole thing That you having the inability to conceive of or to perceive anything outside of your consciousness is a definitive proof that there is no possibility that there is anything outside of your consciousness That reality is made of one fundamental thing rather than multiple different kind of things that cannot be reduced to each other.

Because its avoiding the hard problem with epistemology and begs the question. To me an answer to the question of "How do you know/how can you know about the nature of reality" seems to be necessary, to answer the question of "What is the nature of reality". Starting with 'What is the nature of reality' entails the assumption that you know what process/method to use to answer the question. The notion of claiming that 'this x thing is beyond worldviews' is just begging the question and makes it so that you can avoid giving an answer 'how do you know that this x thing is beyond worldviews'. You can replace your question with "Why are you confusing x with worldviews?" and create examples like - Why are you confusing the christian religion with worldviews? - Why are you confusing atheism with worldviews?

If your ultimate goal here is to show how my answer will come to the same epistemic problems that I wrote about above, then sure we can skip ahead, because I agree . But I acknowledge these epistemic problems hence why I would suggest that it is more reasonable to have some epistemic humility compared to 100% absolute confidence in a claim. Sure you can further question it by asking , but why do you care about how reasonable or unreasonable it is? But at that point I can literally create any system or worldview whatsoever and you conceding your ability to reject them on any ground - hence an infinite number of worldviews will stay on the table to choose from. The point you accept circular reasoning is the point where I can create an infinite number of other worldviews and use the same logic that you use to defend them. Fundamentalists use the same kind of logic that you use to preserve and to arrive their own conclusions. "doubt on this fundamental point is a self-deception, therefore my worldview is true " ............................................... Seems like you are suggesting that questioning and logic is too limited , but in that case - why do you talk about epistemology and about questioning things?

Sounds epistemically just as self referential and circular as any other explanation for any other worldview. Thats not to say that its not true, but epistemically it has the same fundamental problems as any other worldview. I think you would have to concede the notion that 'its reasonable to be 100% confident'. Saying "Im the most confident in this kind of metaphysics , because this makes the most sense to me for these x reasons" is different from claiming "im 100% sure that Im not wrong". Sure it will come down less badass and attractive to others, but it will come down much more reasonable.

Sounds like a 100. So the next question is this: epistemically speaking ,how can you make 100% sure that you are not deluding yourself, without already assuming that your conclusion is true?

For example that reality is a dream.

Leo on a 1-100 scale how confident you are, that you are not wrong about metaphysics?

No: "Its only a problem if its done to the guys we like". Imagine if we would use the same brainrot conspiratorial thinking to make Russel guilty:

If its your partner, then you can have a one time extensive conversation with her (especially if you two are into cnc) , where you make it extremely clear what word or act she can do that will clearly signal, that you should stop what you are doing. If its not your partner , then you shouldn't push after a no, because its just too risky and too much downside.

Thats not an answer to my question though. I asked how do you know that verbally asking for her consent is a high likely or a necessary turnoff and you replied with sometimes they say "no" when in reality they don't really mean no. Also, again why risk it? The downside is you not having sex, but the cons are so much worse. You can talk about cnc (Consensual Non-consent) type of fetish, but in that case you have to talk with your partner beforehand whether she is into it or not - you don't go steam ahead assuming it, without her consent.

Thats true that society expects men to take initiative, but that does not mean, that you shouldn't go out of your way to make sure there is a clear consent , especially in cases where you want to try out new ways of having sex. How do you know that it is a turn off for women? - How can you rule out cases , where she didn't want to fuck you in the firstplace regardless of you asking your question to her? Also even if we take it for granted that it could be a turnoff for women, why would you try to risk it - Just to have sex one time? The potential cons for both parties are huge.

Your framing of 'going too masculine mode' sounds like trying to get away with a sexual act without get your partner's consent. Its like saying "as long as she doesn't say no, I can try out all my fetishes and fantasies on her and I don't need to ask beforehand whether she is okay with it or not" Why would you try to go hard on your partner without talking about beforehand (and actually getting her consent) if she is okay with it or not?

You can give an answer to those questions and you still won't know whether he actually did rape or not. I agree it can be useful if you want to do further investigation, but none of those questions are deal breakers alone or combined. The implication that I got from Tanz wasn't that he was asking for information to collect the facts, it was that he was asking those questions as a rhetorical move to demonstrate that it is unlikely that Russel committed the rape.

None of these are relevant questions , because none of these are mutually exclusive with him raping a women. 1) Just because it takes x amount times to charge someone from that doesn't logically follows that he is innocent. 2) Just because someone is in a relationship with someone else, that doesn't mean that the partner cannot be raped by the other partner. All of these discussions would be much more productive if you guys would stick to the facts of a given specific issue rather than speak about generalities that might or might not be applicable to this specific case.

It could be worse than that - for example less people will sign deals with youtube, because they know that they can lose their career really fast just for an accusation. You can lose potential youtube stars because of that, and it doesn't seem like a good business model to me. Also youtube's automatic action of demonetizing you after an accusation - just makes the narrative of you actually being guilty much stronger, so why would any famous person ever risk getting into a business deal like that (that can potentially fuck up their whole image)?

Yeah I agree. I just felt the phrase "all" was a little strong, but yeah I get your main point, sorry for being nit-picky.

Not necessarily. Depending on what kind of family you have and what kind of people you are surrounded with (school or work or friends etc) you can get bullied out from being trans (by social push) , the same way you can get bullied into being trans by social push. Basically in short , you can have external reasons for your detransition.

what do you mean by "deconstructing and reconfiguration of the theoretical aspects of science"? Do you mean something like focusing hardcore on empirically verifying everything(each claim separately) and toning down certain parts of science ,where you almost only use logic to reach a conclusion? Do you have any specific change in mind that could change this? Im not asking in terms of social or political stucture change; Im asking specifically how could a random scientist implement and integrate things in to their work so that the 'siloing of research' becomes a non-existent problem or at the very least becomes a lot better than it is now? Sure. As I have suggested before, imo one root problem when it comes to social sciences is that a lot of data is not reliable - mostly you have to to ask questions to people and gather information that way ( so there is a lot information reduction by them trying to introspect and them trying to narrate their 1st person pov/experience/feelings to you) Do you have any specific epistemology or any other idea that could improve the collection of and the quality of data in social sciences?

Leo(I cannot tag you) let me clear up some things,because we agree on things you might think we don't agree on (the reason for that might be that you misread somethings or might be because I phrased myself badly or might be the combination of the two). Lets start with this: every criticism that I wrote should be evaluated in the context of science and not in the context of spirituality. So things we agree on: 1) Any method could be used to generate insights: I am not opposed to this at all, my criticism was specifically targeting insights that cannot be falsified or verified from third person pov. In fact, if you or anyone can build a method that can generate a fuckload amount of insights that could be validated or falsified from third person pov - I am all for it and I would be interested to hear about it, especially if you have some fine-tuned method optimized for generating insight specifically for science . Again , we agree. My criticism was specifically targeting insights that cannot be falsified or verified from third person pov. 2) You can use verficiation and falsification as well: I didn't say that you can't/shouldn't use verification, I was making a specific critique about instances where its impossible to falsify things from third person pov . Making the criticism that 'its bad science if your epistemic method make it impossible to falsify things from third person pov' is different from saying that 'you should only do falsification'. 3) We can broaden the definition of doing science: We agree on this as well. So Im totally okay for example with calling 'snorting 5meo to generate insights that could be verified or falsified from third person pov' doing science, and of course you can replace snorting 5meo with any method , I don't really care in the sense , that Im not attached to any kind of method. The goal here is to do the method or the collection of methods/practices that are the best for generating insight for science. John Vervaeke has some good things to say on this topic. He argued in the context of wisdom, but his argument can be applied more broadly than that. He said that (im going to use your words) doing consciousness work can break the seemingly fixed structure / box that you think in and not just that, but doing consciousness work will make certain things and certain connections between things more salient that you weren't able to see before. More specificially there are practices that can help you with breaking up your salience network (things that are salient to you) and there are other practices that can help you with reorganizing your salience network so that you can actually see things and connections between things that you haven't seen before in a reorganized way. I paraphrased a lof of things about Vervaeke's work there - he has a lot better way of conveying it and explaining it and he has a specific model and that model is very good at succinctly conveying this concept. 4) Most scientist are closed minded and the current way of thinking about whats and whats not possible is too limited in the field science: If that was the main point that you wanted to demonstrate (when you argued for a different metaphysics), then sure I can agree and could see how adopting a different kind of metaphysics could potentially be helpful with opening up the scope that scientists will dare to think in and opening up the scope, that they will dare to explore. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So after clearing up what we actually meant about things , I could only think of one last thing that we disagree on: that I would separate science from spirituality and you wouldn't. I would argue that science should be uphold to a different standard than spiritual work(so the verification and falsification and demonstration of facts should be done from third person pov ), because in my view science is more about how the world works and less about what the world is. Opposite to that spiritual and philosophical work is more about exploring the nature of things and seeing the biggest picture possible. I wouldn't limit spirituality and philosophy to the same epistemic standard as what I limit science to. The reason for that is because they are aiming for different things. Now that being said, Im not suggesting at all, that there isn't any set of things that could be both attached to science and spirituality (for example both try to explore whats true) , but still main thing im suggesting here is that the separation between the two is useful. Science is more about being practical and exploring what works. Philosophy and spirituality is more about going as abstract as possible and exploring the nature and limitations of things.

Leo , I appreciate the lengthy and thoughtful response. What you are describing there with the snorting of 5meO DMT is about doing spirituality, but you are not describing doing science. Science (as I understand it) either relies on falsifying things in the relative world (third person pov) or using logic to arrive at conclusions that may or may not be empirically falsified in the future . If your claims / insights can only be falsified and grounded in a 1st person pov, then I think there will very serious epistemic problems or limitations with your way of doing your discovery. (If your claims can be falsified in the relative world [from third person pov] , or can be arrived at by logic, then you can ignore my list below ,because that criticism is not applicable in that case) 1)We cannot directly access your 1st person experience: We cannot directly access the contents of your mind. So when it comes to your discovery, I can't do anything with it and I cannot really falsify it. You would say here : nonono - you can dummy - just follow my methods. Yeah sure, but the problem is that at max I can first build some conceptual framework about your insight and then use that as a reference point for later when I gain an insight about something. But obviously, that conceptual image (that I built from your limited explanation of something complex, using limited language and because I will filter it through my biases and my limited understanding) it will be distorted as fuck. So after using your method and maybe gaining an insight; after that I might be able to convince or bullshit myself that my discovery is the exact same as yours, but I have no way of truly knowing whether your and my insights are the same thing or not. 2) Your method is actually unfalsifiable: So I don't want to come off pedantic, but the distinction between verification and falsification is really important here. My understanding is that something is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test or in other words: given your claim, Its not impossible for me to show that the opposite is the case. If there is no way of demonstrating (implying third person pov) that the opposite is the case, then your insight/hypothesis will always stay on the table as a possibly true candidate forever. If you claim thats not the case, then my question would be this: There is person A and person B. Both of them used your method but their conclusions are contradictory. Person A says that x is the case , Person B says that the negation of x is the case. How do you ground this problem in a way, where it can be reliably decided whether person A or Person B is right. 3) Your method is epistemically very unreliable: I have no way of knowing whether you or a person is lying to me or deluded about their insights or not. You could claim that you acquired an insight and then claim forever that "You should try harder" or "you are not following my methods to the tee" or "You should give it more time", but at the end of the day I couldn't not tell whether I am doing something wrong or a person just lied to me about their insight. So from the first criticism directly follows the second one and from the second one directly follows the third one. With what epistemic process can you properly differentiate between those realities? When I say proper - I am saying conceptually distinguishing the layers between those realities. Just for clarity: Conceptual distinguishing doesn't necessarily imply different metaphysics (I can use the same type of blocks to build completely different things), but its a must to make sense of things. So, the solution that you suggests here ( if I didn't misunderstand you) is essentially saying: scientist should use a different kind of reductionist metaphysics ( switching from the idea that 'everything could be reduced to some material thing' to reducing everything to consciousness). My problem with that is , that - that doesn't address the main problems in science, it only blurs the lines between things, but doesn't tell you: How to organize things, How things and in what way are things interconnected Whats the relationship between things How to properly differentiate between things (given you example above "how to differentiate between non-ordinary, non-material realities within consciousness") How to make sense of things How to measure things What things have causal power ..... So the hard scientific questions, that would provide progress are not touched/moved at all. You can only answer one thing "what things are made of or what things are?". You being able to provide an answer to that question is only a philosophical/spiritual progress ( in my view), but not a scientific one. Saying "everything is imaginary/ everything is consciousness" doesn't give you any explanatory power for any scientific problem. For what its worth you could change the word imaginary to any other word and it would make no effect on scientific progress at all. Because now that you reduced reality to that one thing, now you still have essentially the same amount of hard scientific work to do(look at my bullet point list above) as before.

Do you guys know about any high quality philosophy sources? I will list a few from my own list , feel free to provide yours. https://www.youtube.com/@Friction/videos https://www.youtube.com/@MajestyofReason https://www.youtube.com/@KaneB

Thank you ?!

That kind of argument could be used to any field of science and I am skeptical that you would use this reason in all cases. So for example, in the case of vaccines, would you be willing to say you know better which vaccine is bad or good compared to what the consensus says, just because the social gathering is not applied to you? You know this very well , because you have made a ton of different kind of videos on this topic , that your mind is subjected to a lot of distortions and biases as well and if no one holds you accountable then you won't really see whats the issue with your approach/method. Now when it comes to institutions and psychologist they at least have the training and methods to keep each other accountable and to ground their things in stats and in numbers. Now given that you probably don't have any training in psychology (how to contextualize stats and how to make sense of the research on this subject) why do you think that you have an upper hand on what the current research shows, given that you also have your own biases yourself and given that your knowledge about the subject is much more limited compared to the combination of people's knowledge in a given field? Disagree. I would be surprised if you would have the capability to use your consciousness in a way where you would make some breakthrough in a given field, that you are only studying in a layman way (outside of philosophy) . especially because you would have to ground that insight in a tangible way and you would have to connect it to our current knowledge or at the very least you would have to be able to show the path how you get to the conclusion. I would be surprised if you could ground any of your intuitions or insights about a subject anywhere near as rigorously as scientists can. Or worse - if you can't ground your insights in any way, then the next problem is that in those cases we arent talking about critical thinking anymore, we are only talking about big logical jumps or about jumping to and trusting your intuitions. Now you could claim that logic is limited , but abandoning logic means abandoning critical thinking and I don't know if we would want to abandon critical thinking when it comes to science, but if you can make a case for it , go ahead. Grounding is important ,because that is what makes it so that your claim or knowledge can be falsified. You could claim here that the very notion of falsification is limited - and thats fine - but in that case how would you know if the insight that you gathered is true or not (obviously in the context of science - so we are talking about the relative world)? They are not making any metaphysical claim, they are making claims about the 'relative world' as you would say it. How is the knowledge of you knowing that science is imaginary , would be relevant in any way making progress in the "relative world"? Can you give me an example that would demonstrate this?

Yes. Do you think what I wrote is not applicable to this thread or what is the reason for your question?