zurew

You can have an infinite number of patterns that will results in an infinite number of different results, but applying the same patterns (given a specific set of restrictions or content) the same result could be generated. So if you want new things - one can do things in an infinite number of different ways (using different patterns). But also you can use the same pattern and generate new results - if you have a system,where the rules could stay the same, but the rules could change the content in a given system in a way, where applying the same rules over and over again will generate new/different results (because you apply the same rules on a changed content) One example could be evolution. Lets say you pick an organism, apply evolution and grant an infinitely long time. The pattern (evolution) can stay the same, but as time goes on and as evolution transforms that organism, the content(organism) will constantly change, even though the same rules are applied. So 2 things to solve the problem of creation of new/novel things without randomness: 1) use more/different patterns 2) Apply the same pattern but on a different or changed content.

My understanding is that pattern = following a set of rules.

I don't see either how couldn't this be based on a certain pattern rather than based on randomness. Why couldn't you receive new/novel ideas based on a pattern rather than based on randomness? Using your words: " given certain restrictions due to the nature of your mind " - those restrictions could outline the pattern by which you will receive those ideas, so why is randomness necessary there? More specifically why cant this: " you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea" happen based on a pattern rather than based on randomness? I could rephrase my question this way: What is the contradiction in receiving new/novel ideas based on a pattern rather than based on randomness?

an endpoint (God realization) is given in the metaphysical structure of reality, but how much time it takes to get there and how you get there is random(or in other words , totally free/ unbound) . Is that roughly your position or I should reread your posts?

Multiple people have already mentioned this, but yeah: Just because you do something difficult that won't necessarily give you benefits. Doing hard stuff is used as a proxy to achieve the results or to get the benefits that you want. Don't confuse proxy with that actual thing you are looking for. You could make your life 1000x more harder right now: -You could cut your grass by hand picking each piece of grass one by one -You could make a decision that you will never use your eyes anymore and you will move everywhere with closed eyes -You could make the decision that you will never use your legs to get to your destination - you can only move by using your hands -You could make it so that you won't use your hands when you want to eat, you can only use your mouth ..... I could list an infinite number of other dumb stuff here and all of that combined would make your life 1000x harder ,but is that actually necessary? Or you could pick hard stuff mindfully, stuff that you know will actually bring the benefits you want.

@Phil King ??

Im not saying or claiming its impossible to have enlightenments or awakenings or that one shouldn't go for it - Im just suggesting epistemic humility which people here clearly lack - in other words be open to the possiblity that you can be wrong. Thats why you can see a lot of people here acting as teachers and all-knowers all the time rather than actually acknowledging the limitations to methods . A lof of people here are making a lot of assumptions but they try hard not to see those as assumptions even though they have to take them for granted. You can cut through a lot of bullshit by asking "why" and "how do you know that" on a loop, repeatedly to this people and you will see how even though epistemically similar their approaches are - a lot of their conclusions are different. A lot of guessing about other peoples developmental level (as if anyone would have some objective standard to go by - which people clearly don't have - they just go by self-referentiality [or in other words by the experience and knowledge that they think to be true]) There is clearly a lot of ego involved in all this which distorts everything very greatly. A lot of emotional attachment to certain methods, huge emotional attachment to the idea that one is more conscious compared to others, huge emotional attachment to 100% confidence in your core claims (people here need the feel of that psychological safetiness, otherwise they open themselves up to the possibility , where their whole world can fall apart) Notice what people argue about here all the time: "I have a bigger enlightenment dick than you" " I am more conscious than you" "your method is limited compared to mine" - when it comes to Leo , he is making a lot of claims about methods that he is guessing about at best, but he won't acknowledge that he is guessing - he will present it as if it would be absolutely true. So for instance, he will present the idea of doing meditation to reach his current knowledge as either laughable or structurally limited, even though he is using his limited understanding and logic to reach his conclusion (that meditation is structurally limited) and he hasn't gone through 40-50 years of intense meditation work - so he uses mental masturbation and inductive reasoning to make a definitive claim about something without verifying it himself through experience. He might say "okay, but no one can verify all the methods at that depth and length" - sure, but then don't make definitive claims about it and again have some epistemic humility and say: "To the best of my knowledge right now here is my take on this x method" but don't die on the hill with such claims. The time here anyone accepts infinite consciousness as a possibility - is the time, where constant recontextualization opens up, which will undermine your previous thoughts and knowledge about everything as you become more conscious. Leo will say: "no no it won't negate it , it will include it" - even in that case you should go with epistemic humility all the time , but there are things that contradicts the claim of " it won't negate it , it will include it". So for example, if there is a person who says God doesn't exist and then he becomes a person who says God does exist, in that case there is the negation of ' God doesn't exist' and the undermining of your previous thoughts and metaphysics going on rather than an inclusion. Or a different example could be a person switching a materialist paradigm to 'everything is consciousness' paradigm - that case there is a clear negation of the materialist paradigm going on there - you negate the idea that the materialist metaphysics is true. So those two examples clearly demonstrates not just the fact that greater consciousness will undermine your regular knowledge about things, but greater consciousness can undermine your ideas about the structure and nature of reality and yourself, therefore having a 100% confidence in your own metaphysics according to this - is not a good idea, because there is a possibility that it will be undermined in the future as you gain more consciousness. So the conclusion is that if you believe that 'you can always become more and more conscious no matter how conscious you are right now', then you also have to accept the possibility that your deepest ideas about yourself and about reality and about consciousness can be undermined later as you become more conscious compared to your previous self. So the idea of any of you having 100% certainty in your metaphysics is irrational and opens up you to be deluded.

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.