zurew

@Bobby_2021 I think there is a slight miscommunication here.I use the term 'belief' the same way people use it in philosophy circles (attitude or stance towards a proposition). This is important because this is different from a knowledge claim. (knowledge is used here as 'justified true belief') For example taking your math example - someone can believe that 2+3 = 10 but thats different from them saying that 2+3 is actually 10. I can believe in things without any proper justification. Well, have you read about the problem of induction?

Yeah and even more specifically semantics. I want to dive into semantics, because its interesting and can be really valuable regardless of what you do. Anything that improves your ability to express yourself or to understand others and the world better is very valuable imo.

Both of those claims are false. 1) You can be agnostic about things even after you "computed" them or in other words, even after you have deeply investigated them - its just happens to be the case , that neither side were more compelling or persuasive from your pov,compared to the other. Or it happens to be the case, that you haven't yet found the answer that would be required to take a position on something - but that doesn't mean,that you are not interested in finding out that truth or answer; it just means you haven't found it yet. 2)This ties back to point 1. Just because you haven't taken a position regarding a proposition ,from that doesn't follow that you don't value finding out the truth value of that proposition.

No. You can be agnostic about things. That just means you haven't formed an opinion on the matter and it doesn't mean the negation of something. In other words it means "I don't have a belief about x". - notice , that this way you don't make any explicit or implicit positive or negative claims about the subject matter , you only make a claim about the current status of that specific belief .

In that case, I will pick your brain for some insights about neuroscience in the future . The dual n-back stuff is interesting. I have seen some claims about it having the potential to improve fluid intelligence. Is that actually true based on your research on the subject?

Thats sounds like someone who is contemplating about quitting doing psychology. Are you contemplating about changing majors? Btw, I know this is worthless to mention(because its almost obvious), but there has to be some good philosophy of science material that at least attempts to address the replication crisis and maybe more specifically the issue, that you've brought up. Thats a very interesting insight into this problem.

Is that your video? edit: nevermind. The reason why I asked is because I misread the subscriber count and thought why would you link a video from a channel that has like 500 subscribers, but now that I checked again, its clear that it has 500K+ subscribers .

@Carl-Richard Thank you for the breakdown. I see too much people who are very easily dismissive of things without knowing anything about those things.

@Bobby_2021 The depth of your research on this topic, is impressive.

The first 7 site literally suggest 7 different numbers - its completely useless. Ranging from 10 mil to 900 mil. lmao

Actually, not just his actions , but his own current words strengthening your argument as well. He is still denying the things he did, and he still cant bite the bullet on his past actions. He is undeniably a sociopath. (its timestamped)

Another instance, where d2sage making claims that he hasn't verified yet. Why are you so confident in your claims and spend little to no time in verifying anything before you utter your statements?

"let me show everyone here , how smart I am in saying, that morality is subjective". What you don't realize, is that going with that logic and using it as a defense - there is nothing objectively wrong or bad about imprisoning Andrew Tate even if he is proven to be innocent. His logic is that the "end justify the means", which is obviously one of the worst kind of defenses in this case and if we were to test the consistency of his logic, he would either realize ,that he doesn't really believe in it, or he would come off as a completely unhinged sociopath .

whats the evidence for him donating 6 figures, let alone 7 or 8 figures?

@Carl-Richard We need your pushback here.

Your ignorance and the irony of your sentence is fascinating.

Tell them, that they should educate themselves, before they confidently utter the most surface level things about a subject they know nothing about. You should also tell them, that everything they care about is using or building from philosophy (even being obsessed about being pragmatic is a philosophical approach and foundations of science was set up by philosophers doing philosophy). Two very easy things that you can mention about philosophy is logic and morals. Both of them are big sections in philosophy and both are very important to our social and to our every day life. The most tangible and probably the most important for them would be logic, which is a core element to science ,so they should appreciate philosophy just for that alone (and then obviously a lot more things could be added why one should appreciate philosophy) that being said, regarding your relationship with your friends - if you want to keep them, and if their behaviour deeply bother you, then you should express that and make your boundaries clear about where you draw the line, and if they consistently won't respect your boundaries, then you should cut them off.

The problem (that AI will replace jobs) will eventually affect everyone, not just art, so this is an issue that worth thinking about deeply.I assume you don't just worry about money, but also about being/feeling useful. I havent thought about it deeply yet, but my surface level thoughts on this topic is this:There are 2 main things that comes to my mind regarding this "AI will replace everything" problem: 1) I havent seen or heard any good argument yet that would actually prove / demonstrate that AI will definitely replace most jobs in the next 10-20 years in a way, where there will be no value or need for any human thinking or input. There is a fuckton of speculation and a lot of built in assumption around this topic, and speculation alone is far from actually giving a good reason for something or different from actually proving something. 2) Regardless if my 1st point is true or not, I think there are unique things to us, that wont be completely replaceable. For example , just mentioning 2 from the top of my head 1) - your living experience and 2) The uniqueness and power of distributed cognition or in other words our collaboration with each other and with the machines . I can't tap into your living experience. I might be able to gather data about it in various ways, but that wont fully capture the experience itself and because you have a unique history and a unique living experience, you can provide a unique input and take on certain things and that in and of itself is valuable and makes you valuable. For the "being useful" part, the answer is unfortunately this: we have to adapt, there is no way around it. we have to let go of our attachments to certain jobs/activities and focus on either merging with AI or collaborating with AI and with each other even more, because that will create unique synergistic effects.

That girl is consistent with her brain rot posts.

???? Who claimed here that the vaccine doesn't have any side effect?? As I told you, you need to compare the effects of covid19 with the pfizer vaccine. Thats how you get a good picture about how bad or good it is.

@D2sage Next time actually try to do research and dont just read the titles that seemingly agree with you. This looks extremely bad for you. You grabbed for everything you could, without properly reading or conceptualizing anything.

@D2sage Your own linked "papers" debunks themselves . Good job, Im not surprised you didn't read them yourself ? : the analysis link in your 1. link: 2. link: This second link don't even talk about myocarditis or cardiac problems. Also this is just a preprint far from being a study, let alone being a peer-reviewed one. Regarding your 3. link . Lmao,this is not just not a study, but this is just an exceptionally dogshit article that has 0 references for their main claims. Regarding your 4. link. This is another dogshit article that has 0 references for their claim. But even if I take their claim for granted, that still doesnt establish what you want. This would only establish that there was a women who got hospitalized after getting the vaxx (no causal link demonstrated in the article btw, just making the claim, without any evidence.) - but even taken for granted - this is not a very strong case , when your original goal was to establish how the effects of the pfizer vaccine is much worse than the effects of covid19 . 5. link. Good job again, this is just an old article, that only talks about pfizer data being released, but doesnt establish your original point about myocarditis or cardiac problems. 6. link. Good job again, your own link debunked you : Tldr: your own links debunked you ; most of your links don't even talk about cardiac problems or myocarditis, therefore the overall case you presented is not just weak, but it was counter-productive for you, because most of them literally went against your conclusion and narrative.

@D2sage show a study - how the effects of pfizer is worse when it comes to myocarditis compared to the effects of covid19 (a study that compares the two) then after all that, tell us how long lasting that myocarditis is. then after all that, check the overall negative effects of covid19 and the pfizer vaccine (show a comparative study, where you can establish that the vaccine will cause overall more negative effects than the virus itself).

I don't get it how you guys can think, that pointing out that a company is making profit - is a good argument. You guys would be 10x more suspicious if a company would virtue signal and would try to give all these vaccines for free.

Areas such as? - I have seen you guys talking about IQ, but do you guys have anything that would explain how predictive or necessary high IQ (of course high IQ need to be defined here) to become a GM? So for example if there is a chess player with 120 IQ and a different one with 140 IQ is that difference significant in the context of playing chess against each other or not? - or what about player 1: with 150IQ and player2: with 170IQ? On the upper levels IQ matters more or less and how much does IQ correlate exactly with being successful in chess? Also whats your position here for the explanation for the gap? Biological differences explaining 90%? or 70% of the gap or how much? @Danioover9000 There is no problem here, I just try to elevate the standard for what it means to strongly prove a point (of course this goes both for the nurture or the nature side of the argument).