zurew

Thats not really that big of a dunk. "you would like to live in the best society possible ? dude you are just biased!"

@Schizophonia So TLDR: you have nothing tangible, other than a handful of testimonials. "Don't bother looking at the studies dude, just look for people that are agreeing with you on the subject, and that way you can be sure and confident that you are right (btw guys, I am not biased, and I am not ideogically driven, even though most of my posts only consist of bashing other diets, rather than actually making a strong case for why the carnivore diet is the best)" No one said that anyone needs to obey anyone, and we are not really talking about one authority on a subject that you need to believe blindly (although, unironically, so far your case only consist of one person, who is undeniably biased on this topic). What a reasonable person would do, is to look for the overall body of evidence, what we have on a certain topic, and not jump to conclusions immediatelly and not making strong and confident claims about things that are not verified yet. Sorry, that im not convinced by you showing one person, who is clearly a marketer of this topic. The title of this thread and your posts overall speaks volumes on what kind of epistemic process you have. You think that having a handful of testimonials is a strong enough evidence for you to completely change your diet and to even tell others that they should follow you. You seem to be very biased and unironically very ideologically driven (its blatantly obvious from your first post, where most of your posts only consis of bashing other diets rather than actually building a strong case for the carnivore diet.

You have one person (who is undeniably biased, because he built his career and a whole identity on being carnivore), but what actual long term studies you have, that would actually justify your high confidence on this topic?

The future of gaming will be insane

I think you two view the concept of 'relationship/connection' in the context of learning in a different way. Relationship/connection between two or more things can be viewed and treated in different ways depending on the problem or the situation or the categorization. 1) We can view it as a qualitatively different thing from the parts (sometimes we can view it as an emergent thing from the parts); 2)and other times it can be viewed as just a separate part on its own. I think yours is closer to the first one, and his is closer to the second one.

Im just fucking around, I agree with most of your points on learning, I think you two guys just have different definitions of "making distinctions".

He tried to make one more distinction (separating the concept of 'relationship between things' from making distinctions) and you stopped him from doing it (therefore, unironically you didn't participate in making further distinctions).

https://www.futuretools.io/

He is right tho. If this is a cultural thing it should be really easy to find at least a few examples showing that it is a normal thing there. On the other hand, the opposite could also be proven by trying to find further evidence about the Lama's pedophilic tendencies. If he actually is a pedo, then there is probably more evidence to find.

Leo has to do a crash course on epistemology, because a lot of people on this forum has a really poor understanding of it and usage of it. Do you think our ancestors lived longer than us nowadays? Since when nutrition science is limited to food corporations?

So what is your way of knowing? Watching random youtube videos that are agreeing with you?

@Breakingthewall In that case it doesn't matter how I get to know something because everything is in my direct experience. If I conceptualize about enlightenment thats the same as enlightenment(because both are and happening in my direct experience, and I can't escape my direct experience ) if I imagine riding a bike thats the exact same as actually taking action and riding a bike. Using your thoughtprocess all of those has to have the same level of realness or if not, then what is the process that is used to realize/arrive at Truth/real? Using your own argument 'everything is in your direct experience including concepts', but in the post above, you clearly make a difference between real and concept, so it seems that 'direct experience' has nothing to do with arriving at real/Truth, because the way you previously defined it, everything is inside your direct experience, so what is the requirement or what epistemic process is used to realize that something is more real/True?

*nothing else exists in your direct experience. Again your ability to check whether something exists or not is limited to your direct experience, but your direct experience is also limited. (I know from your pov you can't step out from your pov/frame but just because you can't do something , or detect something that doesn't mean that that does not exists) No these are fundamentally different ways of knowing something. Direct experience won't tell you about a lot of things and there are many examples where your ability to know is not coming from direct experience , but coming from using logic and reason (especially stuff related to your survival). There are many things that you can't or haven't experienced and yet you know about those things. For example your ability to know what will kill you isn't coming from your direct experience, because you haven't experienced death yet and you haven't directly experienced all the possible ways you could die; The same goes to you ability to know what is dangerous and what is not - you haven't directly experienced getting attacked by lions and sharks and yet you still know (using logic and reason) that if you get close to them in an unprotective way, you have a high chance of getting injured or killed. There are a million other examples could be given, but the point is that these are fundementally different ways of knowing. But if you really want to say that direct experience is above everything because nothing is outside of your direct experience, in that case everything is Truth even using logic and reason and conceptualizing are all Truth because all of those things could be in your direct experience.

There are a lot more other options as well. Just because its impossible to experience anything outside of your pov, that doesn't mean that it is impossible that something can actually exist outside of your pov (you have no way of validating this). A Lack of ability to validate something doesn't make it automatically true, you have to have foundational assumptions to make it true. Imagine an insect using a same kind of epistemology and then say: "fuck, I cannot experience anything outside my own pov, and my pov is absolute, therefore nothing exist outside my pov", and now realize how limited their pov of the world is, and how much things that we have experiential access too, they have none of that, but could still claim that those things don't exist. Also its different to say that you can only experience everything from your own pov vs actually claiming that everyone's pov is your pov. In the first, you are essentially saying that you experience everything through your own pov, but in the second you make further steps and have to claim that no one has their own pov because there is only your pov. Having an epistemology, where you limit your ability to know to - your ability to experience / to something be directly in your pov - is just as if not more limited to having an epistemology where you limit your knowing ability to reasoning. Clearly both have their own limits, and it would be dishonest imo to say otherwise. You assume a few things here: 1) that your experience can actually lead to Truth 2) That thinking and or reasoning cannot lead to Truth. If you define Truth as something that can only be directly experienced, then of course your definition will automatically lead to using experience as the ultimate epistemic tool, but what if you have a wrong definition of Truth in the firstplace, and how could you possibly know for sure, that you have the right definition of Truth? The "just test it for your own self" unfortunately won't solve this deep epistemic problem and here is why: If I start with the assumption that direct experience will lead to Truth, then of course I will use direct experience to validate if my assumption is true or not (but thats a circular way of validating something, because in this case your ability to test or to check a claim's truth value is purely limited to the method of direct experience, and even if it leads to falsehood you will not detect it, because your detection ability in this case is purely limited to your direct experience and you would need a different tool to see the flaws and limitations of your method). The same problem would come, if I would say "only pure reason will lead to Truth, don't believe me guys, just use pure reason and check my claim!". Here your ability to check/test my claim is limited to the method of reasoning - so its also a circular way of validating something.

The problems regarding rights are coming from a deeper place that are rarely or almost never talked about or addressed. The fact of the matter is that, we need to reevaluate or explore in a deeper way concepts like: what does that mean to be a women vs men (regarding every aspects of our life - social interactions , medically, sexually, what it means to be a part of a certain category); how should we categorize people and based on the social interaction or problem, which category should hold more weight and why; how much of our own definitions of men and women align with reality and with our social interactions in general vs just giving reductive definitions; exploring the connection and the relationship between the subjective(how you identify / identity in general) and the objective (your physical appearance and characteristics that are measurable) from both an individualistic pov and from society's pov; in the past how did we do all those things above and how much of that is dogma and might need to be changed vs practical and valuable and sufficient enough .

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/12diapw/gpt4_week_3_chatbots_are_yesterdays_news_ai/

Yes, a lot of people are lost in the sigma/lone wolf/grind alone in the dark delusion. Being able to find the right people and then being able to collaborate with them and find people that can create a synergistic effect is really really important.

Buddy you are the one who is derailing this thread , you felt that you had to posture here and to reply to everyone even though no one asked for it.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make there.

Then I guess everything is spiritual work. Now we can trash that word to the trashbin because it doesn't convey or communicate anything anymore.

Sure you can frame it that way, but I like to convey things using different words, because if we use the word 'spiritual' and 'philosophical' for everything ,then those words will eventually lose their meaning and communicative ability.

Forget about philosophy and about spiritual work for a while, and come back to it after you have healed up from your traumas or after you have gone through your nihilism. Your psychology has a really hard effect on how you view the world and what kind of philosophical framework you are more attracted to.

I can't deliver much about the specifics yet (I only have examples that I thought about only on a surface level, but not too deeply yet - so I won't waste anyone's time here with surface level arguments) I can only bring the framework for now that I believe is necessary to get to game B. My main goal was to introduce the framework and to see whats your guys thoughts on it or if you have any examples that could fit the framework or if you guys would have a problem with the framework on a logical level. I won't derail your thread any further , because this is getting off from the AI topic into a highly focused game B discussion/debate. I disagree, because it all depends on how we frame the problem and in what context(s) we are thinking in, but I won't debate this topic further(for now), because I don't want to derail this thread any further. I will probably open a topic about game B in the future or if someone else will open a game B thread , there we can get deeper into it and debate and inquire about the specifics and logistics of it.

I understand that there are systems that are better for the short term and bad or even counterproductive for the long term, however that doesn't prove that what I suggested is impossible (that something being good for the long term could be good for the shorterm as well). The examples that you brought above, only prove that certain systems that are good for the short term won't be good for the long term and not that something being good for the long term will be necessarily bad for the short term. I can bring method or system examples where I can demonstrate how something being good for the long term, could also be good for the short term as well and not just that but could be better at other short term tools as well. So lets say we have a really narrow goal: "to acquire as many wood from the forest as possible". You using a big axe will achieve you having x amount of wood in the short term and maybe 4x amount in the long term. Me inventing a new tool (chainsaw) will help me outwork you in the long term and in the short term as well. This is just one example where creating/implementing a new tool can help you achieve more things in the long and in the short term as well (with that example I proved that it is not logically impossible that something being good for long term could be not just good for the short term ,but could be even better for short term compared to other tools) - It also demonstrates that depending on the context and how we define our goals, it is not a must or a necessity or a given that we will have to sacrifice more things short term, if we want to get better at long term. The assumption that there has to be a necessary tradeoff between the long term and the short term is the main problem here. I know that me being able to prove something being logically possible is far from something being possible to be implemented or even created in the real world, but this is square 1 that we have to agree on. If we can't even agree that it is a logical possiblity, then we can't move forward to the next part of the discussion, where we get into the problems of real world implementation and actual examples of the concept.