zurew

Yeah its like saying that the finger is your whole hand (sticking to that metaphor) One finger is one expression that is connected to your hand, but its not your hand. Its another case where people are relying on sloppy language to sell their points.

Did he provide an argument that establish that that is a true dichotomy ( that those are the only two options and those two exhaust the possibility space ) ?

They wont be able to give you arguments that would solve the underdetermination problem. Most of the things they say are comaptible with multiple things not just with Absolute Solipsism and sometimes they just assert that those things are only compatible with that kind of solipsism without providing a non question-begging argument for it. Btw this is one reason why I ranted earlier and this is what I meant about being dogmatic (they cant justify why they choose Absolute solipsism over any other metaphysical thesis , but at the same time they dont take an agnostic position on it [they dont leave the door open for any other mataphysical thesis] and they just assert that they are right or they give you a question-begging argument. And of course they will ignore all the limitations that comes with the view.

There it just seems that you are using the term 'finite' in a different way than how I use it. Under how I use the term Gandalf would be a finite being (even though he can use magic) As long as you agree that its not logically impossible (to entertain a scenario or a world where a being can have access to multiple povs and can switch between povs), im fine with that.

Okay so you argued against solipsism and you didn't try to defend solipsism. I think I didn't track what you wanted to do earlier. And yeah - one reason why accessing other minds isn't expected under non-solipsistic views , is what you outlined there (about issues around identity).

Depending on what you mean by "disrupting the duality of this world" - that just seems straight up false. For example, I see no obvious contradiction in a world where only your mind exist, but you are a limited being and you were created by a non-mind or you are eternal (you were not created at all) but at the same time limited in other ways , so you are not all powerful, but you happen to be in a world that has certain limitations. I also see no obivous contradiction in a zombie world , where only you have a mind, but other people are philosophical zombies (they dont have a mind, but they still act and seem as if they would) and you could access their pov using your mind , but you are still a limited finite being and you are not them, you just have an access to their pov. So starting with the premise that solipsism is true, the issue about you not having access to other povs doesn't seem to be logically necessary at all. It seems to me, that many versions of solipsism is compatible with having access to other povs - so the fact of "we don't have access to other peoples minds" isn't expected under solipsism at all or isn't expected any more than under non-solipsistic views.

No it wasnt a reply specifically to you ( I havent even read the part you are referencing there) , it was an overall reply to the move Leo and some people who take Leo's view to be true make. So rather than them admitting the issues and limitations of the view, they relabel it as if it would be something positive or at least something non-negative.

This is what Im talking about when a lot of terms that are used here are completely meaningless, but they are used to sound profound - "deeper" doesnt mean anything substantially other than "im more right than you, and you have yet to realize the truth im talking about". None of this is philosophy, this is just a jerk-off session about who can sound more profound and at the same time communicate nothing of substance. You know the high IQ move? Take a dogmatic position on metaphysics, once it is questioned and once problems are outlined about it - take all those problems put the label "feature not a bug" on them and everything is solved.

So would the idea be that there is a unidirectional causation? Also with regards your experiments - when it comes to placing specific numbers - have you noticed some patterns? Like If you place number 5 in reality then you see number 10 on the astral plane every case or there seems to be no patterns and it seems random (from placing a specfic number in reality you cant predict what kind of number you will see on the astral plane) Because if there are certain patterns, then you could in theory gain information about the real world from deducing and using the info that you find/see on the astral plane (assuming a whole lot of things about the mechanisms of the astral world - like it has a consistent way how it works and the "laws" there doesn't randomly change).

Mike probably thinks chatgpt is like David or close to David's level. Warning: Spoilers (Prometheus & Alien Covenant)

I dont have firm models or very strong positions on almost anything (Especially not on metaphysics - but I lean towards Idealism). I take most of the talks about metaphysics to be gibberish , I think most of the phrases like "grounding" and "fundamental" , "real" and "exist" and such arent precise enough, because they seem to mean different things to different people. I still have very much a lot of reading and thinking and spiritual practicing to do. But I think that I diverge from Leo on almost every position he has when it comes to philosophy - maybe except morals - there I am an antirealist as well, but yeah, I cant even think of another example right now where we would align. I generally have most problem with Leo's epistemology and lack of rigor - with comitting yourself to such a burden that you cant substantiate or defend (while still not letting go of the position or changing your credence about it) and Leo does that a lot, not just with philosophy but when it comes to other subjects and fields as well. One last comment about your criticism on what-if scenarios: They are important in many cases, especially when it comes to testing claims where the claim is that something is logically necessary. My position is that we need to be sensitive to what and how much burden we take on ourselves, when we make a claim and I have no issue with trying to match my skepticism to the level of burden that a claim entails.

Its brain-rot. I am super frustrated by the dude, because he is pushing accelerationism with respect to AI and makes very bad arguments for it. Dude has one sentimental convo with AI and all of a suden projects all sorts of human traits on it.(Mike , chatgpt is not going to fuck you bro) Dude havent even attempted to look into philosophy of mind for one second , but he is also 100% confident that our minds can be uploaded in the cloud. "You are just having religious feelings" - what are we talking about there, Mike? The fact that the way you deal with your cognitive dissonance and the complete uncertainty of the future and with the dangers of life is by treating AI as an all powerful ,all good God who will solve all of our problems and can guide us to a better life? Its time-stamped specifically related to mind-uploading and AI having consciousness. The relevant part is 1:09:00 - 1:25:00 Like do we think Mike has ever attempted to look into the issues that brought up there or would have any chance to respond to any of that? Of course not, its just some overconfident bullshit that comes from thinking that having the opinion that AI engineers have is sufficient - at the end of the day they are the experts on the topic ,right? No, definitely not when it comes to consciousness and all sorts of philosophical ways how consciousness can be cashed out and made sense of

Its not about my character or math, its suppossed to be a metaphor about the subtance of arguments in general. How profound and deep they sound and how much they promise before clarity and after clarity is applied its revealed that beneath they were an assembled mess all along hidden behind big words.

Just for the memes btw. This is what I see before clarity is applied and after (glasses on) clarity is applied to an argument here:

Sure lets move on, I derailed this thread pretty well, again @DocWatts sorry for that.

Whatever Im asking for is not that. But whatever happens on this forum is 99% gibberation and almost no one can even spell out the inference that they are making. Again this over reliance on ambigous language is what makes philosophy nothing more than an uninteresting language game, where the substance of the claims you are making is almost nothing.

@integral You are lost and not tracking the conversation. The point is not to play the skeptic game, the point is to hold your feet to the fire with respect to the gravity of the claims you are making. If you want to make the claim that its impossible for you to be wrong , then let me see you establish and defend that claim and let me not see you dance around and let me not see you answer my questions with questions and with question-begging arguments. If claims are made where you are open to the possibility of being wrong - I dont use this level of skeptcisism and this level of requirement for those claims.

Okay, now we are going to get very linear, and clear on definitions and im not going to entertain you giving a question as an answer to my questions, and im not going to accept question-begging arguments - because anyone can do that its very easy - Christians can do that as well. This reliance on question-begging arguments and ambiguity in langauge and answering questions with questions does 99.999% of the work to all of you, im sorry, none of this is profound or interesting. You are jumping between infinite and infinity - what is the exact definition that you want to go with? Lets stick to the term 'infinity' and lets define it and then let me see you provide a non-question begging argument that establish how infinity is logically necessary if you still want to go with that claim.

This is another point that I would need an answer for. How do you rule out scearios where not all knowing entities creating things?

An unconscious robot or a book can contain all true facts. Me having a perspective only provides me certain things, but when it comes to knowing facts about myself - I am pretty fking limited (even though I have my own perspective) And when it comes to true propositions - from all the thing you guys have talked about - even in God mode none of you know all true propositions, you have a completely different knowledge.

Do you have a defense for the claim, that knowledge requires perspective? Also, do you have a defense for the claim that "all things are true because they exist"? I can see multiple contentious point built in your statement, so I will ask for a supporting argument for each: Whats the argument for the claim that everything must necessarily be God? Whats the argument that the term 'everything' refers to infinity and not to anything less than infinity? That alone seems to lead to a contradiction (God is all knowing and at the same time he is self-deceived) - so that alone would be a big problem for your view, but aside from that , your answer doesn't reply to the problem (because your answer presuppose that his nature is infinity and that he is self-deceived about by thinking he is not infinity - but thats exactly whats in question) The question is about reversed scenarios - how do you rule out the scenarios , where God's real nature isn't infinity, and he isn't all knowing at all, and the only reason why he thinks that he is infinity and that he is all-knowing is because he is self-deceived about all those things?

Like - how do you rule out scenarios where God is right about everything except a few propositions? And how do you respond to cartesian scenarios in general (all you have is your mind and there is no outside world or anything or anyone outisde you that you could use to check the validity of beliefs that you have about the content of your self and about your mind). Btw given that you invoked and defined falsifiability - I take cartesian scenarios to be unfalsifiable. It seems that whatever reasoning you will provide will all be compatible with being a brain in a vat or with being in a simulation and having a bunch of false beliefs about yourself and about the world.

I don't know how you can establish in principle that something is unfalsifiable - I know how to establish that something is logically necessary. Yeah sure, if unfalsifiability is just something absolutely true and absolutely true just means that 'it cannot be proven untrue under any circumstances' sure that seems intelligible to me, but thats just seems to be a claim about the limits of epistemology (what can and cannot be proven) and thats different from saying that that something cannot be false (Because that would be a logical necessity claim). Why would I think that the Universe arose at all? Like why shouldn't I think that the Universe itself is eternal? You use the term "logical necessity" with a completely different meaning than how it is used, which is fine, but the implications that will come from putting that label on something (using your meaning) will be completely different. Your use of 'finite' is also unique, because by that you just mean something that is not infinity. Most people would probably agree that if something has at least one quality that is infinite , that thing wouldn't be categorized as finite anymore. But im not sure what you grant there - do you grant that if it is a void (that is absent from many qualities compared to infinity, but it has at least a few dimensions to it that is infinite (timelessness and the space it occupies is infinite) - then thats good enough for logical necessity (under how you use that term?) I can outline a path you can take starting with establishing point 1 and then after you succeed in that, we can go to point 2 and then after that go to point 3: 1) I reject the idea that you need to have infinite perspective in order to know all things. By knowing all things I just mean knowing all true propositions. Why would perspective taking be required in order to be in possession of all true propositions? 2) I grant that you need to have infinite perspectives in order to know all things, but I reject that you need to be infinity in order to have all perspectives. From the start I will have issues with you proposing that a non-entity (object) can have and take perspectives. 3) I grant that you need to be infinity in order to have infinite perspectives, and I grant that to know all things you would need to have infinite perspectives, but at the end of the day thats all irrelevant: Because it doesn't establish that Christianity or any other views are impossible, it would just mean that if any of those views were true , they couldnt establish using their own epistemic toolset that they are true with 100% certainty. The entity only needs to know 2 (or a finite amount) of true propositions and not infinitely many - 1 about metaphysics and 1 about epistemology. And assuming that you manage to establish and respond to all of the above - I will still have issues with certainty when it comes to the idea that God cannot be deceived or wrong about anything especially related to how he knows and how much he knows. Like how does God know that he is all-knowing, how does God know that he cannot be deceived, How does God know that he is infinity etc.

I dont understand this "unfalsifiability" claim - is that just used as "logical necessity"? The other part thats unclear to me is why would we accept the claim that infinity is logically necessary? I suspect there is also a confusion around proofs - thinking that something being infinite cant be verified because you would need to go through infinite things - but thats a mistake, because no one is proposing brute force, there are methods by which you can make claims about infinites . So if thats the angle that fails just on that ground. --- The whole hypothetical stipulates that the entity is all knowing which means it knows all truths, which means that it cant be wrong. Yeah and christian presups claim that only the christian god is unfalsifiable.

Yeah - if you pressupose infinity to be absolutely true then sure, the issue comes when you question the 'absolutely true' part with respect to infinity and you open up the door to be wrong about infinity being logically necessary. Your whole system suddenly completely falls apart. Your whole view is dependent on you reframing your view as not a view so that its not subject to the things worldviews are subject to. But this move can be done by the christian presups as well - they reframe their view as 'absolutely true' and then they are not subject to any questioning anymore - boom all philosophy done.