zurew

Good shit that he has at least like 4 different kind of plausible deniability moves (that btw some of you guys will bring up every time as a defense when he is cornered or when he is asked to take responsibility) so that he can dodge taking responsibility when he doesnt want to or he doesnt need to admit that what he said was false: 1) Of course I said it from the beginning that I can be full of shit 2) I will deliberately put some % of false things in my teachings (the 90-10 split) 3) The given unhinged video or post definitely wasnt an unhinged emotional outburst or just an expression of my narcisisstic superiority on my part , it was definitely either a conscious bait so that I can filter people out (because only the smart and conscious people can recognize that I always do things in a conscious deliberate manner and I never seriously fuck up) or it was just tough love so that I can help you guys awaken. 4) When it comes to smaller things, of course Its possible that I can fuck up sometimes , because Im just a little ape with human feelings and limitations just like you guys - but its also the case that im different from you guys in an indefinite number of ways: I have unique genetics for consciousness, Im the most fucking developed being in the Universe and Im definitely over all of my potential psychological issues and traumas. And again, everything that I do is deliberate and conscious 100d chess for your benefit, unless there is a fucked up outcome that I dont like, because in that case it wasnt deliberate or if it was, then it was just a regular little ape thing, because we are limited creatures. Tell me in which insane circumstance some combination of those couldnt be used , and also tell me how fast some of the suckups would categorize a different community as a cult, if they would use those kinds of defeneses for their community/forum leader.

Yeah

Thats not how I meant it. This is how I meant it: You can take teleology to mean something descriptive like "The Universe increases entropy" (here you are just describing behavior in a non-normative way) ; but you can make it normative by saying something like "The Universe was built with the purpose of increasing entropy" - in this case, it sounds like that the Universe either has a choice to do otherwise and or it is the case that the Universe can fail to live up to that built in purpose.

There is a sense in which you can interpret the term teleology in a way where what you there is true. I was using the term in a normative sense not just in a descriptive sense.

by "why the way it is and not otherwise" you are not implying some kind of teleology right? You are just saying that there might be a descriptive answer to that question,right? Like when it comes to the Conway's Game of Life, you can get very interesting structures if you run it long enough and you can in principle know the initial conditions of the game, but there isn't any teleology built into it.

Yeah I think im fine with that (given the additional qualification that when it comes to articulation there are still ways to dodge the paradox, if the articulation is interpreted as a belief statement , but I grant that if it is interpreted as a knowledge claim about their own knowledge, then you get a contradiction).

The reason why is because that is what the contradiction is dependent on. In the liar's paradox case, you dont need to add any additional context, because its entailed within the statement itself. But look, if you agree that once that additional context is removed and once we take the sentence just plainly as it is , that then there is no contradiction, then Im fine with that. I dont understand that answer. If you can, please give a yes or no answer to the following question: Do you think the statement "There is no one who knows that Mars exists" was true back in stone age?

Okay thanks, thats slightly different from saying that it cannot be known in principle, its is just that we fail to grasp whats the potential answer is given our limited cognition and capabilities.

The second just simply doesnt follow by any rule of inference. I dont like to suggest this (because AI is generally unrelaible), but you can run it through an AI and it will tell you how it is not a necessary entailment. How? You are adding a thing to it that is not entailed by the statement being true. Do you take it to be the case, that there are true statements about our collective knowledge with regards to things that we dont know? For instance, do you think the statement "There is no one who knows that Mars exists" was true back in stone age?

By Mystery you mean it is something that doesnt have an explanation in principle and or that it cannot be known? Like the kind of move some mystics make, when they say that its not the thing that can be understood by something else, because it is the very thing by which other things (bascally everything) is understood? Another way to say it , is to say that it is a category error to suggest that there is a further explanation or understanding.

Yeah, its about putting yourself back in time when the claim was made, and then checking given the avalaible info back then whether making the inference that the conspiracy is true is reasonable or not (and most of the time it is not). If you want to check with a relatively quick heruistic how good and reliable their epistemology is - just collect their past predictions and check what % of them turned out to be right. You can also check how vague and unfalsifiable their predicitions are (to the point where there is no possible state of affairs that could disconfirm their predictions or hypothesis)

Infinite regress wouldnt follow though. It conceivable that there could be another layer that explains that layer and the layers could stop at that new layer. I also dont necessarily see the issue with infinite regress. Just because its not satisfying or we culturally reject it or dont even entertain it , that doesnt mean that its impossible. I dont subscribe to any of this, im just saying those are also options.

Its neither , but in my view it leaves it ambigous whether it makes a knowledge claim or a belief claim. We can solve this by explicating meaning further and with that move narrowing down how the statement can be interpreted (I should have done this way earlier) "I believe nobody truly knows wtf he/she is talking about" "I know that nobody truly knows wtf he/she is talking about" I agree that the second is a knowledge claim and there you can derive a contradiction (could still be dodged if we interpret 'knowing' and 'truly knowing' differently, but for the sake of simplicity we can interpret those two phrases the same and there you will have a contradiction), but when it comes to the first there isn't any issue and you cant derive a contradiction from that. --------- My other issue aside from the above was that the sentence "nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about" even if was said and interpreted by no one, it would still have a truth value (there would be a fact of the matter about whether that statement is true or whether it is false). And you cant do the same thing that you can do with the liars paradox. Because from "nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about" being true , you wont get to "there is at least one person who knows what he/she is talking about". If you think otherwise, show me how you derive the contradiction. Like its true that no one would know that the statement "nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about" is true, but thats compatible with "nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about" being true.

Do you think its possible to have beliefs (not knowledge) about your own knowledge? I am trying to imply with that question that it is possible to make a non-knowledge claim about your own knowledge. Like "I dont know what im talking about" can be cashed out as "I know that I dont know what im talking about" and it can be also cashed out "I believe that I dont know what im talking about". I wouldnt categorize the second as a knowledge claim, I would just categorize it as sharing your own belief about something (and in this specific case sharing your belief about your own knowledge)

@Ziran What do you think we disagree on and what do you think I said that was false? (because based on the reply you gave I dont think you understand what im saying).

Im not tracking whats the issue is. What you do is you for some reason categorize the proposition as an assertion and you take assertions to mean declarations of knowledge. And im saying the proposition doesnt need to be an assertion made by anyone. The proposition can be true indepedent from anyone asserting it to be the case. You are adding extra stuff to it that isn't there. You could for instance imagine a scenario where a computer tries to check whether the proposition is true or not. And Im also saying that even if the proposition was uttered by someone (noticed I didnt used the word asserted), even in that case - you dont get a contradiction , because the person who utters the statement doesnt make any single knowledge claim and therefore even though it is the case that the proposition includes the person who utters the statement, thats perfectly fine because the person who utters the statement doesnt know whether the proposition that he utters is true or not, he just utters the statement.

By that you mean the scenario where we interpret his statement as an actual knowledge claim?

It was solved by the hypothesis that your subsconscious mind can pick up on very complex patterns. In this specific case it was about introducing people(who needs to stare at you) in a pseduo random manner and it turned out that the subconscious can actually pick up on the fact that it wasnt actually random and just from that info they managed to guess better (even if they couldnt consciously recognize the fact that their subconscious actually picked up on the introducing rhythm). After they adjusted and after they didnt give any feedback anymore (after each round about whether they managed to guess the staring right or not), the chance went back down to 50%. What I said there was just a pragmatic argument mostly, it doesnt show that what you said cant be true or that it is less probable, it just states once we make the move towards supernatualism, epistemically we get more fucked because it becomes much harder to make sense of things and to predict things. Here I question what you gain by affirming supernaturalism: Here I give further reasons to why reject it: ----- And yes, I agree with the thing you layed down about naturalism adjusting. Its unclear how we even define these terms in the firstplace and we are possibly challenging the edges and talking past each other. One thing is that there are always moves avalaible in order to maintain naturalism, but not at 0 cost. If I need to give a 1000 auxiliary hypothesis to explain the same set of facts (the set that supernaturalism could explain with one relatively simple hypothesis) then eventually it can become really intellectually dishonest and pressing to leave the fucking naturalist paradigm. Sorry this was a lot, but if you want we can go through this by one piece at a time. Edit: Added quotes so it can be closed and it wont take up half the page.

I already addressed this earlier, but I will lay the reasoning down again why what you said there is not true: You can utter statements without knowing whether the given uttered proposition is true or not and without being justified. You can accidentally utter true statements without knowing that the statement is true. And the other issue with that kind of move is that no one needs to utter the statement in the firstplace. You can just take the propositon and check whether you can derive a contradiction from it (if taken to be true) and you can't. What you do there is you dont just take the proposition as it is, you add extra things to it that isn't at all entailed by the statement. You add that someone needs to say the sentence and that the person needs to know what they are talking about in order for the sentence to be true. But none of that is true. The proposition can be true independent from the fact whether someone say it or not . The truth-maker (what makes it true or false) for that proposition isn't the person saying it or not, the truth-maker is checking whether there is someone who knows what he/she is talking about or not and if there is at least one person, then the proposition is false and if there isn't then it is true. But, even if what you said was true, you wouldnt derive a contradiction (you wouldnt show that the proposition is true and false at the same time) you would just render the proposition false at best. You would just establish that a person uttered a false statement. In the liar's paradox case, the same couldn't be said. There you dont just render the proposition false, there you can show that the statement is true and false at the same time.

Are your referring to the NDE stuff or are you referring to Sheldrake stuff? I know one possible out when it comes to one of Sheldrake's studies - John Vervaeke managed to give a reply that is consistent with the naturalist view and once that additional thing was considered it rendered the ability back to just chance and it wasnt better than just guess. I will look into that NDE stuff because that sounded interesting, and I am also looking into fine-tuning stuff , my issue there is just that there is a fuck ton of things that one needs to know to even have the ability to track and to make sense of some of the arguments there.

How is that relevant to what I just wrote there? You understand that if we go with the idea that I knew what I was talking about there , that doesnt get you to a contradiction, that would just render the proposition false. You wouldnt show that the proposition is true and false at the same time.

No. You can utter statements without knowing whether the given uttered proposition is true or not and without being justified. You can accidently utter true statements without knowing that the statement is true. And the other issue with that kind of move is that no one needs to utter the statement in the firstplace. You can just take the propositon and check whether you can derive a contradiction from it , if taken to be true and you can't.

No, thats fair that you interpreted in a different way. The reason why I pushed back is because its different from the liar paradox in that you cant derive a contradiction from the claim , but when it comes to the liar's paradox - you can derive a contradiction. And if you take contradictions to be unintelligible ( in the sense that they cant be true), then you wont have the same issue in this specific case, because there isn't any trivial contradiciton that can be derived from that statement.

I think i know what you are talking about. By Relativity you dont mean a flat plane , you mean an ever deeper, possibly never ending hierarchy of transcend and include views. What you dont want to admit though, is the possibility that there are higher level christian or whatever else views compared to the mickey mouse one. For the sake of the argument people can grant here that the y axis for consciousness is something metaphysically legit and not just an epistemic tool to make sense of things. And I can even grant for the sake of the argument that you managed to transcend some low level christian views and low level other religious views. From none of that follows, that there arent higher christian or other religious views that actually transcends your mouse.

If thats the case and you admit that, then I dont have issue with what you said.