zurew

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.

No, it doesnt have to be based on that - it can be based on relying on a revelation from an entity that is all knowing and all good and all powerful (one that provides accurate information with 100% certainty, since he is all knowing, and one that can pull off so that you cant misinterpret his missage - since he is all powerful and one that who won't lie to you since he is all good) and one that asserts that only christianity is true and your view is false. So how do you exactly have any upperhand vs them?

Is that a summary done by AI or an article ?

That sounds like something that makes your position even more shaky. How can you know that your interpretation of awakening is accurate and that you haven't misinterpreted it or drawn false conclusions from it?

But there is no possibility that you are wrong and that they are right about you being wrong.

The whole point of that example is to outline this problem - you choose a random method that you can use to gather info about metaphysics,epistemology etc and then you take whatever info you gather by the use of that method to be infallbile (100% accurate and you cant be wrong about it) and the gathered info includes the claim that all other views except the one that is mentioned are incoherent. The obvious problem is if person A claims that I need to use method Y and if person B claims that I need to use method Z and the information gathered by method Y contradicts the information that I gathered by method Z - then how do I know which one is actually correct? Both of them claims that the info that I gathered by the use of the method is infallible and both method provides the claim that all other views (except the one that they mention) are incoherent. Now change method Y to direct consciousness and change the view provided by method Y to your view and change method Z to revelation and change the view provided by method Z to Christianity. And then tell me how you saying to just use direct consciousness gets around the problem I outlined above.

Yeah this is the part where you think you can choose the method by which you want to substantiate a given claim. You think you can categorically rule out all other views with awakening. Still waiting for your response to the example where Chrisitans claiming that by the use of revelation they realized that only the christian view is coherent and all others (including yours - are incoherent).

If by defense you mean asserting a claim to be true over and over again, and then ignoring all the challenges and pretending as if you would have successfully responded to them, then sure. I have no clue why you respond "no" to that, and agree with them when it directly contradicts your view (the example claims that only the christian view is coherent). And then I guess the answer is that the only Christians who had a revelation are the ones who agree with you, and the ones who disagree with your view are the ones who must be wrong about them having revelation. So we can conveniently ignore all Christians who claim to have had a revelation and also claim that only the christian worldview is coherent. (categorically ruling out all other views - including yours) Can you tell me the relevance in difference? The subject/object that the reasoning is applied to is irrelevant , because the exact same issues come up - if you think otherwise, explain it to me how changing the subject of the example breakes the point I try to make there.

Or if you really want to stick with the mirror example , a more correct representation would be this: You making a claim that "If you look in the mirror, you’ll see your reflection” and you also saying that "its impossible for you to be wrong about it". Can you recognize what burden of proof you put on yourself between the claim where you dont add the "its impossible for you to be wrong about it" and between the claim where you add that part? In the instance where its not impossible for me to be wrong about it - Im more than okay with just looking in the mirror to check your claim, in the instance where you add "its impossible for you to be wrong about it", me looking in the mirror is nowhere near sufficient to substantiate the claim.

You don't need to prove anything to me, the discussion is not about that, the discussion is about recognizing and being honest about what your claim entails and and what kind of burden you take on yourself when you state your claim. The very moment you make a logical necessity claim, you take on the burden to subtantiate it by showing the contradiction and you cant get around it by appealing to a different method ,that would be way too convenient. Its not like you can just randomly pick and choose what kind of method you want to use to substantiate your claim. Notice, that you would never ever accept the idea from presups that "all views are incoherent except Christianity and the way to substantiate this claim is by revelation" - you would probably say "no dude, revelation as a method isn't sufficient to substantiate that claim!" So there is a big disconnect and confusion around what can substantiate your claim. --- Yes, given your mirror example , the claim that I will see my reflection can be properly substantiated by the move of me looking in the mirror. I know by that example you want to imply that I want to place some kind of unfair burden on you, but what you don't understand is that you categorically put it on yourself and you can't get around it. (no one is forcing you to make claims and put on burden on yourself that you cant substantiate) A more accurate representation would be saying something like: an infinite book example - You saying that if I look into book A, I will get answers to all of my questions and using the method of 'looking into book A' is an infallible method so I can trust 100% all the answers that I will find in it. And one of Book A's claim is that all other books are wrong (so I go with that, and conclude that all other books are inaccurate - categorically ruling out an infinite number of other books). Then a presup comes along and tells me to use the method of 'looking into book B', and that method is infallible and I can trust with 100% certainty all the answers that I find in that book. Book B also tells me that all other books except Book B are all inaccurate, so I go with that and I categorically rule out an infinite number of others books (including book A) Can you recognize why you asserting the claim that using the method of "looking into book A" isn't responding to the issue and doesn't solve anything? Again this pressuposes a bunch of things already and this isn't responding to the problems that I brought up. Presups can do the same thing - "Just have revelation and your question will be answered". So why think that the answers that are realized during awakening are 100% accurate? You would ask the exact same question to presups "Why think that the answers that you got from revelation are 100% accurate?" And I will state again - the only reason why im pressing you on this is because of the burden that you place on yourself. I wouldn't play this level of skeptic if you would have just said "my view seems to be the most reasonable one, but I dont think that any other view would be logically impossible" - I would have no issue with that, I would still investigate the view, but you want to categorically rule out all other views and then you don't want to defend it.

Haha, I feel your pain. I don't know why you waste your time here. There are other places, where you can have much higher quality conversations, where people know more about philosophy and nutrition and they can actually make sense of the papers and they know what the evidence hierarchy is about.