zurew

He can lay down reasons why he is against it (I dont think it is just bias) My understanding is that It mostly has to do with the fact that once you push your priors towards supernaturalism, the set that contains reasonably possible explanations for any given event or phenomena explodes and from then on the flying spaghetti monster wont just be a logically possible thing, but it can become a reasonable thing to consider. And why is that bad? Well, its harder to pick between hypotheses. We lack the tools to properly pick between hypotheses already and that just becomes worse once we extend that set of things that we consider. But yeah, updating priors is what we need to do once we are confronted with things that cant be cashed out under naturalism. One of the biggest challenges there is gonna be the problem of evil (if you take God to be a tri-omni God). If thats not the case, then that wont be an issue.

You guys dont know the lore behind it. Destiny stole that joke from a dude who btw has a phd in philosophy.

Its not though, the claim is perfectly intelligible and the claim can be true irrespective of how justified the author is who asserts the claim.

Some of the criticism are such that having an Awakening doesnt solve those issues. Its an internal critique of mystic epistemology and appealing to awakening is precisely not the thing that can solve the issue. Its not about not having access to some truth, its about the process by which you acquire that truth. Those comments apply to you, thats why you making your comment about me and others to get to your level is non-responsive to the presented issues. Even if all of us would get to your level, that still wouldnt give a response to the issues I brought up. Look, its fine to say that thats the best epistemology one can go with - whats not fine to say is to pretend that there isn't any epistemic issues there and its also no okay for you to make absolute statements about how developed other mystics are.

You gonna have a bunch of issues with that kind of reply and thats just confirms the issues I pointed out about the epistemology that you rely on. If lack of that depth means just what you said there, including the idea that one is even wrong about what depth their insights have , then that means that whatever conclusion you have right now is potentially subject to what you just said above and you have a strong argument against you having high credence in any of your insights (including in the mickey mouse one). And we are not just talking about the content of the awakening being partial or flat out wrong, but also about your ability to judge how deep that given insight was. What is precisely the epistemic foundation that you have that they lack that would save you from being deluded ? Thats an interesting reinterpretation of what was said there. Christian mystics can also have that view about other people, but earlier you didnt imply that, what you implied was that their view was logically incoherent and at the same time that your view includes their incoherent insights. Its either the case, that your view includes the thing that you take to be false (which wouldnt make much sense) or it is the case that christian mystics actually disagree with you and there is a substantial disagreement surrounding identity. Now, you can label "minutia" if you want, but you cant claim that you guys are just on board on all the main things - unless you want to claim that disagreeing about identity is just minutia. But in any case, we can search for other disagreements with other mystics and spiritual people, the point was to check how you navigate these disagreements and it still seems to be the case that your reply is subject to the exact same epistemic issues. I will repeat this again - its still the case that you dont have direct access to their awakening and your judgement relies on making inferences. If a christian mystic would tell you that they started with the mickey mouse awakening and then they transcended that with a christian awakening, then you wouldnt have any satisfying reply to that other than just reversing their claim (where christian awakening is below and transcended by the mickey mouse one).

Identity is really complicated. There are many different theses for identity and its easy to equivocate in between them. Just because under one sense of identity a view seems logically incoherent that doesnt mean that the view is actually incoherent if a different sense is used. Thats why I said that he is just not engaging with how they use the word. Its basically an uncharitable and lazy move.

Is there any possible claim where that couldnt be said? Thats just not engaging with how they use that word and you are just begging the question against them there. Interesting, because if we go with what you just said earlier about their view being logically incoherent , then your view includes logically incoherent things.

If by transcend you mean something that is compatible with their view but provide a more holistic picture, then no. For instance: Under some of their views mystical union is participation in God, not identity with God. They believe the human person remains a person even in union with God. But in any case, even if the were the case that all mystics agreed on the same set of facts , you still can have disagreements about levels (which one is deeper compared to the other ). But Im not convinced that there is an agreement on the facts, and it isn't just that they wouldn't categorize mickey mouse the same way as you do, some of them wouldnt even consider mickey mouse as something legit that needs to be put on a level hierarchy and some of them would reject that there is even a hierarchy in the firstplace. Thats not your conclusion, your conclusion is that you are correct. Given your epistemology you will never know, because all you know is your current perspective about depth that can be undermined at any given moment by a deeper awakening later. Your very idea about how much depth your insight have is depended on a comparative epistemology that can be undermined later. You never know whether your next insight will completely restructure and reorder your hierarchy of previous insights. You have 0 clue about the level of depth others have, you make inferences based on your awakenings, but you have 0 clue whether yours is deeper or theirs. The fact that you interpret it as "best" shows how you think about this question. You treat it as a race, where you can be better than others rather than just treat it as an epistemic question related to the issue about investigating fundamental truths about reality. Comparative questions are easy to answer once the conditions are agreed upon and set by which we can compare things and if it is the case that we have access to the variables that contain information about said conditions. Here you have an issue with agreeing on the conditions (about what deeper even means) and then you have a further issue (that you dont have, when it comes to the math question) - namely, that you dont have access to the info about the conditions (you have no direct access to who had what awakening and who has what level of insight) ----- None of this necessarily undermines your claims about reality, the purpose of this whole thing is to question your certainty in your claims and specifically in the idea that you got it more right than other mystics.

I dont think those are just minor differences, especially when you bring in christian mystics for instance. They will affirm things that you definitely wont. The question begging issue comes up when you try to explain those differences by appealing to depth. Each mystic can say that "we agree on absolute truth,but here is a set of things we disagree on and our disagreement is explained by none of you guys reaching the level of depth as I did". How do you check which one had a deeper awakening or a deeper insight? And then whatever the answer to the question above, why cant each one say the exact same thing?

it is complicated, because your position isnt just the consensus mystic position. You affirm things that most spiritual leader dont affirm and my question is precisely related to those differences. You dont just say that you guys agree, you want to say that they are wrong and that you are more correct about certain aspects and im pushing you to give an explication how you defend that in a substantive way without begging the question.

Thats fair, but whats the reply to the epistemic question about the clones?

The issue isn't that you cant explicate the content of the awakening, the issue is the inferences that you make from there and your refusal to acknowledge that those are potentially faulty interpretations and inferences. People can mirror your epistemology, do all the drugs as you did, do all the spiritual practices as you did, read all the books as you did and then have different awakenings or have the same awakenings but infer/interpret different conclusions. You dont really have any satisfying answer or deep epistemic tool when those issues are brought up other than a dismissive "you are not on my level". And when asked given all the facts (given the mirrored epistemology and different conclusions) how do you reach the "you are not on my level yet" conclusion rather than the "I have a serious epistemological issue here, given that I really have no epistemic tool in my hand to figure out whether I am wrong or whether the other guys are wrong" then you dont really have anything of substance to say about how you get there. I can also put it this way so we can skip the you being special special move - Imagine cloning you a 1000 times (exact same life journey , genetics, completely mirrored epistemology and drug usage and spiritual practices) and then each clone of you has a slightly different conclusion than you (a conclusion that is incompatible with yours). What can you actually tell to those clones about why they are wrong and what epistemic tools can you appeal to or use in such a situation?

Given that notion - is the motivation for the claim that higher level intelligence includes better character and more care is something like: To be intelligent is to care about and to recognize fundamental truths about reality - It is metaphysically true, that reality is fundamentally love and that everything is ultimately one and being aligned with that truth means to recognize that fact and to live aligned with that. So It is basically a completely different way/mode of being, where you process and filter information differently and if you are not in that kind of mode of being , you dont have access to / cant recognize certain truths.

Interesting, thank you for the answer. I take it that by "affirm" there you dont just mean an intellectual notion, but you mean a deeper non-propositional notion. Might be similar to how christian mystics use a non-propositional notion of faith.

Thats not the point. You are bringing in normativity but thats not relevant in this specific case. We can label "problem solving" in any way we like, we dont need to put the label "intelligence" on it if we dont want to. But we can descriptively engage with that concept and make inferences about it and think about it. The issue here is that if it is the case that better problem solving can be achieved without the given AI developing any kind of good moral character or care about whole systems, then we might have an issue here (if the developers of AI only care about making better problem solvers)

Well im not sure, because I think you used the same phrase (forgive) but you used two different notions. Here I think you meant something completely different by the term "forgive" Compared to what you meant by 'forgive' here: I would interpret the first notion in some kind of profound participatory sense, where you completely give up your ego and paricipate or merge with God or something like that. And I would interpret the second notion of "forgive" in a sense where you forgive a wrongdoing that might have hurt you and with that you can actually heal and karma wont fuck you up later.

And as an additional point , you can care about the whole while also not care just as much about the parts. There can be scenarios where replacing or destroying parts can be beneficial for the greater whole (easy example - destroying cancer to preserve your body).

Not yet, and it might be the case that LLM-s will never have a character, but I dont see why we would assume that non-LLM based AGI wont ever have a character or that why couldnt it ever overwrite the built in character.

I also have issues with the described holistic thinking idea where self presevation somehow needs to be implcit. I dont see why that would be the case. Why couldnt there be an AI with holistic thinking that doesnt care about self-presevation at all ? Or that it only cares about self-preservation to some degree ,but there are things that it cares about more ( that can make the AGI to self-delete and with that destroy a bunch of other things as well) or it only wants to self-preserve for a random finite amount of time. But even if we assume that holistic thinking somehow necessarily includes the value of self-preservation. Even in that context, there are a bunch of nuanced scenarios where you can perfectly destroy a lot of things without destroying yourself.

I dont know what your notion of "true intelligence" is , but regardless what that notion is, if we create a different notion like "the ability to solve problems" - then I dont see whats the argument for the implicit claim that AI cant become a better problem solver than humans while also having an evil character or a sociopathic character.

Can you unpack that a little bit more?

I dont think the majority of people have a psychology that would allow them to actually do whatever without any psychological pushback. But regardless how many people have that kind of psychology , one thing is for sure - you wont persuade psychopaths to not do bad things by talking about moral realism. They wouldnt care at all .

Thats different from the policy she wants to implement though. I would be curious what empirical data we would see once a wage like policy is implemented. I think for some of the reasons she already layed down we have reason to think that giving wages to moms would impact the emprirics on birthdate slightly differently than the things you listed there. (To just name one reason - the mom isn't dependent on her husband's money anymore)

That would only establish at best that that particular person believes that moral realism is true, but it wouldn't establish it is actually true. But I think the mistake that you make is when you interpret all ought statements as if all of them were moral realist claims - but I dont think thats true. In the other thread, I gave you alternative ways how you can cash out and interpret 'ought' statements under antirealism. So just because someone utters an ought statement, from that doesnt necessarily follow that they are talking about objective moral facts, those utterances are compatible with their subjective stance on the matter and what they personally desire about how other people should behave (given their subjective values).

Shortly on the non-pragmatic side, I havent seen any good argument that establish why moral realism is true. On the pragmatic side - I dont think that pragmatically you gain anything by affirming moral realism (doesnt matter what type of moral realism you go with). And I think you can explain all facts about the world under antirealism. So from my pov, you just needlessly inflate your ontology (just like how you would needlessly inflate it , if you just randomly affirmed that unicorns exist for no particular reason). Depending on which type of moral realism you want to go with: There are versions of moral realism where moral claims can be reduced down to descriptive claims (like certain descriptive facts about the world) - I just take it that : - Those kinds of views are miselading, because I personally wouldn't even categorize them as moral views. - Since they can be reduced down to descriptive claims, they essentially lack action-guiding. There are other types of moral realist views where those normative claims are irreducible . There the issue that I have is that those views are mostly unintelligible to me and those views just lack persuasion. Like why would you ever care about a random irreducible moral claim just based on the fact that it is objectively true? Like imagine there would be an objectively true irreducible moral claim "You ought to walk backwards when you go to work" - like why would you ever abide by that? and if those objectively true irreducible moral claims are such that are already aligned with your subjective preferences, then sure you will abide by them, but not because they are objectively true, but because they are aligned with things you subjectively care about.