A fun perspective on death

[Sugarcoat]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes. That which existed before you were born and that which will exist after you die. Things may change in reality, but something never changes.

 

Be obsessed, unemployed and meditate for 1000 hours.

Ok

Thats discipline 

[zurew]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What was there to answer? You just re-worded the example I gave of the car being stolen and cited some weird copy of Hume's problem of induction. It's only more "nothing can be absolute proven" business, which is what I'm trying to get you out of.

This kind of brain rot is largely Leo's fault (for making that kind of epistemic standard default) even though he can't live up to it either.

 

Where do we see on this forum people making argument that establish their conclusion with 100% certainty? Nowhere.

And of course, as much as we like to point to the problem of induction , there is a problem of deduction as well, but we can just ignore that because its not convenient for collecting social credit.

Edited April 29 by zurew

[Someone here]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

Where do we see on this forum people making argument that establish their conclusion with 100% certainty? Nowhere.

Because there cannot be 100% certain "argument". An argument by definition is not 100% definitive but speculative. What's 100% definitive is called an evidence .

For example : I can argue that there is a Chinese teapot revolving around planet Mars right now . But it won't be worth a dam unless I take a rocket and fly to Mars and take pictures of that teapot then it becomes an evidence. 

This not "brain rot " but you guys have no idea what you're talking about .

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Because there cannot be 100% certain "argument". An argument by definition is not 100% definitive but speculative. What's 100% definitive is called an evidence .

For example : I can argue that there is a Chinese teapot revolving around planet Mars right now . But it won't be worth a dam unless I take a rocket and fly to Mars and take pictures of that teapot then it becomes an evidence. 

This not "brain rot " but you guys have no idea what you're talking about .

But how can you know that you took pictures of a teapot and not that a ghost zapped that experience into your brain and you didn't actually take a picture of a teapot but a dinosaur that looks like a shlong? You never know 🤪

Edited April 29 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, Someone here said:

This not "brain rot " but you guys have no idea what you're talking about .

Whats brain rot is that you would never apply the same level of epistemic requirement and standard anywhere and you cant establish Solipsism with that.

The only reason you are doing this is  because you like to posture because you think running around and doing this is smart or unique, but everyone can easily do this.

Its incredibly easy to play the ultimate-skeptic.  Any kid can do it with 0 philosophy knowledge.

22 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Because there cannot be 100% certain "argument". An argument by definition is not 100% definitive but speculative. What's 100% definitive is called an evidence .

Wait, you think that you can show any piece of data that wouldn't be compatible with and even expected on multiple different hypothesis? If so, then how does that "100%" certainty work there?

 

 

Edited April 29 by zurew

[Eskilon]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its incredibly easy to play the ultimate-skeptic

Is it tho? Why aren't scientists doing this then? If they were actual skeptics they should be having an existential crisis till they cry their guts out. Philosophers and scientist aren`t rigorous enough.

Edited April 29 by Eskilon

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Is it tho? Why aren't scientist doing this then? If they were actual skeptics they should be having an existential crisis till they cry their guts out. Philosophers and scientist aren`t rigorous enough.

Just because its easy to do it, that doesn't mean that its useful to do it in all context.

Asking the questions is easy, answering them and comitting yourself to an epistemic standard and being consistent with it is much harder.

And also acknowledging the limitations of said standard without throwing the whole thing out just because it is fallible.

Edited April 29 by zurew

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But how can you know that you took pictures of a teapot and not that a ghost zapped that experience into your brain and you didn't actually take a picture of a teapot but a dinosaur that looks like a shlong? You never know 🤪

I obviously cannot know that unless I simultaneously disprove that a ghost tricked me into it as well .  How ? By doing a brain scan ? Nope ..because ghosts are invisible to X-ray.  So it seems like I can't know that unless I literally mimic the ghost's nature or find a way to become a ghost . How ? I don't know .but since ghosts are assumed to exist in this argument then there MUST be a way to do that .

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

The only reason you are doing this is  because you like to posture because you think running around and doing this is smart or unique, but everyone can easily do this.

Nope . What I'm doing is true epistemology. Unless something does fit to stand 100% provable then it can suck my dick .

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Unless something does fit to stand 100% provable then it can suck my dick

Give one example that meets that standard.

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Give one example that meets that standard.

Lol easy as fuck.  Some ontological nihilist might say " reality doesn't even exist ". This is 100% provable to be false because here is reality and it does exist. 

 

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Lol easy as fuck.  Some ontological nihilist might say " reality doesn't even exist ". This is 100% provable to be false because here is reality and it does exist. 

 

Yeah thats easy as long as you can keep words like "reality" "exists" vague so that they are all up for the reader's interpretation and you don't need to commit to anything specific.

By 'here' you mean appealing to your fallible spatial sense and lense?

By 'reality' you mean presupposing that there is something other than you and that something exists outside you?

By 'exists' you mean having causal power and presupposing that it isn't an illusion?

 

Edited April 29 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

I obviously cannot know that unless I simultaneously disprove that a ghost tricked me into it as well .  How ? By doing a brain scan ? Nope ..because ghosts are invisible to X-ray.  So it seems like I can't know that unless I literally mimic the ghost's nature or find a way to become a ghost . How ? I don't know .but since ghosts are assumed to exist in this argument then there MUST be a way to do that .

What?

[Carl-Richard]

23 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Ok

Thats discipline 

It's not discipline if it's the only thing you want to do.

[zurew]

16 hours ago, Someone here said:

Lol easy as fuck.  Some ontological nihilist might say " reality doesn't even exist ". This is 100% provable to be false because here is reality and it does exist.

Your "justification" was to appeal to a set of things that are all fallible or to appeal to things where you just beg the question (let me give meanings to terms in a way, where my ideal conclusion will be analytically entailed and will be true by definition).

 

You cant live up to your own epistemic standard (and even if you could in 1-2 instances), you are not living your life by it and you are obviously using other kind of reasoning methods.

Even the very idea that you would appeal to your awakenings is undermined by your own epistemic standard, because how do you know that your memories are correct about it? And even if they are correct, how do you know that the content of your awakenings has anything to do with whats real?

 

Generally speaking what you want can be accomplished by showing a contradiciton, but that has to do with logical possibility and aside from the fact that making such arguments is incredibly difficult (thats why almost no one does it), it  entails that there is only one logically possible option - but what if thats not the case? What if there are multiple logically possible options  ?

Then you are forced to appeal to other norms in order to narrow down the possibility set (if your goal is to choose from the possiblity set) and thats when you lose the certainty that you so much care about and bite the bullet and the limitations of those other norms.

Edited April 30 by zurew

[Sugarcoat]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's not discipline if it's the only thing you want to do.

I could say that about other things in my life so I can understand