Leo Gura

@Natasha Tori Maru Chill your asshole dear.

@zurew I'm not going to deconstruct all of academic logic for you in a forum post. You failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the issues in this field. So I'm not going to invest time explaining it. Nothing personal against you. I just have little patience for such things.

In Balkans everyone eats rats.

@zurew You talk about things that require such epistemic depth to understand, yet you talk of it like some set of blind rules one can follow. That is why I am so dismissive. I am not going to spell out a decade of epistemic gems to you with such an attitude. Go ahead and follow your rules into human delusion. Nothing I speak of can be understood without insane application of intelligence. You should know this by now. It is insulting for me to have to explain that to you. That's exactly what academics are. A bunch of monkeys following rules. Join them if you wish.

No! Understanding requires Consciousness. You are missing such basic understanding that I don't have the space or time here to fix it. I would need to write a whole book to point out all the problems of your view.

The part you're missing is that math IS the real world. Math is Mind. There is not boundary between Mind and world. I know your point. There is nothing interesting there. It is bog standard academic philosophy. The distinctions between a prior and a posteriori knowledge and analytic vs synthetic knowledge is human crap. I am talking about more serious and profound things while you talk of standard logical dogma. I have no interest in discussing that.

Chris Langan, Plotinus, Spinoza, Sri Aurobindo, Liebnitz, etc. There are folks.

Monkeys monkey more when you get them drunk and give them a box of hand grenades.

Using love to avoid truth is more common.

That problem is addressed simply by being mindful not to bullshit oneself as one goes about survival. Obviously non-veganism is not about starvation, it's about convenience, taste, habit, and culture. Old habits die hard (i.e., survive)

That's the devilish challenge. It's a good exercise for flexing and clarifying your own understanding of God. If you really know God you should be able to out-argue an atheist and use this own logic against him.

Survival requires much more than just avoiding immediate death. That is a very shallow notion of survival. If survival worked in such a low IQ way we would all be dead a long time ago. Survival is all the activity that comes with maintaining life. And more.

It's not the same thing. I see how people use it. Use it to not think.

Lab rat meat for all! Coming soon.

Rationalizing rape is survival.

What a rationalization. Emerald is right here. Eat what you want but stop kidding yourself.

Yes, it's a real problem. Major disruption and chaos ahead. None of us really know how to prepare for it. However, humans who merely use AI to think for them will forever be stupid. Like your philosopher friend. You can't short-circuit contemplation any more than you can short-circuit physical exercise. A robot cannot do your pushups for you. A robot cannot think for you. So flexing your intellect is still necessary. As far as what careers will still be viable in 10 years, it's really hard to say.

False. In the end all your rules are checked by survival. If it kills you, then your rules fail. Most of what humans regard as true or valid is simply whatever allows them to survive. Consider why AI is logical. Because if it wasn't humans would just kill it because it wouldn't be useful to them. And why are humans logical? Because the illogical ones killed themselves long ago. Also, the notion of empirical applies to the operation of your mind. When you do logic inside your mind that is empirical! When you add 1+1=2 in your mind you are empirically investigating the structure of Mind. Which is why mathematical discoveries are possible. You have new insight into the way Mind works. All of your logical rules had to be discovered as insights through observation of the Mind. A =A is an insight. There is no understanding of anything without insight.

@zurew Everything is an empirical claim. A = A is an empirical claim. You are born totally ignorant. The only way you can know anything is via Consciousness. Consciousness cannot be known without experience. The notion of a priori knowledge is academic nonsense. And you side-stepped my point that you do not know the import of logic via logic alone. Import is what matters, not following rules. The issue is not whether some logical rule is valid. The issue is why logical rules matter at all and how they a relate to reality. There is no escaping Intelligence. Intelligence is fundamental to all sense-making. You can never get rid of Intelligence.

No, that is wrong. There are infinite different kinds of axiomatic logical systems with various rules. How do you know which ones apply to our world and which ones don't? Only empirically. You cannot even know that logic has any import without empirical investigation. Just because a computer can follow rules doesn't mean a damn thing existentially. Intelligence is always required to know which rules are worth anything or have meaning. Why do humans even attach importance to logic? It's clearly not just because of rules. It's because someone with intelligence understood that logic is fundamental to reality. And, btw, logic cannot just be written down in a finite system of rules because logic is infinite. Logic works because an intelligent, conscious being is using it properly. Intelligence is required to understand which logic is properly applied and when it is not. Don't forget that even when your AI is being properly logical, that's only because it was trained by intelligent humans, on intelligent content created by intelligent humans, and optimized with intelligent feedback from intelligent humans. So yeah, after you train it like that, it can act logical. The collective logic of all of mankind is baked into AI. And still, AI will make logical mistakes that it doesn't know how to fix, requiring a human intelligence to fix them.

You're not going to learn remote viewing. This is a genetic ability.

Inside and outside is a duality. They are co-defined. You can't have an inside without an outside unless you have an Absolute or Infinity. Infinity can have only "inside". But every finite thing must have an inside and an outside. If there is only inside or only outside the thing is either infinitely large or infinitely small. Every slice has two sides. You can't have an up without a down, since up and down are relative to each other. This is actually a great proof of the Oneness of Absolutes. The only thing that can have a One is an Absolute. Oness is a property of an Absolute. Absolute is God.

Everything just has a Meta-Unity. Language and thought simply breaks down at this ultimate level. If everything is real, that's a Unity.

I don't need to believe in it. I became directly conscious that God is Everything. Yes, Oneness is more inclusive than 300-ness. But Oneness still allows 300-ness to exist.