integral

I agree. I mean at the end of the video he looks up briefly and he says, "Praise the Lord." COMMMOOOONNN... they cant help themselves but to behave like stereotype cliches cartoon characters. The entire video had to be laser focused on how he messed up in the past and not him running his business essentially, he's running his basic formula. He has to just sit there and give a proper apology video. But because it's going to trial, he has to defend himself in court, and he can't just sit there and apologize. So he's forced to deny it.

Does that look like a man telling the truth? Stop hiding behind religion...

Sources of knowledge and justification -AI Buddhist concept Western counterpart How they relate Pramana (valid cognition; Dharmakirti: “non-deceptive cognition”) Theory of justification, especially reliabilism Both ask which cognitive processes reliably track truth. Buddhist pramana is about non-deceptive cognition, not the justified-true-belief analysis. Pratyaksa (direct perception, free of concepts) Nonconceptual content; sense-data theories Dignaga says raw perception contains no conceptual construction. Close to sense-data views, and unlike direct realism. Anumana and trairupya (inference and the three conditions of a valid reason) Deductive logic, syllogism Dharmakirti's conditions work like validity rules. It is closer to Aristotelian syllogism than to modern symbolic logic. Agama (testimony from a reliable source) Testimony as a source of knowledge (Reid, Coady) Dharmakirti tried to justify trusting the Buddha by his reliability on checkable matters, then extended that to unobservable ones, which is the contested step. Yogipratyaksa (yogic perception) Religious or mystical experience as evidence (William James, Alston) Treated as a valid source. The Western debate is the same: how to separate real insight from expectation (Katz's constructivism). Three wisdoms (heard, thought, meditated) Knowledge by testimony, by reasoning, by acquaintance (Russell) A good fit: learn it, reason about it, experience it. Mind, concepts and language Buddhist concept Western counterpart How they relate Kalpana (conceptual construction) Kant's synthesis; concept-ladenness of observation (Hanson, Kuhn) Both say concepts shape experience. For Kant they are necessary conditions. For Buddhists they are a distortion to be seen through. Svalaksana / samanyalaksana (particulars and generals) Nominalism vs realism about universals Buddhists are nominalists: universals are mental constructs. Apoha (meaning by exclusion) Nominalist and differential theories of meaning (Saussure) A concept means “not-other,” not a shared essence. The fit is loose. Svasamvedana (reflexive self-awareness) Brentano's inner perception; Sartre's pre-reflective consciousness Each cognition knows itself, which avoids the regress that higher-order theories face. Alaya-vijnana and bija (store of seeds) The unconscious; dispositional states; Husserl's passive synthesis A store of latent dispositions shaping experience. Not identical to Freudian or Jungian ideas. Vijnaptimatra (representation-only) Idealism (Berkeley), Kantian transcendental idealism Scholars disagree on whether Yogacara denies external reality or only claims we never know it directly. Skepticism, method and reasoning Buddhist concept Western counterpart How they relate Two truths (conventional and ultimate) Appearance vs reality; Kant's phenomena and noumena; levels of description Madhyamaka says even the ultimate is empty, so there is no ground behind appearances. That separates it from Kant. Prasanga (reductio) and catuskoti (four-cornered logic) Reductio ad absurdum; paraconsistent logic (Graham Priest) The reductio reading is standard. Priest's reading of the tetralemma is contested. Madhyamaka dialectic Pyrrhonian skepticism (Sextus Empiricus) Both suspend judgment, partly aimed at peace of mind. Beckwith argues for direct influence, which is disputed. Daigi (great doubt, Zen) Cartesian methodological doubt; Socratic aporia Descartes doubts to find certainty. Zen doubt aims to dissolve the questioner. Debate training Dialectic, disputation Formal adversarial debate as a method of testing arguments. Self-deception, bias and mental training Buddhist concept Western counterpart How they relate Viparyasa (four distortions), anusaya, prapañca, moha Cognitive biases, motivated reasoning (Kahneman, Tversky) Both catalogue systematic errors. The Buddhist list comes from introspection and aims at liberation. The Western list is tested in experiments. Yoniso manasikara, sati, sampajanna (wise attention, mindfulness, clear comprehension) Metacognition; virtue epistemology (Zagzebski) Knowing as a trained trait of character. Vipassana / dhammavicaya (insight; investigation) Phenomenology (Husserl's epoche); introspection; neurophenomenology (Varela) Systematic first-person observation. Buddhism trains it far more deliberately. Ehipassiko (come and see) Empiricism, but with only private verification Appeals to experience without independent replication. Anatman / skandhas Hume's bundle theory; Parfit's reductionism Strong parallel. Both deny a unified, persisting self. Relevant to OP's barcode. What each side has that the other lacks Western only Buddhist only (or far more developed) Symbolic logic, probability and Bayesian reasoning Systematic attention and introspective training Experimental method, statistics, replication A framework that links knowing to ending suffering Falsification and philosophy of science Detailed maps of meditative states and their pitfalls Experimentally measured cognitive biases The analysis of how the sense of self is constructed Peer review and a norm of revising foundations I was surprised to find that Buddhism actually strongly focuses on epistemology. It's just never taught. And basically, no one knows about it. 😂

The only thing I'm saying is every experience she is communicating, there is a reverse gender version of it happening at equal frequency. Men are living out the exact experiences she had in reverse. And I'm talking about non-abuse, non-violent relationships. Which is the main focus of her channel and the whole gender war. Unhealthy people is not the same as abuse and violence. People are mixing all this up.

We're mixing up the terms, experience vs knowing or knowledge. Experiencing something directly is a useful epistemic tool that then converts to a knowing of something or a piece of knowledge. When we think of things, we're not experiencing it directly. We are remembering it as a packaged idea or knowledge piece. The example I gave about raising your state of consciousness so you can have direct experience and then know something directly. When that happens, that experience is then converted to an object or idea for which people use to communicate and so on. Knowing pain through the direct experience becomes a concept of pain (knowledge) afterwards

This topic had nothing to do with violence or abuse... im talking about unhealthy relationship patterns. The man sits on his as after work and doesnt help with the kids. No communcation skills No emotional self-regulation Attributing your happyness to partners activities False expectations Screaming Micro-managing Life style conflict .... .... .... Men are disproportionately responsible for certain forms of serious intimate partner violence. There is substantial evidence supporting this. The statistics do not establish that: Men are inherently more dysfunctional relationship partners than women.

@Natasha Tori Maru @something_else A unhealthy man and unhealthy woman are equality devils in relationships. If a man is more likely to do violence does not change that. And i have been slapped in the face multiple times, trust me i did nothing, every time i didnt see it coming at all, or else i would of defended myself.

@something_else I think your flattening the view to violence statistics.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/3182589965464853 Not gender specific... i did this most of my life...

lol i dont know, tell me what knowing is

Ye it a tool for a corrupt human blinded by there high to make sense of truth.

You can become conscious of god when your state raises up high enough, but that is a temperary state of knowing that is forgotten when you loss your state. Knowing is state dependent. The less conscious you become the less knowing your capable of, aka your conscious of less. Knowing = to become conscious of. If you were born with out pain receptors, would you know what pain is? No! you dont have the experiencial equipment for it. You will never know it because Knowing depends on state. You can know it conceptually by learning about pain but is that "true" knowing? Consciousness is hiding part of it self to itself. Knowing is revealing parts. You are God pretending to be human, means to invent "forgetting" and the knowledge game. Look at anything you know, is that "all of reality?", no its only a part of reality. Anything is always a part not all of it. Any theory of everything is never it, because its a part of reality not reality itself. People confusing the map for the territory.

I need evidence

Knowing is a concept, its part of the ideas circle. Ideas are objects and knowing is how many object you collect. Image a room full of objects, each one is an abstract "idea". Math is mapping physics, but that map is knowledge and it exists only in the ideas layer

Why couldn't they make music this good at any other point in the future? I mean it's like after a certain point, after 2001, they were incapable of making good video game music.

For sure, you get that horrible feeling in your chest of fear and uncertainty. Also, you get that sense that the guards are judging you. But I don't know if you had a better experience than that. Everyone looks as you like your worse and human.

I see the suffering prison brings to people's lives and how thats useful for change. When I see Brand speak, I have no idea if he's lying or not. It just looks like another public figure putting on a show and it's a role of the dice how corrupt he is. He's still rambling on about blue religious values. How developed is he?

JUST? wow man sorry to hear that. 🙏

I agree, but also Andrew Tate learned nothing. Now he's back in prison for a second time and maybe this time he'll learn?

@Jodistrict He's too rich to learn anything in prison.

AI is a P-zombie. It's behaviorally identical to a human but completely lacks phenomenal experience. A calculator does not experience 2+2 = 4 when you hit enter. I suspect human experience is the brain drawing all of its senses onto a screen And it uses tricks of memory to create continuity, object permanence and time. The fly is experiencing something. Self awareness is not necessary for experience.

AI (2001)

Right, I was mostly pointing to the one that looks invisible

But can it learn how to feel?

White academic multi-cultural stance is also an identity. The normal person "default".