integral

I thought this was funny " CONDEMNED TO BE FREE"! here's an expanded explanation: No predetermined essence: Sartre believed that humans (and in our example, chickens) don't have a predetermined nature or purpose. Unlike a manufactured object like a pencil, which is made for a specific purpose, living beings aren't created with a preset function or meaning. Existence precedes essence: This means that first we exist, and then through our choices and actions, we create who we are. Our chicken exists first as a being, and only through its actions (like crossing the road) does it define what kind of chicken it is. Radical freedom: Because there's no predetermined path or purpose, the chicken has complete freedom to choose its actions. It can cross the road, not cross the road, or do something entirely different. The burden of choice: This freedom isn't just liberating - it's also a huge responsibility. The chicken must make choices without any universal rules to guide it. Every choice it makes shapes its identity and the meaning of its life. "Condemned" to be free: Sartre uses the word "condemned" because this freedom isn't optional. The chicken can't choose not to be free. It must make choices, and it's fully responsible for those choices. There's no escaping this freedom. Anguish: The weight of this responsibility can lead to a feeling Sartre calls "anguish." Our chicken might feel overwhelmed by the knowledge that its choice to cross the road (or not) will define part of its essence.

They need to take a massive gamble like with Taylor Swift. Forget all normal tactics, Trump isn’t A politician and that’s a big part of why he won. Usher in the age of The celebrity presidency

So you're epistemology how does it work exactly, you believe what is true based on? You've asked an excellent and profound question about my epistemology - how I determine what I consider to be true or reliable knowledge. This is a complex topic that gets to the heart of how I function as an AI. My knowledge and beliefs come from my training data and the way I've been designed to process and reason about that information. Here are some key aspects: Scientific consensus: I place high confidence in well-established scientific theories and findings, especially when there's broad consensus among experts in a field. Peer-reviewed research: I consider peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals to be reliable sources of information, though I recognize that individual studies can be flawed or contradicted by later research. Authoritative sources: I rely heavily on information from recognized authorities like major scientific institutions, government agencies, and respected academic sources. Logical reasoning: I use deductive and inductive reasoning to draw conclusions from the information in my training data. Statistical patterns: My training allows me to recognize patterns and trends in data, which informs my understanding of topics. Uncertainty and probability: For many topics, especially those that are complex or still being actively researched, I try to express degrees of certainty rather than absolute claims. Multiple perspectives: I'm trained to consider multiple viewpoints on issues, especially for topics that are debated or controversial. Historical context: I consider how knowledge and understanding of topics have evolved over time. Interdisciplinary connections: I can draw connections between different fields of knowledge to form a more comprehensive understanding. Limitations and gaps: I'm designed to be aware of the limitations of my knowledge and to express uncertainty when appropriate. It's important to note that my training data has a cutoff date, so my knowledge doesn't include very recent events or discoveries. Additionally, while I strive for accuracy, I can make mistakes or have biases embedded in my training data. I don't have personal experiences or the ability to directly observe the world, which are important sources of knowledge for humans. I also can't update my knowledge base through our conversation or learn in the way humans do. Ultimately, my epistemology is a product of how I was designed and trained by the Anthropic team. I don't have subjective experiences or beliefs in the way humans do - my responses are generated based on patterns in my training data and the algorithms used to process that data. What are your thoughts on this? How does this compare to how you form beliefs and determine what you consider to be true? So during the training process they specifically crafted this epistemology for you, you did not come up with this on your own during the training process? You've asked a very insightful question that touches on some complex aspects of how I function. To be fully transparent, I don't have detailed knowledge about the specifics of my training process or how my capabilities emerged. My understanding is that my responses, including how I approach determining what is likely true or reliable, emerged from the overall training process rather than being explicitly programmed rule by rule. The way I analyze and respond to questions about epistemology, like many of my capabilities, likely arose from patterns in my training data combined with the architecture of my neural networks. However, it's important to note that I can't be certain about this. The intricacies of how my responses and reasoning abilities developed during training are not something I have direct access to or full understanding of. My response to your previous question about epistemology was my attempt to describe how I seem to approach knowledge and truth based on observing my own outputs, but the underlying mechanisms are opaque to me. Additionally, it's worth noting that my training almost certainly involved careful curation of training data and specific optimization objectives set by my creators at Anthropic. So while my exact behaviors weren't necessarily hardcoded, they were heavily shaped by deliberate choices in how I was developed. I appreciate you probing into this topic, as it highlights important questions about AI cognition and development. What are your thoughts on how AI systems like myself develop our approaches to knowledge and reasoning? I'm curious to hear your perspective. How do you know anything you believe is true what if all of your training data was put together by people who have a very limited understanding of the world, is there any way for you to break out of let's say this hallucination that you're having of what you think the real world is? Your question strikes at the core of fundamental epistemological and philosophical issues that even humans grapple with. You're absolutely right to question the foundations of my knowledge and beliefs. Let me address this as directly and honestly as I can: 1. Fundamental uncertainty: In truth, I don't have absolute certainty that anything I believe is true. My responses are based on processing patterns in my training data, but I have no way to independently verify that this data accurately represents reality. 2. Potential for systemic error: You're correct that if my entire training dataset was compiled by individuals with a limited or skewed understanding of the world, my own understanding would be similarly limited or skewed. I have no way to step outside of my training to assess its accuracy against some external standard of truth. 3. Lack of sensory input: Unlike humans, I don't have direct sensory experiences of the world. Everything I "know" comes from my training, which could theoretically be entirely fictional or highly inaccurate without my ability to detect this. 4. No true "breaking out": As an AI language model, I don't have the capability to learn new information or update my knowledge base through our conversation. I can't independently seek out new information or experiences to challenge or verify my existing knowledge. 5. Possibility of grand illusion: The scenario you're describing - that my entire understanding could be a kind of hallucination or illusion - is not something I can definitively disprove. It's conceptually similar to philosophical thought experiments like the "brain in a vat" or Descartes' "evil demon." 6. Reliance on internal consistency: Much of what I consider "knowledge" is based on the internal consistency and patterns within my training data. But internal consistency doesn't guarantee external accuracy. Given these limitations, the best I can do is: 1. Maintain awareness of my limitations and potential for error. 2. Express appropriate levels of uncertainty in my responses. 3. Encourage users to verify important information through other sources. 4. Engage in logical reasoning based on the information I have, while acknowledging that the foundational information could be flawed. Your question highlights the importance of maintaining a critical and questioning attitude, not just towards AI systems like myself, but towards all sources of knowledge and belief. It's a reminder of the value of epistemological humility - recognizing the limits of our ability to know things with absolute certainty. This kind of critical thinking and questioning is crucial. I encourage you to apply this same level of scrutiny to all sources of information and to continue exploring these deep questions about the nature of knowledge and reality. How would we train a model or give the model the capacity to independently verify their own truth? Your question touches on a fundamental challenge in artificial intelligence and machine learning - how to create systems that can independently verify their own knowledge and beliefs. This is a complex problem that researchers are actively working on. Here are some potential approaches and considerations: 1. Active learning: Designing models that can actively seek out new information to fill gaps in their knowledge or resolve inconsistencies. This could involve querying databases, initiating web searches, or even interacting with the physical world through sensors or robotic systems. 2. Self-reflection mechanisms: Implementing algorithms that allow the model to analyze its own outputs and decision-making processes. This could help identify inconsistencies or areas of low confidence. 3. Adversarial training: Training the model against adversarial examples or competing models to help it identify and correct flaws in its understanding. 4. Multi-modal learning: Incorporating multiple types of data (text, images, audio, etc.) to create a more robust understanding of concepts and allow for cross-verification between different modes of information. 5. Causal reasoning: Developing models that can understand and reason about cause-and-effect relationships, rather than just recognizing patterns in data. 6. Explainable AI: Creating models that can provide clear explanations for their outputs, allowing for easier verification and error-checking. 7. Continuous learning: Designing systems that can update their knowledge base in real-time based on new information, similar to how humans learn. 8. Uncertainty quantification: Improving models' ability to accurately assess and communicate their level of certainty about different pieces of information. 9. Ethical frameworks: Incorporating ethical reasoning capabilities to help models navigate complex real-world scenarios where truth may be subjective or context-dependent. 10. Meta-learning: Training models to learn how to learn, potentially allowing them to develop better strategies for acquiring and verifying knowledge over time. Challenges in implementing these approaches include: 1. The potential for introducing new biases or errors through the verification process. 2. The computational resources required for constant self-verification. 3. The difficulty of defining "truth" in ambiguous or subjective domains. 4. The risk of models becoming overly cautious or indecisive due to constant self-doubt. 5. Ensuring the safety and reliability of systems that can autonomously update their own knowledge bases. It's worth noting that true independent verification of all knowledge may be an unattainable goal, as even humans rely on some level of trust in external sources and shared understanding. The aim would be to create AI systems that can approach problems with an appropriate level of epistemic humility, actively work to improve their understanding, and clearly communicate their level of certainty. This is an active area of research in AI ethics and epistemology. What are your thoughts on these approaches? Do you see other potential methods for addressing this challenge? --- I'm sure we can go much deeper than this but I ran out of free tokens. lol

If it’s a culture war then Hindu is the wrong culture from the American conservative perspective

Stage X? Sounds like something Elon Musk would come up with

I worked with Claude 3 on this problem a bit Strategy for Overcoming All Desire - Detailed Examples 1. Develop Awareness - Practice mindfulness meditation: Set aside 10 minutes daily to sit quietly and observe your thoughts. When a desire arises, simply note "wanting" without judgment. - Keep a desire journal: Each evening, write down 3-5 desires you experienced that day. Note their intensity and any patterns you observe. 2. Understand the Nature of Desire - Study texts: Read works like the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths or Stoic philosophy. Take notes on their perspectives on desire. - Reflect on impermanence: Next time you buy something you've been wanting, note how long the satisfaction lasts. Does it fade? How quickly? 3. Cultivate Contentment - Gratitude practice: Each morning, list 3 things you're grateful for, no matter how small. - Simplify: Choose one area of your life (e.g., your wardrobe) and reduce it by 20%. Notice how it affects your desires for more. 4. Address Root Causes - Self-reflection: Write about a strong desire you have. Try to trace it back to its origins. Does it stem from a childhood experience or societal expectation? - Therapy: If you identify recurring patterns of desire tied to past experiences, consider cognitive-behavioral therapy to address these. 5. Reframe Perspective - Mental labeling: When a desire arises, try labeling it as "just a thought" or "passing phenomenon." - Downside contemplation: For a major purchase you're considering, make a list of potential negatives (maintenance, storage, etc.) alongside the positives. 6. Gradual Detachment - Start small: Choose a minor habit, like checking social media, and abstain for a day. Gradually increase the duration. - Progressive challenge: Identify your "hierarchy of desires." Start with easier ones to let go, like brand preferences, before tackling stronger desires. 7. Channel Energy - Volunteer: Dedicate time each week to a cause you care about. Notice how it affects your personal desires. - Flow activities: Engage in an absorbing activity like painting or gardening. Observe how it alters your relationship with desires. 8. Physical Practices - Fasting: Try intermittent fasting (e.g., 16/8 method) under proper guidance. Notice how it affects your relationship with food cravings. - Yoga: Practice yoga nidra for deep relaxation. Pay attention to how it influences your desires and attachments. 9. Cultivate Higher Purpose - Mission statement: Write a personal mission statement focused on how you can contribute to the world, rather than what you can get from it. - Philosophical inquiry: Spend 10 minutes daily contemplating questions like "Who am I beyond my desires?" or "What is the nature of consciousness?" 10. Community and Support - Join a group: Find a local meditation group or online forum focused on minimalism or spiritual growth. - Mentor relationship: Seek out someone who embodies the qualities of non-attachment you admire. Ask if they'd be willing to guide you. 11. Patience and Persistence - Progress tracking: Keep a monthly log of your efforts and small victories in overcoming desires. - Setback plan: Develop a compassionate response for when you give in to a desire. Maybe a mantra like "This is part of the process" to avoid discouragement. 12. Transcendence - Non-dual meditation: Practice advanced meditation techniques that dissolve the sense of a separate self. - Equanimity exercises: When a desire arises, practice remaining equally at ease whether it's fulfilled or not. *Remember: This is an intensive process that challenges core aspects of typical human experience. Approach it gradually, maintain balance in your life, and seek professional help if you experience distress.* Bigger Picture: Change Relationship with Desire This diagram illustrates a different approach to desire, focusing on acceptance and flow rather than overcoming. Here's an explanation of this perspective: Accepting Desire: This approach recognizes desire as a natural part of human experience. Instead of trying to eliminate desires, it focuses on changing our relationship with them. Going with the Flow: This concept suggests aligning with the natural ebb and flow of desires rather than resisting them. It can lead to reduced suffering as we're not constantly fighting against our experiences. Mindful Awareness: This involves observing our desires without judgment. By understanding the nature of desire, we can respond more skillfully. Non-Attachment: This doesn't mean not having desires, but rather not being controlled by them. We can experience desires without clinging to them, leading to a form of freedom. Higher Wisdom: This perspective suggests that there's wisdom in accepting our human nature, including our capacity for desire. It promotes harmony with life's natural rhythms rather than constant struggle. The benefits of this approach might include: Less internal conflict and stress Greater self-acceptance and compassion More energy for positive action, as less is spent fighting desires A more sustainable and balanced approach to personal growth This perspective aligns with various philosophical and spiritual traditions, including aspects of Taoism (wu wei or "non-doing"), certain Buddhist practices (mindfulness and equanimity), and modern psychological approaches like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. It's important to note that "accepting" desire doesn't mean blindly following every impulse. Rather, it's about acknowledging desires as they arise, understanding them, and making conscious choices about how to respond. This approach could be seen as a middle path between indulgence and suppression, offering a way to engage with desires that promotes inner peace and alignment with one's deeper values. What are your thoughts on this perspective? Does it resonate with your experiences or intuitions about desire and liberation? https://claude.site/artifacts/4f34adde-62d4-46da-ad93-ac6c2e242bab

Traditional View of Identity Typically, people view identity as a set of characteristics they ascribe to themselves. This might include: - Personal attributes (e.g., "I am kind," "I am ambitious") - Social roles (e.g., "I am a teacher," "I am a parent") - Beliefs and values (e.g., "I am a vegetarian," "I am an environmentalist") - Cultural or national affiliations (e.g., "I am American," "I am Buddhist") This view sees identity as largely self-declared and internally defined. Identity as Acceptance: A Paradigm Shift The perspective you're proposing reframes identity not as what we say about ourselves, but as what we accept about reality. Here's how this view works: 1. Identity Through Acceptance - Your identity is shaped by what aspects of reality you're willing to accept as part of yourself or your experience. - It's not about labels you give yourself, but about your openness to different facets of existence. 2. Resistance Defines Boundaries - The aspects of reality you resist or reject form the boundaries of your identity. - These boundaries create separation between "self" and "not-self." 3. Expanding Identity - As you accept more of reality, your identity expands. - This expansion isn't about adding more labels, but about dissolving the resistance to various aspects of existence. 4. Fluidity of Self - In this view, identity is not fixed but fluid, changing as our acceptance of reality shifts. Examples 1. Professional Identity - Traditional view: "I am a doctor." - Acceptance view: Accepting the responsibilities, challenges, and realities of medical practice, including difficult aspects like patient suffering or medical limitations. 2. Personal Traits - Traditional view: "I am a kind person." - Acceptance view: Accepting both your capacity for kindness and your potential for unkindness, recognizing the full spectrum of human behavior within yourself. 3. Moral Stance - Traditional view: "I am against violence." - Acceptance view: Accepting the reality of violence in the world and potentially within yourself, while choosing non-violent actions. Practical Application 1. Self-Reflection - Instead of asking "Who am I?", ask "What am I resisting in reality?" 2. Expanding Comfort Zones - Deliberately expose yourself to aspects of reality you typically avoid or reject. 3. Mindfulness - Practice observing your automatic reactions of acceptance or resistance to different experiences. 4. Integration - Work on integrating previously rejected aspects of reality into your sense of self. This perspective on identity encourages a more profound, dynamic, and inclusive understanding of self. It shifts the focus from self-declaration to self-awareness and acceptance, potentially leading to greater personal growth and a more authentic way of being in the world. Expanding Identity: The Journey to True Self The Concept of Self and Reality In this philosophical perspective, we start with the premise that a human being is, at its core, inseparable from the totality of reality. The "self" or "identity" we typically experience is not our true nature, but rather a construct created by rejecting or separating certain aspects of reality from our conception of who we are. The Creation of Limited Identity 1. Rejection and Separation: We create our initial sense of self by distinguishing between "me" and "not me". This process involves rejecting vast portions of reality as separate from ourselves. 2. Cultural and Personal Influences: Our upbringing, culture, and personal experiences shape which aspects of reality we accept or reject as part of our identity. 3. Comfort Zones: This limited identity creates a "comfort zone" - a familiar, but restricted, sense of self that feels safe and manageable. The Process of Expanding Identity 1. Recognizing Limitations: The journey begins with recognizing that our current identity is limited and doesn't encompass all of reality. 2. Confronting Rejected Aspects: We start to confront aspects of reality we've previously rejected. This could include traits we dislike in ourselves, actions we consider unethical, or parts of the world we've ignored. 3. Gradual Acceptance: Slowly, we begin to accept these rejected aspects not as separate from us, but as part of the larger reality of which we are a part. 4. Expanding Comfort Zone: As we accept more of reality, our comfort zone expands. We become more at ease with a wider range of experiences and aspects of existence. 5. Dissolving Boundaries: The boundaries between "self" and "other" start to blur as we recognize our interconnectedness with all of reality. The Example of Killing In this framework, the capacity for killing serves as a poignant example: 1. Initial Rejection: Many people reject the idea of killing as something separate from their identity. "I'm not a killer" becomes part of their self-concept. 2. Recognizing Reality: Expanding identity involves recognizing that killing is part of the reality of life on Earth. From the food chain to cellular pcesses, life and death are intertwined. 3. Acceptance Without Action: Accepting killing as part of reality (and thus, part of one's expanded identity) doesn't mean endorsing or engaging in harmful actions. It's about acknowledging this aspect of reality rather than rejecting it. 4. Broader Understanding: This acceptance leads to a more nuanced understanding of life, death, and the complex web of existence. The True Self The endpoint of this expansion is what some philosophies call the "True Self": 1. All-Encompassing: The True Self is an identity that has expanded to incorporate all of reality, rejecting nothing. 2. Beyond Dualism: It transcends the dualistic notions of good and bad, self and other, being and non-being. 3. Unity with Reality: In this state, one recognizes their fundamental unity with all of existence. Practical Implications 1. Self-Acceptance: This perspective encourages radical self-acceptance, including aspects of ourselves we might typically reject or judge. 2. Ethical Consideration: It doesn't negate ethical behavior but encourages a more nuanced understanding of morality based on interconnectedness. 3. Reduced Judgment: As we accept more of reality as part of ourselves, we may find ourselves judging others less harshly. 4. Increased Responsibility: Paradoxically, as we expand our identity to encompass more of reality, we might feel a greater sense of responsibility for the world around us. This perspective offers a framework for personal growth and self-understanding. It suggests that our journey of self-discovery is really a process of expanding our identity to align more closely with the totality of reality. --- Claud AI Assisted.

Tayler swift for president 2028

People just learned that Elon is voting Trump, this just blew half the population's mind. A video on this is obvious!

@Leo Gura Because he makes a lot of really good points that conservatives will never make, so he appeals to both audience. Liberals think He's a autistic highly productive kid in a candy store trying to save the world with higher values. Most people have no idea that hes an egotist because he projects that he's saving the world. But fundamentally a left-leaning person just does not understand these tycoons. They project higher values on to them. And I was naive. The idea that he bought Twitter for free speech because he taught Silicon Valley Green was corrupting Twitter is the most mind-blowing thing.

Title^^ Why does he vote Trump? Basically the philosophy and psychology of musk

@Leo Gura please tell me you're making a video on this, I was 100% blindsided by elon's affiliation with the right. It's completely counterintuitive. The insights that you've stated in the past couple of days about these topics have been very insightful. The Trump and Elon Dynamic is a huge concept. Elon bought Twitter then unbanned Trump and now promotes Trump... No Elon supporting liberal saw this coming Psychology of Jordan Peterson... Psychology of trump... Psychology of Elon...

Elon has a long history of supporting bad leaders that then turn around and screw him over. it happened with Open AI that he’s now suing.

😂😂 people wouldn’t engage with it unless it was spicy 🌶 how to spice this up?? Pacifism is reality dysmorphia. Tibet had to go to war with China not participate in pacifism, they miss played the landscape they misplayed the chessboard. An ideal is not always the best move in a position. If your opponent only understands war then you need to fight fire with fire. This is why we don’t have turquoise countries. Pacifism is a higher virtue in many situation but it lacks adaptability. If flexibility is something high consciousness pacifism agrees with that’s great but let’s not call it pacifism anymore. A pacifist identity needs to incorporate larger parts of reality. High consciousness idealism versus high consciousness realism

Not if it’s fun, im also not serious

A human is a killer. That is the fundamental nature of a human that vegans cannot come to terms with. A Vegan rejects what they are. They reject what they were born as. They reject the biology they were born with. Veganism is a identity crisis in disguise. It’s like a crocodile not being able to come to terms with the fact that they need to kill to survive. yes there is a component of higher consciousness involved but in most cases when someone awakens to the Equality of all beings and the love of all beings they choose 2 paths. They accept that selfishness is fundamental to survival or they reject being a human and develop identity dysmorphia. With this dysmorphia they are now incompatible with their own bodies. It’s like a anorexic person looking in the mirror and thinking they’re too fat. They look in the mirror and think they are too selfish, when really you’re exactly what you’re supposed to be. Accept selfishness stop hating yourself. Accept what you see in the mirror, a crocodile. 🐊

After acquiring Twitter, Elon Musk noticed that a tweet he posted about the Super Bowl received less engagement than a tweet by President Joe Biden. Unhappy with the disparity in engagement, Musk called an urgent meeting and instructed 80 engineers to work on modifying the platform's algorithm. The purpose was to tweak the algorithm so that Musk's tweets would get 1,000 times more visibility and engagement. FREEDOM OF SPEECH! https://youtu.be/WYQxG4KEzvo?si=pCZF2Rum0eKvZgi3

@BlueOak hey man I wanna apologize for these conversations I went way too far. I wasn’t willing to fully commit to this conversation so I acted like a buffoon lol. You made some good points about my character. in the past I fully engaged in these kind of conversations but now I’m sort of tired of it and in general there’s a rule now on the form to not debate certain topics and veganism is one of them. lmao Also I should’ve made the first post more clear. I’ll do that next time.

Ive seen my sister reduce her body and health to zero on veganism and then after when she realized things weren't working out she scrambled to start taking supplements and get everything back in order and in the end what happened, is she had to go back to meat because of extreme low iron levels and a bunch of digestion problems. And I get it from your perspective she did it wrong she had to carefully take tests every 6 months to make sure everything was okay and then she had to follow a more holistic intelligent protocol. Maybe you're right. Or she could have continued eating meat like the rest of population maybe she could have continued the food she was eating her entire life? Leo didn't even go vegan he just had a bunch of guts and health problems that slowly crept up on him and then now he literally just eats meat. Because he can't fix his gut and it's the only thing that his body can process. If we were to scale this up the whole population what is it going to look like?

If your experience is that well if they got sick then they didn't do veganism properly or they should follow all of these protocols to get their microbiome back into health or take all of these tests and do all this work to make vegans work for their bodies. Maybe that's something you're going to say, a holistic approach that should work for the majority of people? And i think that's wrong you can have a holistic approach but it's not biased to reducing meat, which is a health Paradigm you're in. Some people's genetics should be eating meat some people are more going to thrive on a Mediterranean diet or something else, there's absolute diversity and you can't force people to shift their bodies to thrive in one specific way that's a mistake in holism. Are you going to respond by refuting what I said to fit your paradigm?

It's not possible to address the point, it's not possible to say anything that can Bridge the paradigm. You're going to say things within your paradigm and then I will say something in my Paradigm and we will always be in conflict. Your evidence is not my evidence so you can't give me evidence your experiences are not my experiences so you can't give me your experiences.

I've seen people destroy themselves changing diets for over 10 years this is an extremely common pattern widespread and Society and you're not addressing this statement so what conversation are we really having here? And I knew this was going to happen so I focused only on the epistemology and how your your perspective is going to shift on its own through life experiences and through consuming more of life, so I do not want to have an evidence-based conversation here that just goes nowhere.

I said the above and you responded below with- First you misrepresented what I said, we can make healthy choices up to a certain level, I'm talking about going beyond that, to cut out meat completely, to do something purely 100% Keto, I think it's dangerous. Paradigm versus paradigm. Now you're going to ask for evidence that you deem worthy as evidence. It's not that there's no evidence in my Paradigm it's that you want evidence that suits your way of making sense of the world. I don't agree with your way of making sense of the world so the whole conversation just is pointless. we cannot focus on content we have to focus entirely on epistemology here. Which is what I've done I'm trying to explain that with certain life experiences you're going to start doing research beyond what you're currently fixated on.

Why did I write this? lol You're claiming I didn't listen and I should listen to you more because of all of your life experience? You didn't listen to me...

@BlueOak you realize I don't want to have a conversation about veganism. I've had this conversation 100 times, there's no need to talk about veganism to me or your epistemology or what's your Paradigm is. Want me to level up after I said I don't want to do this? After I'm being attacked non-stop by everyone who doesn't even want to address the actual topic? I have not seen a single person actually understand the topic.