zurew

Don't make the Descartes kind of (imo) mistake, where you put all your bets on your ability to doubt. What makes you think that your inability to doubt makes that particular thing absolutely true? it might just be the case, that given your cognition you can only doubt certain things and not others, but just because you can't doubt things, from that doesn't necessarily follow that those things are absolutely true (whatever that means). Inability to doubt will give you psychological certainty(will give you a list of things you can conceive of) but not deductively valid conclusions (if you want to go with deductive logic, but that will have its own problems too)

Sorry @Husseinisdoingfine for derailing your thread.

People like to be very vague here, unfortunately.

But I have a big problem though, and I want you to use your energy reading abilities to help me out, my broski. My infallible intuitions told me to follow step by step whatever Joe Rogan and Alex Jones says. In fact, I bought all the products Alex Jones recommended to me, and now i have erectile dysfunction, I have parasites in my body, my piss is black due to my liver and kidneys not working anymore and I see reptilian humanoids everywhere. I tried to use the famous, powerful horse dewormer (ivermectin) against the parasites (recommended by Joe) but it didn't work. After using my highly reliable and sophisticated energy reading abilities (that I have learnt from you), I concluded that all those problems that I listed above were exclusively caused by those reptilian humanoids. I told this highly reliable and non-schizophrenic conclusion of mine to my psychiatrist, and to my surprise, she didn't see the patterns that I saw. I got very dissapointed in her bad pattern recognition ability and I used the last 2 psychiatric sessions of mine to teach her about your methods - like the secret genius method of how to connect 2 dots together. She still has a lot to learn (she is what you would call a non-intuitive fool), just the same way I still have a lot to learn from you. So,what do you recommend me to do? Should I try to communicate with the reptilian humanoids or should I use my psychic abilities to make them go away?

Maybe you two differ on ethics, because I think he would consider himself to be a moral realist, but im not 100% sure. He did say that the is-ought gap doesn't really exist, and that there is no good argument for it.

+ there are a bunch of plugins that others have created that you can easily download and use

Good one, broski. I noticed a pattern in your writing, and I connected the dots together, and read your energy using my perfect , infallible intuitions and my conclusion is that all of your intuitions are wrong.

@DocWatts Most of the things you wrote down seem to be very similar to John Vervaeke's position (as far as I understand his position on this). Even the word "disclose" is a word that he often time uses, when he talks about the subject-object relationship and how you are not just receiving raw sense data from your senses and how you are not just creating objects in your mind, but there are real objects in the world, that exist independent of your mind, but they disclose themselves to you in a particular way and your perception and experience of those objects is depended on your cognition (and you are participating in that disclosure). Do you have any particular disagreement with Vervaeke regarding his metaphysics or epistemology or ethics? Btw your writing is very comprehensible and accessible (even to me who is very poorly read in philosophy), and it is easy to follow your deductions and thought process , so good job on that!

Sure - I can only talk from my pov - Im very poorly read in philosophy , especially on this particular topic and I havent thought much about it, so I don't have any strong position on any of this. I don't have the necessary vocab to have a meaningful talk or debate about this. Im mostly just here to observe and to take some notes . I appreciate the honesty about hitting your limits. If more forum members would be this honest, we would have much more meaningful and productive debates and convos.

Okay gotcha, that clears it up for me.

I meant the classical notion of an abstract object like numbers, sets, propositions. Like if you say that numbers exist , would you say that they are spatio-temporal? this is a general argument for the existence of abstract objects: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/#4 But regardless, I guess what I wanted to ask is that if you think that things that are non spatio-temporal do exist, then how do you make sense of them in the context of identity? Because it seems to me that your definition of identity presupposes that identity is necessarily being bounded by time (if I understood what you meant there, but I might be misinterpreting)

This might get us back into the need to clarify what is being meant by 'existing' ,but how would you classify or make sense of abstract objects (objects that don't seem to be bounded by time and space)?

Without getting bogged down in the atom talk and asking you to clarify what you mean by something to exist - I see, you meant different compared to what I thought you meant. I thought 'dying from ageing' , but sure if we talk about all encompassing immortality (not dying from anything) and we take into into account the "death" of the universe , then yeah it seems to be inescapable (according to our current knowledge)

What about animals that don't seem to die from ageing?

Its good seeing you more frequently asking for clarity (making sure you understand what is being said) before you give your reply or rebuttal. I think it would be good to make it more of a norm on this forum (like people should encourage each other to ask for clarity rather than making strawmans and always assume whats being said). The quality of conversations here are often times low, 1) because people aren't even talking about the same thing and are talking past each other (they use the same words, but mean completely different things - especially when it comes to philosophical and spiritual topics and 2) because people rarely ask for any kind of clarity in usual (like not just for meaning but asking whats the overall point that is being made without getting lost in instinctively arguing every detail they disagree with)

You guys might have to clear up, what you mean by clarity

I don't think the vast majority of people (like 99%) here understand generally what you are trying to communicate (I am included, cause I don't understand most of what you are saying ). Now that can be a problem with us, but the fact of the matter is that if we don't understand what you say, we won't be able to communicate and exchange ideas. My problem is not with certain individual words you are using, cause if I see some word that I don't know, I can look it up in a dictionary immediately, but the context in which you used them and how you connect them together to form a sentence and then the structure in which you connect all your sentences together most of the cases don't make much sense to me (and I don't mean 'not making sense' in a pejorative sense, I mean - I literally don't know what you mean or what overall point you are trying to make or even some cases what specific point you are trying to respond to) For example just from what you wrote above, I have no idea what you mean by: What would you suggest for us to do, in order to understand you better?

Trump fans: Take a look at how much likes each tweet has received. https://x.com/NICKMERCS/status/1796334977744830824 https://x.com/TrumpLatinos24/status/1796304120686457077 https://x.com/WatchChad/status/1796297352510091357 https://x.com/votetimscott/status/1796301287891292427

I think most people on this forum has very differing and vague views on tier 1 and tier 2 . "agrees with me" - at least tier 2 "disagrees with me" - definitely tier 1 Imagine doing a poll about this. Take 25 people that most forum members know about and then have them sort those 25 people into Tier 1 and Tier 2 boxes. I think the results would wildly differ.

Why?

I guess this is kind of similar to other things in that as you learn more, you gain the ability to recognize more nuance and you gain the ability to make finer distinctions.

Thats interesting, I think I you have talked about the 2 axes in the past (the y and x dimensions) Now the even more interesting thing about this could be that you may add even more axis to this analysis as you progress further on the previous axes (in this case the x and y) - meaning these two axes are not the full picture about how much dimensionality you can add to conciousness.

Would you say that having a higher baseline means having the ability to have higher peakstates? Yeah but then whatever label we want to add to that state, the exact same problem arise. "How can you know for sure that your concept of full picture isn't limited or undermined by that state?"

From that wouldn't follow that your very concept of completeness or your concept of highest awkening is constrained by your cognition/DNA? So whatever you think is the complete picture will be always relative and you can never safely say that you actually know the full picture.

I noticed that your tone has changed a little bit recently and you take more dimensions into consideration when it comes to your analysis or speech. By more dimension I mostly mean emotional maturity and being more understanding.