zurew

Member
  • Content count

    3,596
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zurew

  1. You would be laughed out of any philosophy of science department for even trying to imply any such thing - since when do you think that one cant hold onto a physicalist metaphysics and make progress in science or since when do we think that observations and equations will just break down under different metaphysics? Like all of this is nonsense and stupid and this is all besides the fact that you strawmanned the fuck out of a lot of people without being able to back up any of it. Do you have data what metaphysical and philosophy of science views do scientists have? No you dont, but you build your whole argument based on your intuition on this.
  2. Note that Einstein didn't know about you and about your metaphysics. Note that science still progressed without your system. Note that you are and your insights are not central to any of this. There is nothing to make a counter-argument to, because you havent made an argument - all you have done so far is a vague gesture towards "scientists stupid and bad, cause they dont follow my metaphysics". Notice that you dont have any good response to the rocket claim and you think that you have provided some kind of deep profound thought in your blogpost (that btw other have already made way before you - so none of that is original to you) and you are stumbled by one simple example. And then you made some claims that you wont back up - like your claim about fundamentality.
  3. Oh yes you can, and you can still send a rocket to the moon without ever studying anything about metaphysics. So no - its not foundational at all.
  4. The government will need to take care of it, but most elites wont give a fuck about any of the chaos.
  5. Power will be defined by having the most intelligent robots. non elites will beg for goods and services , and most elites will self sustain. You can maintain your power without having any customers. As an elite you can have an army of the most intelligent agents protecting you 24/7 and them montioring everything around you. I dont see how any person would be a big threat to them and even if that was true there are ways around it.
  6. Elites wont need customers in order to stay in power or to gain more power. They can just use the best AI model for whatever they want and need. They can stay and be happy in their own closed loop. I don't see at all how they would lose their elite status once there are no more customers. The resource difference will be there , it wont go anywhere and it will just grow given that they will employ AI agents that will get increasingly more intelligent and efficient.
  7. Unless ASI becomes a silicon sage, we will be pretty much fucked
  8. Curt seems to be impressed by Eric's theory. (Timestamped)
  9. Then im not tracking at all. How is your position different from nondualism?
  10. But your direct experience says otherwise - its peculiar that you have human thoughts , desires ,and you have an embodied experience of what it means to be a limited human - and yet in your mind none of that is finite. You dont have access to and not aware of a bunch of things right now. It can be true all the time, that what God's aware of is what exists, but thats different from saying what a limited dream character (you having a limited embodied experience as a human) is aware of at any given moment is all that exists. These are two separate claims. And to go with your definition of Absolute truth - for it to be true, its not required that you are aware that its true. Its not like , okay now you are aware of it , now its true (unless you want to take this absurd position, which we can go down if you want to). Which leads you to irreconcilable contradictions given your epistemology of "the only thing that is true and exists is what Im aware of".
  11. You would need to move the whole "spirituality ,Consciousness" subforum there. Even your threads because people intellectualized them
  12. You take your finite human self to not be finite? If you take it that there is a difference between being in God mode vs not being in God mode , then there will be a bunch of contentious questions about ontology there. When it comes to the idea of you collapsing epistemology and ontology - "Only the things im aware of exists" - when we invoke that , are we talking about being in God mode or not being in God mode? Because I assume that you want to make it so that there is no difference between the two, but whats the argument that establish that the same "Only the things im aware of exists" principle applies in both cases?
  13. Yes, and hence why there is an open issue with interpretation. Every time someone talks about it, he/she relies on their memory (unless the claim is that they go through the same awakening live every time they talk about it).
  14. I wouldnt be so sure that you can solve the issue with having experiences. There is a possibility that it comes down the interpretation issues, not lack of enlightenment experiences. So for example, notions like "aloneness" only make sense if there is an identity. If the pure infinite consciousness dissolves all identity (it doesn't have any identity), then aloneness doesn't make much sense.
  15. Im not even trying to challenge what Maharshi said - I dont think by "you" he meant the same thing as what solipsists mean on this forum. The term "you" can be indexed to God and it can be indexed to this limited dream character. I suspect Maharshi indexed it to God and he would agree that indexing it to this limited human dream character would be a mistake and might even say that its a category error, because its conflating duality with nonduality.
  16. How should we treat others? There is no you, who could treat others. Nahm has entered the chat.
  17. WIth that for some reason you made me remember a funny moment from an old Destiny stream, where he stated that the reason why he started to get into philosophy is becuase he tried to overwrite the madness and the lack of foundational certainty after doing shrooms. (timestamped) Maybe the same way how the dude in the video is not ready to do the "philosophical investigations" using psyhedelics , the same way you are not ready to do IFS to do the necessary investigations about daimons 😂
  18. Actually these p-zombies havent realized this yet, but there is an awakening beyond Solipsism, where you can realize that you are just a dream character in ChatGPT's dream.
  19. Hey solipsists, I would have never fucking imagined in my life, that dream characters will try to argue that they don't actually have a conscious experience, only my dream character does. Now that I realized that fact, enjoy your unconscious experience !
  20. Idk, from listening to how he described it in another video, it doesnt seem to be like he wanted it to happen or that he expected it to happen - it seemed to happen on its own (while doing IFS) and it wasn't just a 1 time thing , its a regular weekly thing for him now (now he has some control over it, he can consciously decide when he wants it to happen) - and it also seems that this is not a new thing and Socrates and many others talked about shit like this way before Jung. Also from reading a limited amount of psych studies on AVH-s (Auditory verbal hallucinations) , they don't easily map on to psychosis. But, regardless how one wants to categorize these experiences/hallucinations - they seem to be very useful to people and life-changing in a positive way. And just to be clear - I am not sold on the idea that these are separate entities existing in a different realm, but there seem to be pragmatic value there.
  21. By the lack of ability to respond to the challenges that are brought up, while also admitting that you can be wrong about the interpretation that you construct from the awakening that you have, while also saying that you cant be wrong about it because its unfalsifiable. And by the epistemology that you put forth. Your epistemology includes more than just direct experience. You want to hold on to "it requires interpretive work" while also saying that "its not something that you can be wrong about" To be clear, you are not even open for a debate, because you think you cant be wrong about it, so you are here to teach and preach.