zurew

No its not, it fails - your idea is naive and you lack the imagination how many different ways they can still maintain their beliefs. Do you think the idea of "I believe in the christian God" is incompatible with Trump doing bad things ? 1) They can just say that it was God's plan to use Trump to test how strong they believe in him and this is the real test of their loyalty to God. 2) They can outright reject the idea that Trump did bad things and they can just think that those are actually good things for the country in the end. 3) They can think that Trump was forced by external factors to do those bad things (like by the deepstate or devil or something) 4) They can just use the idea that God gave us free-will and he respects our free will and its on us when we do bad things and its on us to correct sin. These are just 4 ways off the top of my head how to completely dodge the outcome you thought necessarily follows from the premses you laid out. And there are obviously many more other ways (than just four I mentioned) for them to maintain their narrative about God.

Cant tell if you are memeing or not.

I didnt provide a perfectly clear definition for bad intent , I gave a rather vague one, my main point was that if a definition is given then use that definition in a consistent way and dont equivocate or if you want to go with a different semantic then make it clear or use a new label.(This main point applies even if my definition is bad) But to answer - If its an entailment then its much harder to categorize . I need to make my ealier definition more specific and narrow it down in order to answer your question. I would change the definition to "Your main goal is to do damage or to harm someone " then you have bad intent. Given this more narrow definition , I think the answer to your question would be good intent (if the soldiers main goal isn't to harm or to do damage to the other country, but to protect their country).

Sounds like playing a wordgame where you define good intention in a way where there cannot be any bad intention. Which is fine (people can use different definitions for the same given phrase), but the issue is when we pretend that we address a problem that we don't really address - rather what we do is redefine things in a way where we don't even touch upon the original problem. So if I define X as Y and you give a different definition for X and say X is Z and then make an argument - that case you are not really responding to me (you are not really addressing the underlying fact of the matter in question [Y] you are talking about something completely different [Z]). So even though we use the same phrase [X] we talk about substantially different things (I talk about [Y] and you talk about [Z]) Now bringing this abstract thing inside the context of this discussion - If colloquially bad intention is defined something like "having an intent to harm or do damage to someone" and then you or Leo create a different definition for bad intention (for example - an impossible thing) then that isn't really responding to the original question of whether there is at least one person in the world who has an intent to harm or do damage to someone. You would just say that wanting to harm others or do damage to others would be still considered a good intention under your semantics, but under colloquial semantics it would be considered bad intent. So when you or Leo say there is no such thing as bad intent - you are equivocating and using a completely different definition compared to what a normie has in mind and you are not really solving or responding to the bad intent that the normie has in mind. The substance of ( wanting to do harm or do damage to someone ) is true and real under both semantics ,the difference is the label that you put on it. But giving it a different label wont make the substance go away. Be careful not to equivocate and try to respond to the underlying fact of the matter.

That statement can be cashed out in so many ways. I don't know what you mean by truth in that statement. Do you mean metaphysical truth or do you mean a more simpler like not lying about a given thing? Under my semantics power is not incompatible with truth - this is why i am asking what you mean.

What does that mean?

I agree with most of the things you said , but I would make a correction on this one. Logical possibility entails all possibility that doesn't entail a contradiction. This is relevant because, there are much more logically possible things compared to the things we can imagine. This is why we need to be careful when it comes to arguments and proofs to not appeal to incredulity ( to our lack of ability to imagine something being true or false) and to rather appeal to logical proofs where you actually rule out a given logical possibility being true, by showing that it would entail a contradiciton. If there are two sets (set A and set B) . Set A being all the things we can imagine and set B being all logically possible things, then these two sets would have an overlap, but each set would have unique elements to them (things that wouldn't be contained in their intersection) So for example, there might be contradictions that we can imagine being true , and there are things that are logically possible , but we are just not aware of those possibilities or simply lack the ability to imagine those things.

I don't see how that replies to what I asked you. Again, the claim wasn't that non-existence exists or that your non-existence exists , the claim by op was that you don't exist. Do you think the claim that "X doesn't exist" logically entails that "X exists"? To be clear if you just want to say , that the claim of "non-existence exists" entails a contradiction and for us to derive that contradiction we don't need to know the meaning of the word "existence" and "non-existence" - I agree with that.

If by observation you just mean that at some point in your life you had to have some access to qualia , sure I can go with that, although I would be curious if you can make an argument that can actually defend that claim. But regarldess, thats wildly different from claming that in order to form a concept about something you need to go out and observe that thing / object. Like - I have a concept of Mars, but I have never done any kind of empirical investigation or observation about Mars. Do you need to go outside and investigate the world to conclude bachelors are unmarried men, or the truth value of that statement is reliant on the definition of bachelor? Its not like you going outside and doing an investigation in the world will suddenly change the fact from 'bachelors are umarried men' , to 'bachelors are actually married men'. No amount of empirical investigation or observation will change the definition. Other example where you don't need any kind of empirical investigation - logical entailment and using the rules of inference: for instance : P1) All men are mortal P2) Socrates is a man C) Socrates is mortal. The conclusion that Socrates is mortal can be derived using a deductive inference without any kind of empirical investigation about Socrates' mortality or immortality. Seems pretty vague to me. I can parse that question using my concept of rationality, but its not clear at all whether you have the same concept in mind when you use that phrase. But wait, surely you can acknowledge that accepting contradictions in the context of metaphysics is very different from accepting contradiction in the context of justification or in the context of rules of inference.

It does. The claim isn't that non-existence exist, the claim is that certain things don't exist (in this case you). I am curious if you can derive a contradiction from the premise of "you don't exist".

I reject this. Straightforward counter examples - analytic truths and apriori truths. For example: "Bachelors are unmarried men" doesn't require any kind of observation or investigation in the world - it is just true by definition. Most of these questions are hard to answer because they are vague. You would need to clear up what is meant by certain terms like "right" or "valid" or what is meant by "rational" and "more rational" and then after that more fruitful conversation can be had. Yeah, but there you are making claims about metaphysics and most "rationalists" don't really make claims about metaphiscs but make objections in the context of epistemology. Accepting or being open to the idea that contradictions may be a feature of reality is very different from accepting arguments that are inherently contradictory as justificatory or as a valid form of argumentation. But regardless, there are PhD logicians who hold the view that there are true contradictions. Btw , be careful and avoid category errors. Notions like "justify logic or justify justification or ground justification or logic" is meaningless or doesn't make sense under certain semantics.

Yeah and there are other options as well, I just layed out what seems most straightforward to me. Maybe they have completely different morals but they are well intentioned. Maybe there are some other reasons that I can't even comprehend right now. Maybe they are out there they just havent found us yet. Many options are compatible with their existence and with them being good or neutral. I just reject the idea that if they are caring and good that they would prioritize our free-will over our development and well -being . The free will argument is whats brought up in some esoteric texts like the law of one and thats what mostly brought up by new age people who are into this stuff. Channelers like Bashar (if I am not mistaken) says the same thing as well (as far as I understand, and basing it on the limited amount of content I have consumed about this)

The instance of good and caring and non-sociopathic advanced aliens I would expect them to make those changes on us, on the other hand, in the case advanced evil aliens - I would expect them to put us in a simulation, and constantly wiping our memory to the point - where we don't even remember that they fucked with us or fucking with us right now

I don't really buy the "you can't fix stupid" once you have extremely advanced tech. Imagine having access to stuff where your whole psychology is mapped out and you know exactly what each person gets persuaded by and how to change their beliefs and with what arguments and or with what actions and demonstrations. Also having access to knowledge where you can alter a creature's cognition in such a way that you can make it much more intelligent and spiritually inclined and maybe even enlightened. You can also alter human DNA or whatever else necessary in such a way where you 10x or 100x each person's ability to focus , concentrate and to self reflect and to do spiritual practices like yoga meditation contemplation. Once you have extremely advanced tech, you can probably even change our memories and deepest preferences and desires and likes and dislikes.

Whats the argument for why wouldn't mature aliens make obvious contact? The free will arguments seem to be similar to theological arguments when it comes to the problem of evil, but I don't find them persuasive at all. Like why not accelerate our development or why not make us more mature in a faster way? (assuming they have ways to do that)

How do you make sense of DMT entities in terms of metaphysics (I am specifically asking ,whether you would consider them as real as the aliens you are referring to in your above statement)? Btw - do you categorize DMT entities as aliens or do you give them a different label?

Arent you doing equivocation there? If you use a pragmatist definition of truth, then the objection you are mentioning in your sentence there is not really an objection unless you are doing equivocation and you are using a different definition of truth there. Asking this question in your title ( Are things true or just useful fictions) already presuppose a theory of truth and presumably what you are trying to do here (if Im reading you and understanding you correctly) - you are trying to make a case for pragmatist theory of truth. If thats the case, then under pragmatist semantics that question doesn't really make much sense , because under that semantics, things are true in so far as they are useful to a given end. Under different semantics though your question could make more sense, given that under those semantics things being true is different from things being useful.

None of these people will provide you a non-question begging argument that can establish that the hypothesis of (that there is no external world) is more probable compared to the hypothesis that there is an external world. Just as you mentioned - Talking about consciousness isn't enough to make one more probable compared to the other, more work and thinking needs to be done. It would be cool though, if people would lay down what they mean by direct experience and by knowledge, because its not clear at all whether people have the exact same definitions in mind when they use these terms. If knowledge just means justified true belief, then there is a further investigation needs to be done what is meant by justification and then after that we need to investigate whether people accept intuitions or seemings to be justificatory or whether people only accept inferences to be justificatory. If knowledge used as " a proposition that you cannot be wrong about" or " a proposition that is true in all possible worlds (or in other words , it is logically necessary) " then the discussion will be vastly different compared to the other definition of knowledge.

I don't think you are showing a difference there. A rational , logical and clear answer doesn't presuppose that others cant contribute to it or adapt to it further. Also you seem to be making rational and clear answers exclusive to stage yellow and that seems to be a mistake. SD is about cognitive development, the notion of a stage yellow / turquoise answer or question seems to be a category error. I don't think it makes sense to categorize answers and questions in terms of spiral dynamics or to make certain questions or answers exclusive to a given stage I think you are confusing the properties of a theory with the properties of the thing being referred to: So for example: You can create a logical theory about illogicality You can create a clear theory about vagueness You can create a rational theory about irrationality Btw this is the same mistake what Leo made when he said that you cant create a clear theory about oblique thinking since it is oblique in nature. I think the question of preferred communication norms (like expecting clear breakdown of a given concept from the other party or a preference for a more poetic and open-ended breakdown of things) isn't directly relevant to answer the question of what is turquoise or what is the theory of turquoise. A relevant disagreement would be disagreeing about what a good theory is or what constitutes a good theory. But I doubt that there is a disagreement there.

No clue what any of that means. If you list a set of things that is compatible with both yellow and turquoise ,then you are not really laying out the difference between the two. This is why I asked you guys to lay out unique turquoise characteristics and then make an argument for why those things are incompatible with yellow.

To me , it seems when people pushed to provide a differentiation between yellow and turquoise, they seem to be using gibberish concepts and they cant really lay out in a clear way what the difference actually is. Challenge for someone who thinks there is a clear difference - Provide a set of characteristics which is incompatible with yellow and make a further argument where you establish why that set is incompatible with it.

So you went from "He is not talking about something unique and he only regurgitates status quo insights" to you having issue with the structure to not having issue with the structure but with the angle. When pressed, you are changing your position on things. Pretending that those 3 things are all the same is just wrong, because 3 different criticism can be generated from them, in a way where none of them logically entail the other. Regarding your comment about " so soft and babyish way of living life" , whats soft and babyish about the heruistics you listed there? Do you disagree with any of those heruistics?

Its only pretty comical if you pretend that wasn't essentially what you expressed as a criticism. We can use other words for it like new or original, but thats pretty much how deep it goes. So to be clear, you are complaining that he is talking about certain categories that others have already talked about and your issue isn't with the content itself? If thats the case, thats a pretty shit and surface level criticism, since that can be applied literally to everyone. For example If someone mentions God "well, buddy, millions of people have already talked about God, you should talk about something new or different". As if there isn't a fuckton of novel and new insight that could be generated within a given category. Just because someone has "God" as a topic in their book , from that doesn't follow that there isn't any new or original thought about God there. So generally to find out whether something is unique - you need to actually engage with the content itself and you cant just dismiss the whole structure.

Yes it is not substantive, because it is compeletely meaningless. Do you think OP thinks his work is not valuable? Obviously he thinks it is, so for you to provide a substantive critcism, you would have to go more into the detail than just saying "your work is bad bro, you should do a better job". Even implying that his work is not novel is not a good quality critcism, since the word novel is incredibly vague and can be interpreted a bunch of ways. Substantive criticism would be something like this: "Hey OP, I read your work and you made 3 claims that I disagree with for these reasons: Reason 1, Reason 2, Reason 3 ... " or something like "Hey OP, I think you made some error in your reasoning or your work is built upon some assumptions that I disagree with for this set of reasons.. ."

To be clear, you have 0 clue what the OP did, since you havent read his work. You werent radical, you were just acting like a condescending tough guy and provided 0 substance. I find it hilarous that you said multiple times "do you understand the fucking depth of what I am saying" as if you were saying something novel or as if your criticism would be something huge or extraordinary. If we apply the same standard that you applied to this guy's work, then you shouldn't have opened your mouth, since none of what you said had any ounce of novelty to it.