zurew

Either this the case or the case is what I said that its the old guy, because the name matches perfectly and the city matches perfectly. I became agnostic on this, right now im not sure anymore.

Thats interesting. Here is a question though: on the link that you gave earlier (https://x.com/Mssr_le_Baron/status/1812512311669887290/photo/2) the city is Pittsburgh and not Bethel Park , how would you explain that? And the other question is regarding the name mentioned there. Why is it just Thomas Crooks and not Thomas Matthew Crooks?

It doesn't let me to open the link, could you show me the page with an image? According to the link that I posted earlier, the old guy has the exact same zipcode (first image) https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897/photo/1

That guy from 0:25 - 1:00 is not the real killer, he just pretended to be the killer , he is a troll.

@Raze Yeah, but look at the city, it says "Pittsburgh" and the name is just Thomas Crooks , not Thomas M Crooks The old guy has the exact same zip code

From 0:25 to 1:00, yes.

That wasn't the killer, that was a troll video.

That claim seems to be false https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897

from 0:30 to 1:00 thats not the guy , he is a twitter troll who looks kind of similar to the shooter. "you've got the wrong guy " - should be incredibly obvious that it is a troll. Its insane how some media outlets fell for it or they disingenuously pretend as if that video would be true (so that they can run with the "he wasn't a republican voter" narrative). https://x.com/Shayan86/status/1812357824992718981

With this literally everyone here would agree with, but originally you didn't frame it this way thats why you got the pushback that you got. Originally you were talking about that vegans are rejecting reality just because they don't eat meat, which is obviously a very stupid statement. The analogy about crocodiles was unnecessary and irrelevant and even framing this whole thing through the lense of veganism was stupid as well. Now you can pretend that the above claim was your only point that you were trying to make, while in reality you were forced to walk back all your other stupid claims that you failed to defend.

Buddy,Im not vegan, but you are not making any sense, your explanations are weak and none of them really address any of the objections that were laid out by others in this thread. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises that you laid out. It seems that you haven't thought through this at all or you are incredibly bad at communicating whatever you are trying to communicate. The argument that you laid out here is 4chan level quality. High consciousness forum and moderators cant track the basic implications of what they are saying. This is just incredibly sad,especially given that you think you have delivered some deep profound insight here.

@integral Okay, I will get more serious and will engage since you seem to actually think that you are making some deep profound argument here. 1) Veganism is compatible with not demonizing eating meat, so your long ramblings about that is unnecessary (if you want to target all vegans) because it only target a fraction of vegans. 2) In some cases you are asserting that acceptance entails doing an action (vegans don't just need to accept that their body might sometimes crave meat, but they have to act on it and they actually have to eat meat ) and in other cases you are saying you don't necessary have to act on it (in a cannibal's or in a raper's case - you seem to be saying that they can accept that they have desires without needing to act on those desires). - this seems to be a very obvious contradiction that you will need to untangle. 3) You also seem to be making a seperate claim from all of those, namely that there are some actions that are absolutely necessary for one's survival and not doing those specific actions would be the rejection of your own biology. You keep bringing up the crocodile example, where the croc actually have to kill and eat meat in order to survive , but you are yet to establish why humans have to eat meat in order to survive.

If you are a cannibal, act on it, - if you don't act on it, you necessarily reject your identity. If you are horny and no one wants to have sex with you, you have to forcefully have sex with other people, - if you don't act on it, you necessarily reject your identity. Don't reject the biology you were born with. - Integral , probably.

Is that an average day for you?

Okay thanks, that clears it up.

I think its a very easy and important question. There is a difference between having a course where you are going to a totally new territory (lets say you have 5 completely novel practices) and you don't have any empirical evidence regarding any of those practices compared to a course where you have 5 practices from which 3 is already empirically proved to be effective. There is nothing wrong with going to a completely new territory, but epistemically it has to be acknowledged that it is on experimental grounds and it is unclear what kind of results it will produce. One way to get around lack of emprical evidence is to make some arguments for why certain empirical results should be expected from those novel practices.

No I didn't meant that, because obviously you have to create it first to be capable to gather evidence and data. I was referring to whether you will use certain practices in that course, that others have already confirmed and empricially proved to be effective.

Is that practice grounded in some kind of empirical evidence or are you talking about some experimental, novel methods/practices? And if you are talking about some novel methods, how do you know what kind of results they will produce on a broad scale?

Okay now I understand your point better given this added context. I was treating this whole thing as a philosophical "what would be the rational thing to do in this situation" question and not as a psychological "given, that I have belief x and given that I know that belief x is irrational, what should I do to drop or to change belief x?" I don't know much about psychology and I don't know much about the underlying mechanics regarding how we unconsciously form our beliefs, but I agree that, going "meta" and checking for other possible explanations and reflecting on some of the other questions that you listed earlier, might help with dropping or at the very least with lowering one's conviction in an irrational belief.

I think he would commit to some kind of modal realism. Like he would either commit to the idea that all logically possible world actually exist (any world that doesn't contain a contradiction) which is an incomprehensibly large set that contains multiple infinites or he would commit to more than that

I would argue, that even if you don't have an alternative explanation, you still don't need to choose one poor explanation (by poor in this case I mean one that would be based on a lot of uncertainty and would be based on unjustified premises). Like if an event happens and I can't explain that event and Im being presented with 3 possible explanations (and those 3 don't completely exhaust the possibility space, meaning there might be other logically possible options that Im just not aware of) I don't need to choose one. Imagine the event that needs to be explained is this: There is a broken vase in your room and these are the options you are presented with: 1) a ghost did it, 2) mothman did it 3) Harry Potter did it.

It is logically possible that you can contribute something novel to the field without reading anything, but it is very unlikely (imo). The "think for yourself" idea is directly depended on your contemplation skills and your contemplation skills regarding how deep you can go with your questions and regarding how fast you can spot a limitation and even what kind of limitations you can recognize and how much nuance you can map out - are all depended on how trained you are in philosophy and these are skills that you are not really born with, but you need to learn and cultivate. I would reformulate your question: Why wouldn't you want to stand on the shoulders of giants and and try to do something novel from there, without falling into the trap of cluelessly retreading old grounds that highly intelligent people have already spent decades on thinking about and on mapping out? I sort of understand your question though , because you don't want to waste time on reading things that are not directly relevant for your case, but I think your question formulated the way you formulated it is sort of silly (if you only care about productivity). If you want to maximize productivity and want to exclude all the irrelevant things and just only want to focus on the relevant things, then you should rather ask this question: "Is this person directly talking about the subfield Im trying to contribute to or not?" if the answer is yes, then you shouldn't care whether it goes back to 400 BC or not, because that guy has something to say that is directly relevant to the field you are trying to contribute to. But again, I would still say, that I would be very catious with ignoring certain great thinkers (even if they are not directly relevant to the field you are trying to contribute to), because you can elevate your thinking and metacognitive skills by reading about them and then reflecting on the implications of their work.

Basing your evidence only on vibes sounds highly problematic. There are a bunch of ways how those vibes could be explained without needing to conclude that demons are actually real (thats not to say they are not,but im curious why go with that explanation rather than any other? - Im looking for a justification ). But, other than just feeling their presence/energy - have you had some exp seeing them or touching them or them being able to interact with the physical world like moving a physical object in your room?

@Rafael Thundercat Whats your response to this? - How does that confirmation process looks like?