zurew

Yes, but the consideration of all possibilities can be done in an honest and rigorous and clear and meaningful way. For example, even when it comes to terms like "possibility" , its often times unclear what is meant by it. Generally philosophers use it in a way, where they talk about possible worlds, where possible means logical possibility (worlds that abide by the law of non-contradiction). There is an infinite number of worlds like that (we are talking about multiple infinities nested within each other). An endless variety of worlds, each with different laws of physics and each with different metaphysical principles. You have worlds where materialism is true, others where idealism is true. You could even include Leo’s “Infinity of Gods” video within this possibility set. There are also worlds without any conscious agents in them—and much more. But you can go even further and propose the existence of "impossible worlds." These are worlds that violate the classical laws of logic—most notably, the law of non-contradiction. In such worlds, you might find objects that are fully round and fully square at the same time, worlds where materialism and idealism are both true simultaneously, or worlds where solipsism is both true and false at the same time (not in the way how Razard plays with his words, but in an actual sense). I think impossible worlds are mostly nonsensical and lead us down the road of gibberish really fast, but they are still interesting and useful in edge cases .

"Oh noo, the democrats have lost the ability to persuade people who believe all the democrats are satan worshippig , blood drinking criminals. If this pardon wouldn't have happened, all of these people could have been persuaded and saved! "

As if that changes anything - it doesnt. None of the people who voted for Trump gave any fuck about what Trump did, even when he pardoned all the people he did. There is literally 0 point in playing by different standard compared to the other side - it game theoretically sets you up for failure. "I can use a rocket launcher in our next MMA match, you can only use your hands" "Fuck you, you did an illegal move by hitting me in the back of my head , you should be disqualified" - proceeds to use his rocket launcher. I have no clue why people on this forum think that people who voted for Trump give any fuck about any standard. If they would, they wouldn't have voted for Trump.

Its not a matter of being logical, its a matter of being aware of and being honest about limitations and its a matter of substantiating one's claims. There are genuine and complex arguments that can be made about why and how inferences are limited. Thats fine, but on the other hand, there are genuine arguments can be made how and why exclusively relying on seemings (intuitions) is also limited and problematic. But the issue is that we are not having any of those substantial conversations. What some people do here is, they assume that their seemings are true (in an infallible way) and they go on from there. Its also about saying something meaningful vs just gibberating. Not using language in a consistent and clear way is not about being intuitive, it is just obfuscation. Its easy to obfuscate the fuck out of everything and make it seem like there is something profound there, just because its impossible to understand or make sense of what is said there. There is a reason why there is such a big resistance to clarification. Sometimes when one is pressed on a given term's meaning, it sometimes turns out that one haven't said anything profound at all, but either its something completely trivial that everyone with different positions can agree with or it turns out that its something incoherent. For example, once you define the term Absolute as 'all encompassing', and relative as 'not all encompassing' from that on if you are consistent with it, you won't be able to say stuff like "the relative is the Absolute" and from that on, you can be further pressed on your positions (for example on Solipsism). But if you can engage in an endless amount of obfuscation and gibberation, there won't be any attack surface on your position, not because your position is so good and infallible, but because there isn't really any real position to attack in the firstplace, since you have an amorphis position thats labeled as "Solipsism" that you yourself don't even know what it means or you constantly change what it means and you flip-flop between different postions.

I don't think, that line of reasoning establishes that Solipsism is likely. First, I can just deny some of those premises (that dream characters are not conscious or that a dream cannot exist seperately from the dreamer or that reality is a dream in the firstplace) and that will destroy this whole line, unless there is an argument that can establish each of the questioned premises. Usually on this forum all of those premises are taken for granted and almost never challenged. But even in the context where I accept all those premises - That line of reasoning is still compatible with a lot of different kind of metaphysics that are not Solipsism . This will include atheistic and theistic views as well, and when it comes to theism the number of possible views you would need to deal with is still incredibly vast. The dreamworld not existing seperately from the dreamer - is compatible with a God that is not you. It is also compatible with making dreamcharacters that are actually conscious. And we can go down more on the list that are all taken for granted by the Solipsism bros/sisters here.

No, I didnt say that you cant use any presupposition to establish that Solipsism is true. The claim that some people on this forum make is not just that Solipsism is true, but that Solipsism is necessarily true and cant be false (in an infallible way, where there is no room for error). Which is a claim that has never been substantiated ever and that requires an argument that we will never get. Making a claim like "Solipsism can be true" is not an interesting claim and thats not what people here make. People here wouldn't ever bite the bullet that "Solipsism can be true" or that "Solipsism is likely (probabilistically) true" - They want to say that Solipsism is necessarily true. But its not just that we wont get an argument for the strong claim (that it is necessarily true), we won't even get a non-question begging argument for the weaker claim (that Solipsism is likely true). That doesnt make any sense. Question begging is a property of arguments, not questions. You can make an argument where none of the premises assume the conclusion to be true (non-question begging); and you can make one where at least one of the premises assumes the conclusion to be true (question begging).

Here is the claim that Leo or Leo copycats should justify in a non-questionbegging way: All possible (including all types of materialistic and non-materialistic metaphysics) pressupose the validity of Solipsism. Go ahead justify that, im sure we will see a lot of non-question begging arguments here and we will have big brainblasts. Until then - I will take Solipsism to be fallible.

Can you justify this in a non-questionbegging way? (without pressuposing the validity of the metaphysics that you try to justify)

Its all a hallucination except the set of things that you pressupose with that statement and some other things that you usually dont spell out. For example, some things that you wouldn't consider to be hallucinations are (things that you would consider to be necessary and consistent elements of all dreams ; in other words, things that are true for all dreams) - You are God; There are levels of consciousness; ....

What is your argument for Solipsism? @Razard86 Can you answer this?

I wouldn't use Leo as a representative for the Left. He has positions all over the place depending on what we are talking about and he sometimes takes unqiue positions on things. But I dont think he (or anyone) takes the position that its good to express all desires and instincts without constraints. Since you are a very well-read guy, im sure you know that you can cash out a given foundational value or position in many ways and there are many ways to "solve" contradictions and objections. Just as how Christian philosophers can make a 100 intellectual judo moves to maintain their internally consistent positions, the same way some of the leftist positions can be cashed out in reasonable ways (if we try to give it some effort). For example, we can go through the trans stuff if you want to.

Can you show us how "Consciousness is the only thing that exist" necessarily entails that "I am the only thing that exist" (Solipsism). Or if you dont want to claim that Solipsism is a necessary entailment, then you have to concede that you need to do other (more) steps to get there.

Which is an appeal to vibes (and mostly applicable to the fringe left, but certainly not to all the left) , which is fine, but some of those people you mention support Trump over Kamala and they didn't just give an explanation but they tried to use it as a justification. There is a constant jumping between "here is a set of reasons (mostly vibes or misinfo or being irrational) why people didnt want to vote for Kamala" vs "here is a set of reasons why all things considered people were justified to vote for Trump". Do you have a supporting argument for this?

@Oeaohoo Can you point me to a single post about Trump that has substance to it and no one engaged with it? Because I can point you to countless posts where arguments have been made against Trump and nothing of substance have been provided in response to them.

My bad, I didnt track the convo well it seems. I dont think that makes sense in the context of what you are trying to do. I dont see why couldnt it be scientifically proven , given that you imply that you can test the theory by getting your hands dirty. So it seems that you dont imply that the given theory cant be tested in principle ,so I dont see why it couldnt be scientifically proven. What do you see specifically that you think could be counted as evidence in favour of the validity of the model?

I think you are talking to ghosts. I dont see anyone who took the position that there is 0 limitation to these models.

Yep thats for sure,this Trump Dickriding Syndrome is crazy.

Im sure you are aware that mathematically you can have different intervalls that start from -infinite and end at a particular number. Philosophically speaking, Im not aware of an argument that establish that that Universe must have a beginning.

Thats compatible with Trump being the Devil.

I think you need to do more work to establish that reincarnation is true, because from the premises you laid out , reincarnation doesn't seem to follow. Reincarnation usually presuppose more than just what you implied. It usually presupposes that you are a soul (which in my understanding refers to an immortal ego and not to consciousness in a broad metaphysical sense). But Im not read up on reincarnation, and I can grant that the term probably can be cashed out in many different ways. But regardless, my general point is that from eternity reincarnation doesnt necessarily follow. All you establish with eternity and with math is that there is a possibility space and whatever is in that possibility space - that will be eventually actualized. But notice that if reincarnation is not inside that possibility space, then even if you give it infinite time, it will never be actualized. So you basically need to give a supporting argument where you establish that reincarnation is in the possibility space. Once you do that, your conclusion seem to follow (if we accept the other premises).

Its not that deep. One can write a script about how these gurus would react to a given situation , becuase most of them are incredibly predicatable and most of the time they apply 0 critical thinking. Its all incredibly easy - if its aligned with anit-establishment then they will go with it and they will like it and they will put it in some fancy divine narrative; If its pro establishment then they will reject it and they will probably say that it is from the deepstate. So far, I have only seen Bashar not being completely brain broken. I have seen that guy sometimes giving pro establishment takes and I think accurate takes on covid vaccines as well, which is huge given that 90%+ of his audience are into all kinds of anti establishment conspiracies (and it would be convinient for him to lean into that). Read the comments. To be clear though, I think Bashar is way too dramatic here and I dont think his predictions are reliable and they shouldnt be taken seriously in any way , but its still funny seeing his audience rageing about him not fanboying Trump.

This💯 The power of silence. Which one is more fancy ? mumbo-jumbo or gibberish or worthless drivel (this last one is from oeaohoo)

None of what you said necessarily follows from what he said - So yes, you can infer that, but there are other things you can infer from it as well. I like to give room for others to state what kind of conclusion they try to establish, without assuming it.

I might be slow, but I still dont see where you provided an argument that ends with your conclusion - where a more efficient mind, necessarily leads to more energy spent. The reason why I brought up physical exercise, because to me, it seems that the exact same objections could be brought up there. You have some amount energy and you exercise and then you get better at doing/executing certain movements (you get more efficient) , but from that doesn't necessarily follow that you will engage in so much training that you will overall burn more energy compared to the past. Yeah I know. From your argument failing doesn't follow that our conclusion is right, because there are many possible scenarios. So thats clear, but I am still curious what kind of reasoning can lead to your conclusion. Even If I grant you this, I still don't see how this establish the point you try to make. This seems to be compatible with the scenario, where a developed/more efficient mind burns the exact same amount energy as a less efficient mind, and it seems to also be compatible with the scenario, where a more developed mind burns overall less energy than a less efficient mind. I don't see how you establish this conclusion. And again, even if we grant you that from efficiency it follows that the mind will start processing related or connected thoughts, from that doesn't follow that more overall energy will be spent. I can have x amount of energy, and if I become more efficient, then I can use the same amount of energy to do more. (how do you rule this scenario out)?