zurew

@Danioover9000 I see you recently getting more and more interested in rhetoric and in debates. I can share one person who I find interesting in the debateosphere. This guy is an MD (dermatologist) has a good amount of philosophy knowledge and can argue pretty well. He debates about a wide variety of topics including covid19, nutrition, veganism, different kind of philosophy stuff etc. He is very good at laying down both the moral and the empirical side of any topic he debates about.

You don't know for sure how they would live if Israel didn't exist. But even if I buy into the premise that they would live worse , thats that still won't justify the bad things Israel did against Palestine. If doing some kind of unintentional or intentional good to someone or to a group of people would give sufficient justification to do bad things against them, then we could basically justify any horrible actions that was done historically almost against any group of people , so basically its obviously a kind of reasoning that we should never use. The "they just envy" is not a good steelman or analysis, because if only envy would be the case or the main reason, then Hamas wouldn't have applied their envy selectively mostly on Israel.

Doesnt seem like it. Its wild seeing nazis,muslims and far leftists uniting and framing a terrorist attack as a revolution. Its also wild seeing the lack of acknowledgement how fucked life has been in Palestine for a long while now. Like wtf guys, you can acknowledge the facts: you can condemn the bad and horrible moves on each side and still support the innocent civilians.

The guy just wasn't prepared to have the conversation about drugs or about any of the topics Alex sent to him beforehand. He wasn't even pressed hard on the topic of drugs and he ran away from it. Alex was super easy on him and was super good faith with him. He knew what the convo/debate will be about , he knew all the topics beforehand and he could have changed the topic any time in the middle of the convo.

Its crazy whats going on on twitter. I mean twitter was always a shithole, but now "everything I don't agree with is AI generated". People are using AI image detectors as if they were reliable and then use that to confidently dismiss things they disagree with(this obviously goes for both sides).

https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1712471782303867144?s=20

Basically you are implying here that you can't teach/know something if you haven't embodied it. Thats a heruistic at best, but why would you use such a heruistic, when there are better ways to evaluate and to approach knowledge?

Good thread! If you want to find interesting stuff about math I can recommend two youtube channels : Veritasium and 3Blue1Brown

Hasan cheering on and rationalizing Hamas muslims killing , raping jews is the most ironic thing in the world.

You should embrace his superior cognition that he has to strongly emphasize all the time (maybe to convince himself about it?)

Stage yellow system thinker strikes again with a profound take . One would have to be exceptionally myopic and stupid to only care about death as a negative effect and don't count anything else. I guess we also shouldn't count death where people died because they were not treated with issues outside of covid , because hospitals were flooded with covid patients.

sure, I agree with that.

Im surprised you are talking shit about epistemology, you cannot take such a stupid stance on this. Having shit epistemology will make you less effective at literally everything, because you won't know how to properly assess and or approach situations. The very reason why it was life and death, is because we collectively havent thought shit about how to approach the unknown in the context of viruses and health. - relying on being impulsive is not very smart of us, and then we are surprised why so many people die or why our global system breaks down over and over again.

In general when it comes to epistemic stuff, we want to reduce risk and reduce guessing as much as possible (unless you can somehow justify it). I would be curious if someone here could give a more reasonable epistemic process (that isn't erring on the side of caution) that could be used (as a general approach) in situations where there is a pandemic that we don't know shit or know little about. - this is one interesting philosophical question, that we should have (as a collective) thought about a long time ago.

Sounds like you are more interested in posturing than getting your point across. Now this is getting very boring. You are hardcore focused on psychoanalysis rather than on the topic itself. You are derailing your own thread by talking about who has what motivation rather than focusing on the subject matter. Making up narratives in your head and when someone doesn't understand you, you start posturing ,because your ego is probably so fragile that the possibility that what you are saying is incoherent or the possibility that you didn't explain yourself in a clear way is an impossibility for you. I asked a very specific starting question and you replied with "I won't babysit you guys", and after that it somehow makes sense in your head to call us bad faith, even though you didn't engage with a very simple and very fair question that would obviously elevate understanding. Im not interested in proving to you how im not bad faith so, im out. Good luck to everyone else who will try to further engage with your fragile ego

@ScholarThis conversation is at a depth ,where there cannot be any ambiguity with the usage of words . Its confusing because you use 4-5 different words interchangeably (random,infinity, freedom, creativity,lack of bias, patternless), to convey a meaning and each of those words have completely different connotations. You talk about us having disagreements or us being stubborn but there cannot be a disagreement if there is no real communication going on. Based on how you responded to me: 1) it seems you didn't get what I was saying and what I was trying to respond to and 2) It seems that I didn't really grasp the true meaning you were trying to convey. On my end I didn't try to debunk you or try to show how my viewpoint is better (in fact I haven't even introduced our own viewpoints on this - and the point of my example about the completely deterministic universe wasn't to introduce that as my viewpoint, but to show a possible model to answer one of your questions) I think both me and Carl are coming in good faith and we are interested in understanding . Now I think we should skip the part where we psychoanalyze each other and try to skip to the part where we talk about the subject matter. Right now I am not even sure what is the exact thing you are trying to establish.So for clarification sake: what is the actual essential claim that is being made here? That infinity can only be accessed through randomness?

Using this kind of reasoning your conclusion should never be complete about reality, because you if you go with the belief that there is always a higher level of consciousness, then your conclusion about reality can always be undermined ( and the very notion or idea that you can be 100% confident that it won't be undermined is itself a judgement from below). - this is why I criticized you few days ago, for you being 100% confident in your stance about reality.

Btw when it comes to computing random is not really random, it just seems that way, but that randomness is done in a predetermined way.

You can have a model of a completely predetermined universe, where all the possible patterns and content are metaphysically built in and when you think you actually create something new or novel - you don't really. You just discover something that was always there. That discovery process doesn't need the requirement of randomness or freedom or freewill. If what you care about is giving an explanation or creating a model to explain the notion of "How is novelty created", that case you don't necessarily need the idea of "new patterns". You can have a universe with a stagnant quantity of finite patterns and still have novelty this way: 1) put input in 2) take the generated output out 3) feed back the earlier generated output. So this way you can pick one thing and transform it over and over again and by that you can create new/novel things (assuming this fits your definition of novelty). I explained the same idea in my previous post just with different words:

You can have an infinite number of patterns that will results in an infinite number of different results, but applying the same patterns (given a specific set of restrictions or content) the same result could be generated. So if you want new things - one can do things in an infinite number of different ways (using different patterns). But also you can use the same pattern and generate new results - if you have a system,where the rules could stay the same, but the rules could change the content in a given system in a way, where applying the same rules over and over again will generate new/different results (because you apply the same rules on a changed content) One example could be evolution. Lets say you pick an organism, apply evolution and grant an infinitely long time. The pattern (evolution) can stay the same, but as time goes on and as evolution transforms that organism, the content(organism) will constantly change, even though the same rules are applied. So 2 things to solve the problem of creation of new/novel things without randomness: 1) use more/different patterns 2) Apply the same pattern but on a different or changed content.

My understanding is that pattern = following a set of rules.

I don't see either how couldn't this be based on a certain pattern rather than based on randomness. Why couldn't you receive new/novel ideas based on a pattern rather than based on randomness? Using your words: " given certain restrictions due to the nature of your mind " - those restrictions could outline the pattern by which you will receive those ideas, so why is randomness necessary there? More specifically why cant this: " you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea" happen based on a pattern rather than based on randomness? I could rephrase my question this way: What is the contradiction in receiving new/novel ideas based on a pattern rather than based on randomness?

an endpoint (God realization) is given in the metaphysical structure of reality, but how much time it takes to get there and how you get there is random(or in other words , totally free/ unbound) . Is that roughly your position or I should reread your posts?