zurew

@Bobby_2021 You said it yourself that you can't 100% disprove it, so then why entertain it? Why spend even 1 second thinking about these things, when thinking about these things is completely useless and won't get you anywhere? For some strange reason you give these thoughts more power than other thoughts, but why? You can't disprove the opposite either (that there is no big conspiracy), so why give more power and attention to the big conspiracy thought?

Don't stop there, continue with the 'Earth is flat' and you will be good.

This is a really good summary. One other way to frame it , is to say that a wise person has the ability, to provide the right prescription. It would be probably useful to try to outline the differences between being knowledgeable/smart vs wise. We will probably have a hard time outlining in a precise way what wisdom is, so one thing that could help is to talk about 'what is the opposite of wisdom' or 'what is the opposite of being wise' and by that we can narrow things down even more. Some opposites could be: - Being reductive - Having a narrow perspective - Conflating description with prescription - Having no good, embodied way to provide prescription I would add a few more things (that are probably correlated with being wise): - Having epistemic humility (the recognition and honesty of what you don't know, and knowing the edge of your knowledge) - Being extremely good at relevance realization (Having an ability to focus on and to recognize, the right things at the right time, without using a prewritten formula for it) - Having a top-down, rather than a bottom-up approach to life (Having a deep, embodied, philosophically grounded approach to life/going from meta vs only focusing on the specifics and the outcome and then trying to find/build a solution from there, without ever recognizing what generated that outcome) These are just a few things, hopefully others will be able to provide a lot more.

Nice share!

Thats not really that big of a dunk. "you would like to live in the best society possible ? dude you are just biased!"

@Schizophonia So TLDR: you have nothing tangible, other than a handful of testimonials. "Don't bother looking at the studies dude, just look for people that are agreeing with you on the subject, and that way you can be sure and confident that you are right (btw guys, I am not biased, and I am not ideogically driven, even though most of my posts only consist of bashing other diets, rather than actually making a strong case for why the carnivore diet is the best)" No one said that anyone needs to obey anyone, and we are not really talking about one authority on a subject that you need to believe blindly (although, unironically, so far your case only consist of one person, who is undeniably biased on this topic). What a reasonable person would do, is to look for the overall body of evidence, what we have on a certain topic, and not jump to conclusions immediatelly and not making strong and confident claims about things that are not verified yet. Sorry, that im not convinced by you showing one person, who is clearly a marketer of this topic. The title of this thread and your posts overall speaks volumes on what kind of epistemic process you have. You think that having a handful of testimonials is a strong enough evidence for you to completely change your diet and to even tell others that they should follow you. You seem to be very biased and unironically very ideologically driven (its blatantly obvious from your first post, where most of your posts only consis of bashing other diets rather than actually building a strong case for the carnivore diet.

You have one person (who is undeniably biased, because he built his career and a whole identity on being carnivore), but what actual long term studies you have, that would actually justify your high confidence on this topic?

The future of gaming will be insane

I think you two view the concept of 'relationship/connection' in the context of learning in a different way. Relationship/connection between two or more things can be viewed and treated in different ways depending on the problem or the situation or the categorization. 1) We can view it as a qualitatively different thing from the parts (sometimes we can view it as an emergent thing from the parts); 2)and other times it can be viewed as just a separate part on its own. I think yours is closer to the first one, and his is closer to the second one.

Im just fucking around, I agree with most of your points on learning, I think you two guys just have different definitions of "making distinctions".

He tried to make one more distinction (separating the concept of 'relationship between things' from making distinctions) and you stopped him from doing it (therefore, unironically you didn't participate in making further distinctions).

https://www.futuretools.io/

He is right tho. If this is a cultural thing it should be really easy to find at least a few examples showing that it is a normal thing there. On the other hand, the opposite could also be proven by trying to find further evidence about the Lama's pedophilic tendencies. If he actually is a pedo, then there is probably more evidence to find.

Leo has to do a crash course on epistemology, because a lot of people on this forum has a really poor understanding of it and usage of it. Do you think our ancestors lived longer than us nowadays? Since when nutrition science is limited to food corporations?

So what is your way of knowing? Watching random youtube videos that are agreeing with you?

@Breakingthewall In that case it doesn't matter how I get to know something because everything is in my direct experience. If I conceptualize about enlightenment thats the same as enlightenment(because both are and happening in my direct experience, and I can't escape my direct experience ) if I imagine riding a bike thats the exact same as actually taking action and riding a bike. Using your thoughtprocess all of those has to have the same level of realness or if not, then what is the process that is used to realize/arrive at Truth/real? Using your own argument 'everything is in your direct experience including concepts', but in the post above, you clearly make a difference between real and concept, so it seems that 'direct experience' has nothing to do with arriving at real/Truth, because the way you previously defined it, everything is inside your direct experience, so what is the requirement or what epistemic process is used to realize that something is more real/True?

*nothing else exists in your direct experience. Again your ability to check whether something exists or not is limited to your direct experience, but your direct experience is also limited. (I know from your pov you can't step out from your pov/frame but just because you can't do something , or detect something that doesn't mean that that does not exists) No these are fundamentally different ways of knowing something. Direct experience won't tell you about a lot of things and there are many examples where your ability to know is not coming from direct experience , but coming from using logic and reason (especially stuff related to your survival). There are many things that you can't or haven't experienced and yet you know about those things. For example your ability to know what will kill you isn't coming from your direct experience, because you haven't experienced death yet and you haven't directly experienced all the possible ways you could die; The same goes to you ability to know what is dangerous and what is not - you haven't directly experienced getting attacked by lions and sharks and yet you still know (using logic and reason) that if you get close to them in an unprotective way, you have a high chance of getting injured or killed. There are a million other examples could be given, but the point is that these are fundementally different ways of knowing. But if you really want to say that direct experience is above everything because nothing is outside of your direct experience, in that case everything is Truth even using logic and reason and conceptualizing are all Truth because all of those things could be in your direct experience.

There are a lot more other options as well. Just because its impossible to experience anything outside of your pov, that doesn't mean that it is impossible that something can actually exist outside of your pov (you have no way of validating this). A Lack of ability to validate something doesn't make it automatically true, you have to have foundational assumptions to make it true. Imagine an insect using a same kind of epistemology and then say: "fuck, I cannot experience anything outside my own pov, and my pov is absolute, therefore nothing exist outside my pov", and now realize how limited their pov of the world is, and how much things that we have experiential access too, they have none of that, but could still claim that those things don't exist. Also its different to say that you can only experience everything from your own pov vs actually claiming that everyone's pov is your pov. In the first, you are essentially saying that you experience everything through your own pov, but in the second you make further steps and have to claim that no one has their own pov because there is only your pov. Having an epistemology, where you limit your ability to know to - your ability to experience / to something be directly in your pov - is just as if not more limited to having an epistemology where you limit your knowing ability to reasoning. Clearly both have their own limits, and it would be dishonest imo to say otherwise. You assume a few things here: 1) that your experience can actually lead to Truth 2) That thinking and or reasoning cannot lead to Truth. If you define Truth as something that can only be directly experienced, then of course your definition will automatically lead to using experience as the ultimate epistemic tool, but what if you have a wrong definition of Truth in the firstplace, and how could you possibly know for sure, that you have the right definition of Truth? The "just test it for your own self" unfortunately won't solve this deep epistemic problem and here is why: If I start with the assumption that direct experience will lead to Truth, then of course I will use direct experience to validate if my assumption is true or not (but thats a circular way of validating something, because in this case your ability to test or to check a claim's truth value is purely limited to the method of direct experience, and even if it leads to falsehood you will not detect it, because your detection ability in this case is purely limited to your direct experience and you would need a different tool to see the flaws and limitations of your method). The same problem would come, if I would say "only pure reason will lead to Truth, don't believe me guys, just use pure reason and check my claim!". Here your ability to check/test my claim is limited to the method of reasoning - so its also a circular way of validating something.

The problems regarding rights are coming from a deeper place that are rarely or almost never talked about or addressed. The fact of the matter is that, we need to reevaluate or explore in a deeper way concepts like: what does that mean to be a women vs men (regarding every aspects of our life - social interactions , medically, sexually, what it means to be a part of a certain category); how should we categorize people and based on the social interaction or problem, which category should hold more weight and why; how much of our own definitions of men and women align with reality and with our social interactions in general vs just giving reductive definitions; exploring the connection and the relationship between the subjective(how you identify / identity in general) and the objective (your physical appearance and characteristics that are measurable) from both an individualistic pov and from society's pov; in the past how did we do all those things above and how much of that is dogma and might need to be changed vs practical and valuable and sufficient enough .

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/12diapw/gpt4_week_3_chatbots_are_yesterdays_news_ai/

Yes, a lot of people are lost in the sigma/lone wolf/grind alone in the dark delusion. Being able to find the right people and then being able to collaborate with them and find people that can create a synergistic effect is really really important.

Buddy you are the one who is derailing this thread , you felt that you had to posture here and to reply to everyone even though no one asked for it.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make there.

Then I guess everything is spiritual work. Now we can trash that word to the trashbin because it doesn't convey or communicate anything anymore.