zurew

Say that to the kids in Africa, who are starving to death. "Broo, from the absolute pov, it doesn't really matter, if you starve or not". We need to be able to engage with relative level stuff, because it gets very boring after a while, to have 'from the absolute pov' convos all the time.

Everything is pointless from the absolute pov, thats why i don't think it is even worth talking about it, when it comes to relative stuff and relative "problems". My problem is that literally anything can be dismissed using 'from the absolute pov' arguments, and all nuance will be lost and nothing will mean anything. What you say is true, but i don't agree with how you use the absolute to dissolve everything and any argument. Imagine, if you had a conflict with your loved one, and you would always use this line "yeah babe, i can see what you are talking about, but your opinion is biased, looking at it from the absolute pov, it doesn't really matter what you think or what you do". We need relative domain solutions, to solve relative domain problems. Any argument could be dismissed using your way of reasoning and using the trump card the 'absolute pov'. Every crticism is untenable from the absolute pov, but from the relative pov, some perspective and feedback can provide some utility, and that was my main point.

@Danioover9000 Do you disagree with this statement: "there is a time and place, to make a criticism" ? All the other things are irrelevant.

Obviously i agree with you on this. All my arguments were directed at people that suggested that all criticism are untenable and that they have no place and no time (or at least, that was the impression that i got from them). Now see, we can resolve our disagreements, if we elaborate on what we actually think. We don't even disagree but we argued because i was making an assumption about your position, and you were making an assumption about my positon. Maybe even Razard is agreeing with me, we will see, but this is how the nature of convos go. We have to make some assumptions and then we can hash it out later.

Then why did you disagree with my post, that was all my point that there is a place and time to criticise thats it, nothing more to it. Thats why i said, that no one is above criticism, but i didn't mean either, that you can just run around and throw all kind of cricitism because you are happy to do it. If there is seriousness and ground to it, then it is time to criticise , but i agree with the 'take the good and leave the bad' approach' most of the time, but not all the time. I was talking about that there is a time to criticise and razard was trying to negate that point (Or at least that was the impression that i got from him). Thats why i had to argue, because i simply don't agree with that.

We use exaggeration to make a point and to test the grounds. My whole point is that there is a time and space for crticism , you guys are saying there is no place for it, and thats why i need to make extreme examples to test if you really want to take that position. Even the raping stuff that i brought up is applicapble and realistic in everyday life, especially if we are talking about cults and priest raping children and stuff. So it is actually applicable in every day life. Stuff like this won't come out on its own, unless someone exposes it with evidence, and thats my point.

Lets say, there is a teacher who rapes his students, if we take your approach we would say "ohh, thats bad, but i don't care about that, because i only focus on the positive, and because everything is relative anyway, i have no ground to criticise that person on". In this case your approach generates more harm than good. You give this teacher more space to rape other students that are clueless about this issue. So there are clear cases, when criticism is actually valid an appliable, especially, when that particular criticism is falsifiable. This is how a priest would get away, with child abuse and rape and with other nasty stuff.

How do you make a bridge between the absolute and the relative, so that you can make sense of relative concepts like sentience?

Whether my crticism is valid or not will be not up to me to decide, but it will be up to the person who recieves it. Also, i think you are conflating the absolute with the relative here. As long as we are planning on operating this ego, we will need to face the harsh nature of reality, from this relative pov. I assume, you think that feedback = bad all the time, but i won't agree with you there, and i layed out in my previous paragraphs why i don't agree with that approach. We give feedback all the time, especially, when we disagree with someone. Now, again, your feedback and disagreement can be formulated in different ways and not all hold the same value and utility. The irony of this whole thing, is that you actually judge me and giving me feedback, because i say that criticism can sometimes be valid and usable. I think we shouldn't conflate the absolute with the relative. I agree, that every human is a hypocrite if we would to judge it from the absolute pov, but obviously we shouldn't do that, because no one can live up to those standards in a finite form. So we go with standards using the relative pov, and here we are. But notice, even that statement is a judgement statement "every human is a hypocrite" and it is true. Is that bad that you said that? I don't think so, and i think it is true. If we always use these absolute pov arguments, we will lose all nuance all the time, and talking about anything will be meaningless.

As ive said its a spectrum, and there are clear cut cases that are not up for interpretation, but i agree that in the vast majority of the cases, it is up for interpretation. I don't agree with your approach, beacuse you are cutting out all critiques and labeling them "ohh all critiques are biased anyway, so why should i take any of them serious" but some of them can hold precious value. An ego has its own blind spots and it is important to have someone who can shine some light on our shadows and blindspots. If you cut all your criticism all the time, you will slow down your growth process, and this is true for almost any field. A mentor or a coach is good, if it can give a very well defined , well targeted, constructive feedback. If everyone would dismiss that feedback as 'ohh it is just a biased opinion, who cares', then they would rob themselves from the opportunity to grow. I don't agree with this thinking process either. If someone for instance claims,that they can do this this and that, and they can't do that, then why can't you critcise them for being dishonest? Just because i can't do what they claim they are being able to do (when in reality they can't) , does that mean that i cannot critique that? Reviews and feedback can be super important in our lifes , before we make a certain decision. Cutting all those thing out, i think is more damaging than being open to some level of criticism. A lot of people choose a service or a product based on reviews and feedback. So i don't agree with feedback and criticism not being usable and that criticism not holding any value at all. Criticism like this is very vague, but i wouldn't call this a good critique, because it is vague and not tangible and it is not constructive. What i am talking about, is giving good faith, tangible, well targeted criticism that is being backed by evidence, if it is necessary. Not all perspective hold the same level of relevancy and value, so I wouldn't dismiss them all.

.

The 'blaming suicide on the leader' kind of behaviour is kind of silly in my opinion, but i get where those people are coming from. But they would never ever apply the same standards to a psychologist or to a psychiatrist.

That would be the ultimate mind control tool.

This is crazy and cool and the same time.

Yeah, this is really, really interesting. I have heard about people experiencing stuff like this.

No one is above critisism and everyone can improve. When you are a central figure, your work will speak for itself, and at the end of the day, your work should defend you, from the unfounded critiques. The most valuable thing you can get as a central figure, is a well thought out, good faith, constructive criticism. Every criticism can be put on a spectrum and can be evaluated, how founded or unfounded it is. When it is backed by a lot of evidence, then it is maybe worth reflecting on. For instance, some creator get a critique that he is very dismissive of opinions, that are different to his beliefs (and never elaborates why he disagree with his student, he just dismiss everyone all the time). Lets say this teacher has 100 students and there are two scenarios. Scenario 1: 50 students can show 30 videos where you can clearly see, that the teacher is actually being dismissive, and the teacher cannot provide one video that shows, that he actually evaluates his students opinions. Scenario 2: One student can show only 2 videos when that teacher is being dismissive and the teacher to his defense, can provide 3-4 videos that showes he actually cares about other people opinions and he elaborates why he disagrees with something. There is a massive difference between scenario 1 and scenario 2. Both can be put on a spectrum based on how much evidence and information is provided, and based on how much content you actually watched about that particular person. Lets take scenario one, when half of your students give a critique to you, that is backed up by a lot of evidence, then maybe you should reflect on it, because something is most likely there. Also, there are other situations that are very clear cut. For instance, there is a critique that a teacher is abusive. Someone can provide a video evidence about that teacher literally beating up one of his students so much, that the student fall into a coma. Now, even if you take your most good faith approach to interpret that video, you will end up with the same conclusion, so not everything is up for debate or up for interpretation.

I think this is a fair critique, that you shouldn't make yourself the center of your teachings (I think even Leo could be criticized for this, because in some of his past videos, he was talking about himself and his abilities and that he went the deepest with his awakenings etc, and i don't think that helps his teachings in any way and it just make him look narcissistic and egotistical from a normal person's pov and some of the actualized members will just look up to him and put him on a pedestal and just adapt his teachings as a belief system and won't do any work).

@ZenAlex I think all of those things could be mentioned, when we are talking about actualized.org if you want to interpret things in a bad faith way. This can be interpreted about actualized.org too, when we say that people actually don't understand what Leo is talking about and what Leo is teaching about . But you can get around this ,if you actually show a high level of understanding of the teachings and then lay out why they are dangerous or bad or anything that you have a problem with . You have to show a high level of understanding first, and then after you proved yourself to that community, they will be more open to your criticisms. This can be said about actualized.org too, if you want to interpret things that way. For instance, there are some people , who say that people on actualized.org committed suicide, because of Leo and because of his teachings . Of course, if any of the actualized.org members will disagree with that or if Leo will disagree with that, they can always say "Of course they disagree, because they are a cult". You need to justify positions like that in a different way, to be more compelling. There are some claims that are hard to justify, but if your claims hold any validity at all, then you should be able to show some evidence to justify them. Teal Swan's group is not new at all, if you can't show any video or any picture or any audio about her doing some shady shit (after all these years), then it will be hard to justify your positions only using some of her members claims. Just think about it, if there is really some shady shit going on, wouldn't you have more evidence than just a few ex members saying things about her without evidence (or maybe they actually have some evidence, but it is your job to lay those out). So far your argument is not compelling imo, because of these reasons: You are laying out your opinions on her that are up for debate. The reason why your opinions about her are up for debate, because you didn't provide any tangible evidence to back them up. The only countable "evidence" you showed so far is the claim, that her ex members are fucked up and they feel they are fucked up because of Teal Swan. But even that is weak, because those are just claims without backing them up with anything. (I could myself say some shit about some group without showing any evidence, and i wouldn't be suprised, if people would disagree with me) [ Now, of course the more ex members are coming up with claims like that, the stronger you position get, but after a while there has to be something that can actually back their claims up ] So without any compelling evidence, i don't think you will be able to convince anyone here, who disagrees with you. You need to make it so that your claims are not up for interpretation.

@ZenAlex I think if you want to settle this, you need to make a very compelling argument why she is a cult leader, and not just appeal to people and to the documentary. You can appeal to them ,but obviously it won't be enough to make a convincing argument for people who disagree with you heavily. Make your compelling case why she is actually a cult leader, and then you guys have a ground to actually argue about.

Good one, this will be his new name .

I think the emphasis is on being physical. We only talk on this forum, we don't gather around ,we don't have a meeting place , we don't do practices together, we don't do retreats,psychedelics together etc.

I wasn't talking about sentience, i was responding to your comment about AI's understanding capacity. No, there are big differences between a human brain, and the way a current AI works. Current AI can't really grasp any abstract concept, for example what sharpness really means. Whatever you want to teach an AI to do, it needs to be super tangible, it can't be abstract because thats the way it works. There are a million things you can't train it for, because some things cannot be dumbed down to an input-hidden layer- output model, because structurally it has its own limits. A human mind don't need to be trained that way, it can grasp abstract concepts without the need to explain to it in a tangible way. Because of the limits of the model there are some stuff that are being lost when you want to convert everything down to just numbers. If you wanted to teach an AI to use its hands to write some stuff down on a paper, you would have to make it super tangible. If you ask a kid to write down the word 'abstract' it can do it without the need to tell them in what angle they need to hold their hands, what pressure they need to use on the paper, at what place they need to grab the pencil etcetcetc. The way you teach a kid how to write, and the way you teach an AI how to write stuff down are super different. But writing is just an example from many, i could mention walking and other stuff as well.

I think he is right, that it doesn't grasp the meaning, because if you were to apply some word or concept in a different context it would have a hard time understanding it correctly. But why is that? One big reason is that generally speaking, these AI-s are highly specialized and trained to do specific tasks in a specific context. These AI-s are predicting what the "best" output should be based on the model and based on the given input. The model will limit what patterns an AI will discover and understand, so if you train it with a specific data-set for a specific purpose, then it will be limited to that, and if you want to use it for other tasks, it may or may not will be applicable to do that. There are some instances, when it can be used for other tasks as well, but i don't think it is that common. So for example, if you train it to do a specific task, it will recognize some patterns to be able to do its prediction when it is asked to do so. But, if there is a different task you want to use it for, and that task requires almost the same pattern recognition that you trained the AI on, then it will be able to do that task ask well, but not because it understands, but because of the similarity in patterns.

Yeah, but there is a difference, between having an unbearable craving to eat something vs having a normal craving to eat an unhealthy food. In the second part you can rationally choose , but in the first part you are in animal mode, and your rationality isn't there . When enough rationality is involved, we evaluate (consciously or unconsciously based on our morality, and belief system) what to do and what to choose. So generally speaking intrinsic motivation is everything, because thats the thing we can have direct impact on. We can be manipulated by others. People can use our weaknesses like (instincts, cravings, needs etc) to manipulate us and to put us in animal mode, but when we are not manipulated, we will be acting based on a collective moral system, and based on our own subjective moral system and beliefs. But i agree, that it is on a spectrum. Its much much much more harder to manipulate you to kill someone vs to eat unhealthy food, so i agree with you on that. It is about how deep and centric certain beliefs and values are. So there are two things here. How can we create a society where people are less triggered and less manipulated to act based on their instincts. The second part is, how can we have a significant impact on people to help them develop and grow out of certain moral and belief systems.

Yes, but i suspect you care about not getting raped, tortured or killed. A collectively agreed upon, well thought out moral system can give you a relatively safe and a better quality of life.