zurew

If you want to develop you own way of thinking , you will have to read or absorb information, because what you will consider your own system/idea chances are high, that it won't be in any way unique to you. If you read a lot, and you know how others thought about stuff, and if you can understand their thinking process and why they thought, what they thought, you could start to agree or disagree with their ideas and eventually develop your own new stuff. Career wise there are different roads you can go down. You can become a teacher, lawyer, system thinker, system improver [you can find lot of fields here, you could improve these things on a systemic level: education, politics, law, ethics, science, epistemology etc ], you could become an analyst at different companies (here obviously philosophy won't be enough in an of itself, you will need other background as well like business or compsci or other), you could also become a writer or you could be a person like Leo who share his insights using a medium like youtube. You could get into Datascience, you could create softwares that are related to philosophy and some level of truth etcetc. You could express your thoughts/ideas in countless ways. You will have to find what medium resonate with you the most. You can read, think , question, contemplate and repeat that process. Or you could question your own ideas about reality, yourself , about systems, whatever you want to question. Ethics could be an interesting road to go down or epistemology. Imo, the most exciting would be to question how science works and how its framework could be developed and show what the blindspots are. That would be one of the most difficult jobs to do, but also the most exciting one as well. Providing better tools and frameworks to research, explore with. Whatever you will do, you will have to deal with a lot of criticism, especially, if you decide to go down the "questioning science" road.

If you have a model that can describe reality in an accurate way, that means that you can use that knowledge to do practical stuff and to manipulate reality. Understanding the whole, can improve your knowledge about the parts. Knowing how different parts connect to each other, can help to understand those seemingly separate parts better.

Yes, and also it could work as a hive mind. All the self driving cars would know all the other self driving cars location and where they want to go, so they could find the best and most fast ways to get to their location. Also parking wouldn't really be that much of a problem, because that self driving car don't need to stop anywhere, it could detect the least occupied places and go there without blocking anything or any other self driving car's way. Also as time goes on, more and more things can be done from home. There will be a point, where you won't really need to leave your home for almost anything. If one thing that we could learn from this covid pandemic, is that we can make things manageable from home. School can be done from home, most work can be done from home all the other stuff can be done from home. Soon drones will be used to deliver a lot of different kind of stuff, so because all of those, there will be a lot less reason to go out and to occupy roads and sidewalks. The more worse the traffic gets, the more reason we will have to make everything manageable and accessible from home. The future is here. California allows driverless taxi service to operate in San Francisco: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/03/california-driverless-taxi-cars-san-francisco

He couldn't argue why Leo's points about quantum mechanics are incorrect, but he made it look like Leo's point was incorrect. He doesn't really attack any of Leo's ideas, not even try to understand any of them, rather he goes into personal attacks. He is taking things out of context and try to present a picture about Leo in an obviously bad faith way.

How would you verify if there is anything outside of you? You can't, its impossible, but just because something is impossible, it doesn't mean it can't be true. Basically unfalsifiable, unverifiable.

Lets not forget to mention the risk part too. If you are able to double your money every year ,that basically means that you literally gambling with your money and you get really, really lucky. (Even if you have a very successful company, doubling your income cannot be maintained) Just because sometimes you can make some lucky guesses, that doesn't mean, that suddenly you know how to invest. When we are talking about big rewards we are talking about big risk. When we are talking about big risk, we can know that one of the biggest success factor will be the luck part. Don't make it look like you are a God investor who knows with a very high certainty, how to constantly make a lot of money. There is no way, that you know with a high certainty, how the market will behave and even if you knew what will happen and how people will react, there are unknown unknown factors that you are not calculating and you cannot calculate. Just simply mention, that you got lucky a few times and thats it. Be honest about it, and don't mislead people.

Nah, there is truth to what he is saying. We can talk all about these issues, but they will never get solved, if we can't get the incentives right. If there is no incentive to stop polluting, then why would anyone stop it? If there is no incentive for companies, to stop polluting (because in most cases, polluting is more profitable compared to not polluting) ,then why would they stop? They won't stop just because we make a moral argument, most comapnies won't give any fuck about morality, but they will change , if they can see that not polluting is more profitable than polluting. On an individual level, why would anyone stop polluting? Why would anyone invest time or money or any effort solving this issue, if they don't gain almost any personal benefit from it? From their perspective ,it looks something like this: " So, i need to make a significant sacrifice right now, to reduce the global pollution by 0.0000000000001% later, and i know that i won't get any special reward for it in the short term, and i won't get any personal reward for it in the future " This is the core question: Why would anyone or any company or country stop polluting ,if in most of the cases, polluting is more profitable for them than not polluting? Talking about moral arguments won't cut it, talking about saving the World won't cut it either. I think that money is a core driver here. We can say here, that the incentive would be, that if we change, then we can live longer on this Earth, but that reasoning won't cut it because of countless reasons) Not everyone agrees that there is a problem When we are talking about a problem like "carbon emissions" we aren't talking about just carbon emissions , because there is a system behind this problem and thats why its occured in the firstplace. If we really want to solve such problems we have to take a systemic approach. People who recognize that there is a problem, don't want to make any sacrifice, because they don't see how one individual polluting less will make any significant global change In most of the cases, the first who make sacrifice, will lose the most in the short-term. Almost no one wants to optimize themselves for the longterm, because all our systems are rewarding in the short-term. If you lose in the short-term you can lose the race because others will tear you down (in this age, obviously there is a rivalous dynamic between us) Lot of people think that this issue is too complex so they are freezed and they feel hopeless The reward can only be seen in the far future. Humans are not optimized in this age, to do tasks to get rewarded in the far future. We are optimized to get immediate rewards for our actions. etcetc Yeah, i agree 100%.

Yes thats true, however, the big difference is that we can choose what we want to consume and how we want to consume it. When we are talking about morality, we assume some level of free will or agency and using that agency you can choose between taking action a or b or c. Thats why it is a moral issue, because we have a choice. As we develop technologically,cognitively and spiritually etc the way we operate and how we view the world changes. Back in the day, rape and murder were okay, now they are not. Also beside the moral side of it , its an environmental issue as well. So its a multifaceted problem, that needs to be looked at and thought about.

I think thats true, if we are only debating if we want the other party to change their position. Lets say if we wanted to have a debate for other reasons too like trying to improve our knowledge about a certain topic and hoping to hear good arguments from the other side, so we can deepen our understanding that could be also a point to have a debate. Of course, we have a debate assuming that the other party is good faith, and maybe able to change his position, but yeah Leo is right that in the vast majority of the cases, debates are about winning and about dick measuring.

Yeah i agree with you. I just pointed out that sometimes it can be misleading, especially when two layman having a debate and both of them relating to the same dataset and ignoring the conclusion of that data-set and trying to make their own interpretation of it just to be able to make an argument. Just to be clear, i don't think we disagree, i am not saying that the data itself is incorrect, but the interpretation of it could be incorrect or misleading when some layman try to do the interpretation him/herself alone (I am not talking about studies, but only raw data where there isn't any conclusion provided from anyone). When we are talking about peer-reviewed studies as a layman it would be really dumb for me to try to come to a different consclusion compared to what a paper/study says. In my vocab i would say thats not raw data, but thats a conclusion from a study where they collected a set of variables , used a certain method and then they concluded what you just wrote above. In this instance, lets say the raw data would be a dataset about people who smoke tobacco and about people who don't smoke tobacco and thats it ( lets say there would be 4 different kind of health variable included too in that raw data). Now to come to the '90% of tobacco smokers develop lung cancer at some point in their life' that would be called a conclusion and the raw data would have to be processed to come to that consclusion. So you would have to use a method to evaluate that raw data to come to your conclusion.

There is no such thing as objective factor in an of itself. The 'objective factor' only comes when we start to use some kind of a methodology to make sense of that data. Also, i didn't assume that all interpretations are at the same level. I made a point, that some people use that tactic in debates to say that the raw data says this and that, which is incorrect. Data collecting is one thing, but making sense of that data, or creating your interpretation of that data is different. Depending on how manipulative one wants to be about it , if there is a big enough data-set you can make multiple different kind of narratives (which are all factually correct based on the data-set) and interpretations about it, because you can cherrypick from it, exclude variables from it etcetc. For instance,if you wanted to make an argument about a drug being safe. You could use a big data-set you would lets say focus on 4 different kind of variables and ignore all the other ones purposefully. You could make an argument that based on those 4 variables the drug is 100% safe and it would be factually correct, because you used a raw dataset, but at the same time misleading, because you excluded things from your estimation. In this instance, you could be the one , who would purposefully only create a data-set and collect data which includes only those 4 variables ,so it is impossible to make a counter argument about your drug, using your own data-set.

When i say having a debate, i am not talking about hardcore debate bro conversations but debates where you ask geniuine questions to the other side to understand it better and then you counter back why you don't agree with the other side's points (we could say having a good faith convo). I agree with this. Depending on the topic it requires having multiple debates/convos to get to the root and to get a real understanding of the other side. I also agree that nowadays most debates about showing off rather than actually arriving at a deeper truth or getting a better understanding about a certain topic. But i would also like to add, that when we are talking about a sensitive or a highly polarized topic,then there will be a lot of friction between the two sides no matter what. Having some level of friction is not necessarily bad but it can destroy the productivity of the conversation. Yeah i get that it is a problem, but if you want to make a change nowadays you have to be articulate. Especially, when we are talking about sensitive and highly polarized topics where the other side is almost completely closed to your side and waiting for any opportunity to point out that you are dumb. You can't really make a good strong position without understanding both side's best arguments. If you can't counter back to certain points it shows that you haven't really thought it through from the other side's lense -- So you position is weak and that is a feedback that you should study the other side more ---> doing that you automatically get a better understanding of the other side. I think no matter what side we are talking about, there are always some set of people (of course this is a minority) who are indecisive enough to be able to be open to change their positions if they get good enough points.

This is interesting. There are a lot of talks and debates when a person says "the raw data suggest x and y" when in reality the raw data doesn't suggest anything in an of itself, unless you try to make sense of it somehow. The process you use to make sense of the data will determine everything. ( and here i didn't even talk about from where and how do you collect that raw data ) You are totally right.

What do you think would be a better approach to challenge ideas and to find some ground, other than debating and talking about the best possible arguments and also understanding the other side's best arguments as well. If there are no intelligent debates how could you steelman the other side's arguments? Of course you could contemplate about it yourself, but because of your blindspots you wouldn't be able to collect all the best arguments the other side could offer. Also you can't really be a good debater without understanding the other side's best arguments because you will be suprised and crushed. If there is a deep disagreement, that won't be resolved if we ignore it or if we just mildly talking about it. Of course debating only works, if both sides are open minded enough to change their positions.

When you say something like this, we have to get nuanced what do you mean by it, because this can be super misleading. "Very small percentage of young people die from the virus" Thats great, but when we are evaluating things ,we are not just focusing on one group and how it will affect one group, but we should think about it as a system (If we can lower down the spreading rate that can be huge --> for instance less people are occupying hospital beds) There is a ton of statistical data that shows a big difference between being vaxxed and not being vaxxed. Now, we can say that everyone is either lying about it or that the statistics are right and vaxxing works. Also its seems little bit funny to me, that now a lot of people require documents and stuff, when they don't even trust the ones who do the studies in the first place. So why bother saying "i want to see the studies", when you don't trust even a little bit the companies and the people who do the studies? Or if you do trust the studies, then why not look at all the other studies as well, that shows that vaxxing works?

Yeah i understand that, but as an outsider I can't possibly know how someone identifies him/her-self as. The only thing i can do, is to assume based on a certain set of physical characteristics. In the past,gender pronouns were used to indentify and categorize sexes and not how someone identifies him/her self as.

Even though it is impossible to make an absolute definition of a woman, labeling and making categories can be useful depending on the context. We could say that money is a social construct , even though we know that, we still collectively play a game where we project some value on it.

Yes, but even if we were to use this definition it would be problematic, because what about woman who can't get pregnant because of some biological factors. It's not always the man's sperm quality why a woman can't get pregnant. It's almost impossible to define what is a man or what is a woman , because there always will be some outliers. Even if we were to use the 'having 2x chromosome' definition is problematic because of this: Also:

Muscle memory is a huge thing. Good job.

In that case,i agree with you. Yes but that systemic/structural problem is not exceptional to logic. I could argue, how do you want to verify if direct experience is valid? Through direct experience? You can't test a method without using the method. The method itself creates a structure and using the method means you can test content within that structure. The structure cannot be validated/tested by the same structure. Every method/investigatory process has a certain baked in limited epistemological foundation in it. Direct experience can be used to test relative and absolute domain problems/questions but even direct experience is limited when it comes to relative domain problems. I don't think you would want to rely only on your anecdotal evidence, when it comes to relative domain problems. So we can (and i think we should) recognize the limits of a certain structure/method and then we can decide what method we want to use depending on what kind of problem we want to solve or what kind of answers we want to find/get.

I don't think you could make a text that could be copy pasted to any stage blue person and he/she would be able to comprehend it without any more further explaining. I think the vast majority of stage blue people don't believe for instance in the Bible, because they find the Bible the most rational way and view to have, but because they got indoctrinated with it early on in their life. Also,most people believe in things out of fear. If you want to target such stage blue people who believe in whatever they believe in, because they find that the most rational way to explain reality and they find that particular thing the most accurate view to have, then you could debate those people and they might change their positions. But i think such stage blue people are rare, and there is no one way to do this. You should engage with that particular person in a convo or in a debate where he/she can be challenged and also he/she can ask questions to you and you can clarify your position and shake his/her position. It should be a dance between you two, because your vocabulary and the other person's vocabulary will be vastly different, especially around concepts like God. One thing you should be aware of ,is that you shouldn't use the 'circularity' argument, because of the nature of language and the structure of arguments will always be circular. Even talking about God and nondulality will be circular so don't use that argument. ( you either make a circular justification or you have to justify your justifications to infinity) You could use the "having the least amount of assumptions in my view argument". I think that you could argue why having solipsism as a view, is the best if you want to have a position where you can find the least amount of assumptions. After that you could explain that it shouldn't have to be only theoretical to the other person but she/he can validate it through direct experience. But at the end of the day targeting stage blue people, i think not the best idea for this. Its too much big of a jump for them imo.

I think this would be one of the strongest arguments in favour of not letting people to commit suicide. I still don't think laws would lower down suicide rates, and i also wouldn't want to force someone to live, when they don't want to. Why would anyone be afraid of a law, when she/he will be dead anyway? Also lets say they would be punsihed for an unsuccesful suicide attempt in that case, they would be even more motivated to try to commit suicide again, so they don't have to suffer even more and longer. A better support system would be better, where they talk with suicidal people more, try to convince them to live, but at the end of the day suicidal people should be the ones to decide if they want to live or not. It seems pretty immoral to force someone to live, when he/she doesn't want to anymore. We can say that they are selfish because they can possibly cause even more suffering to their loved ones, but that would be about their morality not ours. Also i think with a better support system, most people who are indecisive about suicide they could be convinced not to do it, and only a much smaller number of people who really wouldn't see any other way, would choose suicide.

No, we shouldn't. We should rather create a society where most people are happy enough with their life, so they don't want to commit suicide in the firstplace. If someone really want to kill him/herself, then he/she will do it regardless if its legal or not. The difference is that if there is a legal way to do it, they have a chance to choose between methods, and their body could be taken care of after death immediately. With there being a legal way to do it, i think there is a lower potential that more suffering will be created.