zurew

Thats what an ENTP would say.

@Carl-Richard We might agree , we just may use different definitions for the word intuition. I don't know if its necessarily less biased, its just not groundable and because of that groundlessness, we don't know what are the biases. On the other hand, you are right that when we are using logic we are judging based on preconceived notions. However, in the case of logic we can know exactly our limitations, because we can choose our biases and we can be aware that if we use x set of biases or axioms then its going to be limiting in this x way. Because making a certain structure is creating a set of limitations. So i think our disagreement right now is somewhere around here: I think just because we can't point out the biases that are the ground for some of our intuitions, that does not mean that an intuition contains less or no bias. I don't think we can decouple intuition and the ego, unless we are talking about a transcendental state. Also, feelings can be manipulated and artifically created based on a certain set of outer environmental factors. So getting back to my previous post , it is sometimes hard to distinguish between pure intuitions and unconscious feelings ,instincts. But when we are talking about everyday life, we don't just let intuitions to just be without any touch or sensemaking process involved . We try to use them and we try to make sense of them. Even if we receive a very pure intuition we use it for something. We use it either to make a conceptual understanding of it because we like to ground things or we try to make our decisions based on that intuition. In both cases we filter them through our minds, its very rare when intuitions don't get filtered at all.

Intuition can mislead too. I would even say, that your most deep biases can manifest themselves through your intuitions. Lacking a necessary rational foundation can be really problematic and having an overly rational attitude can be limiting and problematic too, based on the given context. Both logic and intuition have their own place and limitations. I assume when you say intuition, you are talking about something that transcends logic. I would agree with you there, however it can sometimes be cloudy and foggy to be able to distinguish between intuition that transcends logic, and 'intuition' that is just a bias you have.

@Someone here Both choice has their own pros and cons. But there is a meta question to this, who should choose which answer is the best for your question?

I would disagree, but i would say that it kind of depends on the person. There are some naturally beautiful girls and women out there, but i think in most cases low level makeup can help a lot. Too much makeup can also be a turnoff, because it radiates low self esteem and also it doesn't look good.

If we were to take this kind of reasoning , then we wouldn't be able to do any science. Because ultimately everything is relative, but that is irrelevant in this context. There are claims that can be investigated and falsified, we don't have to make the 'absolute argument' and forget all the nuance. Not just up to me, do you disagree that not all studies have the same level of reliancy? Yes thats a good point, that for example cutting edge stuff wouldn't be able to go through. But cutting edge stuff don't need to be on a social platform, that stuff need to be discussed by academics and if the cutting edge people can pass through their stuff than they can change the way things and structures work. Also, i said in my previous post (not to you , but to yarco ) that you could label and tag your post if you share information that you not necessarily know that it is true or not. That way you could share information without getting banned for it. Also different platforms can have different set of rules.

Misinformation only make sense when we are talking about falsfiable claims. If you make claims that are falsifiable and they turn out to be false, then you shared misinformation. This just won't happen. Not every study hold the same level of reliability. There are peer reviewed studies and there are not peer reviewed studies. There are studies that are checked by multiple different kind of parties and there are frash new studies that are not checked by third parties. But at the same time making claims that are not falsifiable can also be some kind of a misinformation. When someone make very confidently such causality claims that are impossibble to disprove or to falsify that also is damaging to the global sensemaking. THe question comes up :Why talk about stuff that you yourself can't prove?

So you would draw you own line somewhere too. That line wouldn't be exact in every instance so even in your case there would be some instances where the ban is up for debate ( if it was justified or not ). But it seems that you would be okay with a few unjustified or 'blurry' bans, because you know that drawning your line somewhere overall would do more good than bad. I assume you would be also okay with some authority figure implementing those lines and regulations ( if you are not, i am curious what other system you can offer how it should go down and how the bans should be implemented) [when i say authority figure, i am talking about the site's owner] . My question would be then, why do you okay with the things i mentioned above, but you are not okay with restricting the sharing of misinformation? I assume your biggest problem with it , that the term 'misinformation' in not defined and exact enough and you fear the people will be banned in an unjustified way. I think the rules should be based upon a few really clear, precise well defined principles.If anyone has counter arguments against the use of principles please share it. Principles could be used as a system or as a tool, if you put your input into it (for example your post) you should be able to evaluate in the vast majority of the cases what the output will be (output in this case would mean if your post is banworthy or not). Of course this is begging the question what principles should be used. It would depend on the site or on the platform, but i think using principles would be a good structural solution. I guess there are certain principles that are being implemented already, but there could be more used. I have an idea for the misinformation regulation too. If you are unsure about your post or about your article, if it contains misinformation or not, you should put a label on your post (this would be a new mechanic that could be implemented) . If you don't put any label on your post, then the moderators will assume that you know, that if your post contains misinformation you have a high chance that you will be banned. With that being the case, other people would be able to see the label on your post and they would either avoid it or would be reading it with caution. I know this mechanic could be weaponised just as anything else ( because you would be able to post any shit without any punishment if you label your post ) but on the other hand, it would do more good in my opinon than bad. I would add here, that the algorithm would mostly show the posts and articles that has no label on them. With that dynamic being used everyone would be massively incentivised to post articles and posts without labels [which means that they must be factually correct]. I think that dynamic would be massively beneficial for everyone. But the implementation has its own problems with it, but i think the idea in an of itself is not that bad. It would motivate people to be more factually correct before they want to post something Other people could consume articles and posts and information easier and in a more conscious way ( because they could see the labels) So overall our global sensemaking would be much better.

Language is something that is invented. The purpose of any language is to represent something. That something can "exist" , however the pointer (the language used) is invented. You can attach any meaning to any symbol. The underlying meaning that matters, not the symbol. The symbol is just a pointer or a tool to point to some underlying meaning/factor. But the symbol itself can't represent fully the underlying structure, just in a finite way.

Congressional UFO Hearing in 10 Minutes .

Now solipsism is not purely conceptual for him anymore. His explanation starts at 52:18.

"Hi, sorry if i misled you, but i only see you as a friend"

I see. He will be more hurt if you won't tell him your intentions clearly. Otherwise, he will live with false hopes.

Be very suspicious with guys who are single. The chances are that they are interested in you and thats why they are chatting with you is very high. I am sure there is a very few exception to this "rule" but in the majority of the cases they are attracted to you. You can test most of them by talking about your boyfriend even if you don't have one.

It could be though. With enough statistical data, but that statistical data would have to be collected first. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is sort of tangible, you could make some hypothesis about the levels and then test your theory if it applies or not. Even if we are not able to make a perfect hypothesis about it, we can at least point to a range of things that is required to achieve certain levels.

But the goal matters, why you want to use a certain substance. When the shaman says that "he doesn't need it anymore" so he won't take it that has a certain context to it. You can use psychedelics to just fuck around you can use them for healing purposes, you can use them for spiritual purposes etc.

Thats one good way to summarize it. The only thing i would add to this is that intentionality doesn't necessarily matter ,only the outcomes ( we can think about karma just like we think about physics). And one plus thing is that we tend to think about karma from the finite ego's perspective. Some people tend to make an argument that this and that murderer killed x many people and after that they killed themselves, so they succesfully escaped the potential "punishment" or "justice". That would be true, if we would be only looking at it from an individual's perspective. Because everyone and everything is you, the consequences of your actions will hit you back. We don't necessarily need to add things like rebirth here to explain these things.

I guess its totally depends on the person and on how much you dissolve your ego when you have that realization. Having a solipsistic experience without an ego is easier to stomach than when you are maintaining a finite ego. Because when you think you are finite and you experience that you are all alone, you think you can't survive and thats why it gets super scary i guess (sort of like the ego thinks how the fuck am i gonna survive, if there is noone to help me?). Also having a solipsistic experience while you are maintaining your ego is problematic ,because you recognize that you are all alone, but you still don't necessarily recognize that you are the one who is responsible for reality and for your experience. So there is a hopelessness that can potentially come up.

I think this is sort of true. Becuase of our advancements in technology we lost the need for meaning and intuition. Everything now is about being certain and about science. Everything is about the objective and the subjective lost its own value (I used subjective and objective in normal terms not how we use it here). This is why spirituality and other practices are not common nowadays.

One of the biggest problem with this, is the same problem with motivational speakers. They are good at manipulating your emotions making you feel excited and motivated and making you feel like you are strong and smart. Being able to manipulate your feelings like that, these people can do with you whatever they want. In this case, they can easily trap stage blue people to believe that democrats are evil.

That ground doesn't exist independent of your mind. Thats the point, the ground itself is part of your imagination. Everything is mind. When you say that distinctions depend on reality. Reality itself part of the distinction making, thats basically the most meta distinction you make in your mind, thats why you are able to separate yourself from the world . But that distinction only exist in your mind. Notice that you can create a million different kind of scenarios to explain reality and yourself. But where are those philosophies and explanations comes from and where they exist? They all comes from your mind. Everything is grounded in your mind. Lets assume there is an independent physical reality out there. Even if thats the case you can only experience your own distorted version of it. When i say own distorted version of it, you have your own biased way to make sense of that physical reality. You don't talk to me, you talk to an idea of me. Your mind generating me. Your mind generating your room. Your mind generating yourself. If you want to take a position where you make the least amount of assumptions you naturally arrive at solipsism. The only thing you can verify in your direct experience if you destroy all the layers , is that everything is consciousness and you are constantly experiencing your own mind no matter what. When you say "but there is a physical reality out there" thats an instance where your mind trying to ground itself in itself. The notion of physical reality only exist in your own mind. You can't access any independent physical reality, and even if you do, you can only access your own biased version of it. And that biased version is generated by your own mind. Every idea, philosophy, explanation is ultimately coming from the mind. No matter what philosophy you want to use, we are always coming back to the mind. But this is all just intellectual talk, you should be able to have an awakening experience and verify all the things we have said so far. Further intellectualizing won't help you to come closer to any truth.

Tell me in a PM. I don't have this figured totally out. I think this should be experimented with and figured out through experience. There are really clear instances where there is misinformation about certain events, where all the factual information is already known. Misleading with information is a much more tougher thing to figure out, and i don't think we could set up a system for that. The goal would be to at least agree on the factual things. But, constantly posting conspiracy theories about events and saying stuff that can't be falsified and saying it in a manner where you don't have any evidence to support those claims and you make serious accusations about stuff, then i would say that shouldn't be allowed. Misinformation is an information that is factually not true. When there are events that can be explained rationally using the least amount of assumptions, then we should do that. But most of the conspiracy theorists won't do that, they will make a grand narrative, where they will cherrypick data for their claims and when you actually start to analyze their claims you can get through each and every one of their claim and you will realize that most of those are false and they are basing their theories upon a million different kind of assumptions. Unfortunately, most of the people nowadays are very prone to get trapped by these conspiracy theories and that really weakens democracy. How can you have democracy if most of the people are misinformed and no one can agree even on what happened. Being able to start convos and debates from a factually correct ground would be massively helpful to have fruitful convos in the future and to be able to find solutions for certain problems.

Those things that you can explain have certain elements to them , that people can relate to (becuase they have had some kind of an experience related to atleast some specific parts). For this reason, you can't explain sight to a blind person, you can't explain color to a color blind person, you can't explain music to a deaf person. If i want to explain to you a new thing , and lets say i have to use 10 words to explain it , you have to understand most of those words to be able to grasp what i am talking about. If there is a very significant amount of words that you don't understand and can't relate to (that are part of my explanation) then you won't be able to understand what i am talking about. The reason to use words and explanations is to try to put parts of reality into boxes. There is a limit to using words and using a certain grammar system.

I haven't heard any good arguments from the 'free speech' side just complaining why they can't say whatever shit they want to say. "ohh i can't share misinformation, ohh i can't shit on these people, ohh i am seriously not allowed to mislead people?" Yes, the regulation can be misused and overused but the question is not that if there could be a regulating system that is 100% perfect. The question is what is more beneficial overall for society, without damaging individual freedom in any significant way? Having all the idiots say whatever they want (misleading people, pumping innumerable amount of misinformation, hate speech) vs having very few amount of examples where people were regulated in an unjustified way + regulating most people in a clearly justified way. Those people who want to have good faith conversations , those can find their way to have it. Most of the pro free speech people want to make it look like it is impossible for them to have convos about certain topics. For the pro speech brigade: what are the things that you can't say, that would be so valuable for you or for the world ? Or what are the valuable functions that are being lost by regulating free speech on certain sites ? OR i could ask the reverse, what are the most negative outcomes that are coming from moderately regulating free speech on certain sites?