zurew

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.

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.