Marcel

@zurew Yes I agree. My whole point throughout this entire thread was, that the question of knowing and how to know is not easily achieved, a given or obvious, let alone agreed upon. Also. I expected exactly that of my previous discussion partner, to actually question what he wrote and why ( his approach ) but he just kept on calling me naive for doing so. I subsequently cut the discussion short. Since I saw no way to progress any further.

That is indeed a valid concern. Where is the line of skepticism to be drawn? Hear me out. Since we are speaking in this imaginary scenario, interestingly enough, its incredibly unlikely, but not completely impossible. But does that mean that my first line of thought is that it must be fake? No. But funny enough, why is that? Why is my standard set in this particular way? Do you see how muddy and murky this topic gets. Clear lines are difficult to be found, but out of sheer practicality they need to be drawn somewhere and I imagine if all of the evidence you mentioned ( DNA, Video Evidence and even a confession ) were available to a court they would find the person guilty. And this comes back to the question: ”How do you actually know”? What if a court actually decided to check literally every single variable and option, including everything being fake and checking it. Would that create a better legal system? ”How would you actually know”? Im not saying this to troll or to be annoying or act superior or just be endlessly skeptic for the sake of being skeptic and edgy or to find a way out of any given argument. This question simply isn’t easily answered. I do suppose, assumptions often have to be made for sheer efficiency sake. Because how can you check every possible option and on top of that, how can we all agree on which methodology to use?

How do you know when you have actually understood something? How can you rule out any form of misunderstanding? How could you prevent yourself from being completely offtrack and deluded and at what point are you just starting to doubt yourself and your results, if they were ( in this hypothetical ) sound, but possibly largely rejected in the public domain and you are labelled a lunatic ? Is the cost of truth worth it?

Which is perfectly valid. As I said earlier in this thread, nothing is obvious and everything needs to be questioned to death. It is a form of inquiry, just not an accurate one, fair enough. Now you could deny that and that’s fine too and if I wanted to disprove you I would need to find a way to demonstrate that your denial produces inaccurate results, which you could deny as well. That would be one way of interaction between us. Finding out what’s actually the case isn’t quite so simple, is it now? I didn’t say anything needs to be justified, only the truth of the matter is to be determined, how we go about doing that is a whole different question.

No lol Denial does absolutely not equal skepticism or rather it’s an extreme version of it, that will lead you to some form of conclusions, but not to the actuality of a topic. But this raises a very deep question, at what point can you definitively say you understand or arrive at the truth of the matter and which method is suitable for doing so.

Denial is not inquiry lmao You are describing a deluded perspective. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Some people double down on ignorance. Some people actually reflect and transcend it.

A very faithful recreation with an added flavour of flowers, hills, trees, a windmill and a barn. It’s so good 😊

I never said that that there is a „connection“ between the two and I also never said they are the same. Even in my first response to you I said: „If such a thing as plant consciousness even exists …“ I said if. And not „it definitely exists and here are my arguments for it“ All I’m doing is actually questioning stuff, which you somehow twist into me being naive and now also mindless, unreflected and stupid. Seems any discussion with you is futile, if you are not going to take any inquiry seriously. I hear all of your points and appreciate you taking the time to type them out. I just dig deeper and don’t just settle, because as you said to me in your very first response: „It is obvious, when you think about it for a few seconds“ Could you scream ignorance and intellectual laziness any louder? Again. How can you definitively know? What makes you so dead certain that your baseline theory is absolutely correct and has no flaws whatsoever? You are completely unwilling to actually question it, which means you are acting on assumption and faith. Not actual understanding. By the way. Assumption implies I made a point and postulated something, which I didn’t. I simply asked questions, which somehow triggered you, given that you haven’t mentioned a single assumption I presumably made and resorted to describing the mere act of questioning as unreflected and stupid. You don’t even know which position I actually have, regarding the topics of plants feeling pain and them being conscious or not. Since you are evidently unserious, unkind and also uninterested in an actual inquiry. I will end this discussion with you here. Im always glad to converse with people who are so free of any bias and openminded like you. Best Regards. Marcel

Ignorance is a very interesting entity in the sense making process of humankind. Either you can acknowledge and transcend or double down and entrench yourself in it. Copious amounts of growth or stagnation can be had depending on which route one takes. I’m very careful drawing definitive conclusions on any topic, because it can easily lead to stumbling blocks to further, deeper, actual, accurate and more precise understanding. As someone mentioned in a thread I currently participate in. You need a baseline theory. Absolutely. You need to make decisions somehow, yet this baseline theory better be very well questioned and meditated upon, every possible blindspot needs to be highlighted, checked on biases and assumptions extensively, groupthink, rationalisations, straight up misunderstandings etc. The ultimate question is: „How can you definitively know what is the case in any given topic“? Which is not nearly as simple to arrive at as some people naively assume. How can you definitively know? How can you make sure you do not delude yourself in the process?

Beautiful 😍

Underlying theory well and good. Still. I wouldn’t be so quick to say I actually understand something just „because I have thought about it for a few seconds“ as you suggested to me in the very beginning. Nothing is obvious. Everything needs to be questioned to death and beyond rigorously, especially what we are „certain“ of. How often in human history were people dead sure about something, just for it to turn out to be completely false, not the whole truth or a distorted interpretation, to fit a pre-existing narrative / paradigm. And on top of that. New findings often being vehemently denied and suppressed, leading to people being killed or even tortured for just thinking differently in the past. I never said that my position is xyz. Again. I’m merely actually questioning the „baseline theory“ as you call it. And ta da you call me naive for even attempting to do so.

Which is insane. Patients are just like another piece of meat to them, that needs to be processed and filed so they can get paid and they do a terrible job at it on top. The payment structure should be made to reflect actual results and not amount of patients in my view.

Well that’s the thing, how can you definitively know what’s the case? Look. I’m not naive. I just don’t pretend I know stuff, when I truly don’t. All I’m doing is staying radically open minded. It’s not like I subscribe to everything I wrote. I’m just open to actually question it and not have completely stuck and inflexible conclusions. You are ignorant and think you have everything figured out. Ultimately you don’t know and assume.

I’m aware of the game. Ive witnessed it for over a decade. I myself was never a patient or rather refused to be one after seeing how the system worked. But. I went with my mom to her appointments and often times she wanted me to be part of what is being discussed, which is why I know it’s a complete waste of time in most cases.