Carl-Richard

Big boi with the cake ? That's true. This picture was taken in Spain though

Nothing Joe has said here is new to this place, and I have no problems with the pure content of what he is talking about, just the attitude, i.e. using non-duality and skepticism as a spearhead to stifle all analytic inquiry (rather than conceding to its lessons and moving on), all the while making the pre-trans fallacy trying to educate a spirituality forum that is obviously way past that rudimentary level of insight. Even if that was not the intention, and you (Joe) end up retreating to that faux humility that is so predictable of naive skepticism, please know that it still comes off that way.

The irony is that the serious talk you're referring to is actually anti-talk. You can't talk about infinity or God. It's the first lesson of mysticism. It's really only used to shut down talk. What do you want to talk about?

It makes the case that there is a distinction between intelligence and intentionality ("understanding"). In other words you, can simulate intelligent behavior without also creating a first-person insider's view of that behavior, e.g. simulating the speaking of perfect Chinese without creating the experience of understanding Chinese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Chinese_room_thought_experiment

It's one thing to look at the level of testosterone at one snapshot in time. It's another to look at a body that has been under the effects of testosterone for a long period of time. Picture a guy who has been on steroids for 1 month vs. 10 years. This reminded me of a picture that was taken earlier this week of me and my brother ?: I'm 24 and he is 20. Guess who is who ?

Hey, master. I'm back. My opinion is still the same.

Ah, another guru game. I see. I'm sorry, master. I should work on deconstructing my belief system by meditating 1000 hours and having daily experiences of no-mind ?

This is again an issue of framing. I just think it's a clumsy way to treat the concept of knowledge like it's this narrow, inflexible and absolute thing that you should never invoke when talking about things that are not 100% comprehensive or certain. We need at least some concept to refer to those things. So I'll ask you, the enlightened protagonist, which concept would you use to describe what science does, or what is achieved through learning, or why a good guess can make a huge difference?

Infinite, irreducible consciousness is what you levy against relative knowledge in order to dismiss it. Again, we've already established this: you're the ultimate skeptic. Your definition of knowledge is 100% certainty, and it needs to explain everything. Very few things are certain, and very few things can explain everything, but we can expand the definition of knowledge to include more things. That is how we operate in our daily lives and in science. Calling it "make-believe" sounds like you're dismissing it wholesale. "Relative knowledge" admits that while it's not 100% certain and that it's possible to revise one's position, it can still tell you something about the world.

It's true that there have been developments in the study of mutations that indicates that they're in fact not random. That is of course a scientific question. What I'm pointing out is that invoking metaphysical matters like "what nature is at a fundamental level is infinite consciousness" is irrelevant, because we're talking about the behavior of nature. You settle scientific questions by doing science. You don't settle it through metaphysical speculation.

?

I'm saying that you, along with OP, is trying to use metaphysics to discard science, because just like physicalists, you're conflating the two. You're both saying something along the lines of "all of reality, including rocks, fundamentally consists of consciousness, therefore rocks do not undergo erosion". The first part of the sentence is a metaphysical claim, and the second part is a scientific claim. OP is saying "all of nature is infinite intelligence, therefore mutations are not random", and you're saying "we can't encapsulate the infinity of nature as a whole, therefore we can't encapsulate the behavior of parts of nature".

@JoeVolcano You can make hypotheses and do experiments without caring about metaphysics (that is what most scientists proport to do) and learn a lot about the behavior of nature. In fact, that is how science should ideally be done, but humans can't help themselves but to ground their reality in a metaphysics. However, metaphysics is concerned about what reality is, not only how it behaves. It's concerned with interpreting science, not disproving or discarding it. This is only made confusing by physicalists who place an equal sign between science and metaphysics. I'm telling you that is not necessary.

@JoeVolcano Literally just conflating science and metaphysics. No better than a materialist.

You think humans evolved from chimpanzees? ?

@JuliusCaesar If what you're assuming here were to be correct (that the number of viable phenotypes can just keep multiplying forever), you'd have to stop almost all of evolution: all phenotypes would need to have equal and perfect fitness (no differences in selection pressures, no extinctions etc.), and there can be no interbreeding between similar species. In such a world, the only thing driving "evolution" would be intraspecies breeding (a poorly defined concept btw), mutations, and genetic drift ?

I'm imagining like Siri doing a live reading of radar data of surrounding traffic while drones are dressed in bright colors and flashing lights.

Looking at the problems we've had with something as innocuous as electric scooters (certainly in my country), I would love to see the developmental learning curve from implementing such a new type of transport. *ER visits increase by 300%* Do you think it would be legal to own one that is not self-driving and hooked up to some kind of collective AI traffic grid? I wonder what type of traffic rules one would have to learn in that case and what kind of technology you would have installed in the dashboard ("please choose altitude level 4 for maximum safety").

I thought there was at least a glimmer of hope of a properly formulated answer, rather than a list of Zen koans. I was mistaken

Everything that the lizards over at RationalWiki write reads like satire

We get it, you're the ultimate skeptic — all knowledge other than your own live feed of phenomenological experiences is false: your car is not in the garage, there is no earth beyond the horizon, the sun will not rise tomorrow etc.

Bliss happens as a result of releasing resistance (e.g. dropping attachments and clearing trauma), and peace is when you stabilize in that state. So peace is inherently blissful, but only compared to a non-peaceful state (experiences are experienced through contrast).

@JoeVolcano Your whole point is essentially "relative knowledge is not true, because only absolute knowledge is true". It's a completely irrelevant, stinky red herring of a point, because most people with a brain have already conceded that point 10 years ago. You're preaching to the choir. Drop your guru game already.

Why? What does that mean? Is it not possible to describe how creatures evolve without knowing how the first creatures were made? Is it not possible to know how to make a pizza without knowing how the ingredients were made?