Carl-Richard

Ugh, how can you say such a gagworthy thing with a straight face? ? If you don't disagree with Leo on anything at all, that's a bad sign.

So many YouTube videos are now taking the least amounts of information and spreading it infinitely thin with a bunch of bullshit on top to keep your attention on it. Here are some examples: This video is literally just a girl petting a horse. This video is literally just a guy telling you to train squats. Post your own examples

I think you are literally going crazy. In one moment, you say he is making claims specifically about evolution, and in the other you say he is making a more general claim about metaphysical bedrock. Metaphysical bedrock is of course way beyond evolution, way beyond humans using a framework to try to predict some behavior. If you think randomness is not simply a failure of human prediction (epistemological randomness) and is instead an innate property of reality (ontological randomness), then good: that is the real reason why you're talking past each other. And that is what I said from the beginning: if you mean something different by the word "randomness", then the disagreement is just a language game. Substitute "randomness" for some other word ("freedom") and then it's clear that you're talking about different things. Then Leo isn't "wrong" about randomness; he is just talking about a different concept than you are.

Well, I disagree. I do think he was pointing to metaphysical bedrock. He almost always does that. But you could ask him yourself. When Leo says "randomness is just human ignorance", then he is talking about evolution. Evolution is a framework for describing, explaining and predicting reality. If we fail to predict something, we call it random (which used to apply to genetic mutation, but as I said earlier, today it's not as straightforward). But that is just a failure of humans, i.e. human ignorance. Metaphysical bedrock is beyond all that, beyond humans coming up with a framework to try to predict some behavior.

@Scholar The hubris is not helping. I think this is a part of the disconnect that is happening: when we're talking about metaphysics, often it involves reducing something to the most fundamental thing there is. This is what I think Leo is doing: "nothing is random; everything is patterns". He tries to give you the most fundamental one thing there is. You on the other hand are doing an investigation into some secondary aspect (which you can still call metaphysics, but still, it's secondary), which you've conceded yourself, but yet you're not seeing that this causes you to talk past what Leo is saying.

I know essentially nothing about this, but my intuition is yes. You should test yourself dozens of times to see how it fluctuates. To borrow a term from @Michael569: mechanistic speculation is easy, and it doesn't mean much before you do the actual tests.

If you can say there is an "I", then I can say there is an "I" that makes choices. It's as simple as that. There is no "I" in an ultimate sense, yet we speak about an "I" in many situations. In the same way, there is no choice in an ultimate sense, yet we speak about making choices in many situations.

Yup. Like I said in a previous post, there are many possible ways to model these things, and there will be overlap, as life is complex and interconnected. The purpose of presenting the three-way split is to provide some broad coverage of the concrete domains that you inhabit, of the "implementation". I just prefer that split because it pops up in so many places.

I was reading about Marr's Three Levels of Analysis, and I suddenly saw the similarities to this map. https://blog.shakirm.com/2013/04/marrs-levels-of-analysis/

Who is saying? There is no "I".

Read and respond to stuff.

I'm not missing the point. The point you're making is included in my point.

This is why our civilization is collapsing ?

I think my position is compatiblism: there is a reason why we talk about making choices on an everyday level, and there is a reason why we talk about how in a more ultimate sense we don't have a choice, and both reasons are valid.

That's a limited perspective. I gave both perspectives earlier.

There is a lot of wild shit that pops into my mind that I choose not to say.

You have free will in the sense that choices seem to present themselves to you and you're able to evaluate each choice according to some inner thought or feeling, and then you'll experience yourself making a choice according to that. You also don't have free will in the sense that you don't choose which choices, thoughts or feelings present themselves to you.

You could've chosen to not say that

"Are you an INFP too?! Awww, we're meant for each other!" ?

?

True rationality is when you're in dialogue with your emotions: not a slave to them, but also not completely above them.

My mind can't help but to draw comparisons to the hugely profitable business model of Hustlers University by Dr. Emory Andrew Tate lll himself. Their purported goal is to drive down the price of a bachelor's degree to 4000 dollars, which sounds like a noble pursuit in itself, but charging this amount of money before having achieved accreditation does seem like a bit of a hustler-esque kind of move à la Tate the lll, right? (because an unaccredited "bachelor's degree" isn't really a bachelor's degree, right?). At least there doesn't seem to be a MLM component involved (for now ). But do they really need that when they charge 4000 dollars just for some video lectures? I'd be interested to see what those lectures are about and what types of degrees they're offering. https://www.instagram.com/p/CoKnYuGvOGf/?hl=en I just imagined a scenario where some controversial political figure 100-200 years ago ended up creating their own education institution and what that would've looked like today given some sort of success. I mean, isn't that essentially the story of many universities today (e.g. Harvard)? Maybe in the not so far future, what looks like a shady online business in its startup phase might be largely indistinguishable from most universities today.

@Jehovah increases Stop talking to yourself.

Bruuuh 76% success rate on Triple 3-Back (86%+71%+71%), first attempt after a 2-day break. Maybe you're right that you should take breaks.

We've been over this already. Different people have different relationships to food. If you could be me for a day, you'd be surprised how easily I'll eat 2500 calories and more.