That looks great, thank you!

> assuming anything 'discovered' via psychedelics is actually anything in the first place.

How might the two of us simultaneously be talking about something that has no existence? Us talking about it requires a kind of existence, and us coming to talk about it presumably requires a force of some kind (especially since it has happened simultaneously).

> apart from self-reflection there isnt anything there, as someone who has done a pretty large amount of a variety of hallucinogens ive never had an ego-death, met entities of any variety, felt any connection to nature or the universe or any of the other typical experiences (and ive done 1300ug doses of LSD).

Do you honestly think that the entirety of reality is what you have experienced (or, that you have experienced the entirety of reality)?

> personally i havent seen anything of any objective quality to psychedelics, they are interesting as hell but they cant tell you anything part of you didnt already know.

How did you determine that it is a fact that what you experienced was not objective? I will go way out on a limb and take a wild guess: was consciousness involved in the acquisition (and possibly manufacture) of that fact(?) in any way?

> > > > Edit: i am autistic, maybe thats why i have never had any of those experiences?

I dunno man, you seem quite neurotypical to me.

> You will not invest in approaches based on reality?

One problem is with your demonstration here today of "what we know". Another is "backed by this style of thinking" - that you equate your thinking with reality itself is a big problem for me.

Also, dodging of questions is a black mark in my books.

Thank you, and get well soon!

> Proof, not yet that's why we still deal with philosophy around this point. > > > > However, we know humans are rooted in reality.

What about this reality right here: "That is an incorrect statement. My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination."?

Are you "rooted in" that one (which disagrees with this one the one in the comment I'm replying to) also? Is it simultaneously, or do they/you switch back and forth?

> That is testable in many ways.

You can test that there is some shared reality. Beyond that, you're speculating.

> Just because we have not done it yet, doesn't mean that that it will not fall squarely into the realm of the physical

Great marketing, bad argument.

> On the second point. We have no indication that it is required to use metaphysics to explain it.

How do you see the future with physics? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but have there even been any experiments on this?

> That is where Occam's razor comes into play. Let's invest our efforts in what so know instead of positing ideas the dont exist without universal by definition.

I will not invest in anything backed by this style of thinking - worse, I will oppose it.

> Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com

Can you please link to both (I want to check if those are the sole definitions for each)?

Which reminds me - you didn't answer this (or my other questions):

>> Are these the only two, consensus (non-controversial) definitions of metaphysics?

> Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com. if those are controversial then I think the field needs to properly define it.

Well, this also happens to exist:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

I don't disagree, but this seems a bit flawed - you've provided one example of a scenario where someone has done it, but this in no way proves that it must be done this way. In an agnostic framework, representations of various models could have math attached to them (whether it is valid or makes any fucking sense is a secondary matter) and that should satisfy an exception to your rule, I think?

"I don't disagree with this, what I am proposing is that a descriptive model and/or mathematics or logic can only be applied to a moral problem or dilemma ...."

What would "applied" consist of?

Can you provide ~proofs for these two assertions of fact (not opinion)?

• Why do people keep insisting consciousness has anything to do with metaphysics? It doesn't.

• We will make more progress if we stick in reality and not try to explain stuff through unprovable means.

> Incorrect.

Also metaphysics.

> > > > Definition: abstract theory with no basis in reality

> > > > Or > > > > Definition: an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception > > >

Are these the only two, consensus (non-controversial) definitions of metaphysics?

> Both suggest we cannot ascertain the reality, however, as I suggest with bats we can indeed do so.

Can we ascertain the entirety of it, with zero chance of error?

What if two people make conflicting claims about a portion of reality?

> The lore of psychedelia is saturated with information pertaining to this - though i feel a certain amount of salt taken with this is essential due to the mind maintaining a capacity for crafting sub-autonomies which intermingle and provoke self contained feedback states [schizophrenia, tulpas, Dissociative Identity disorder, etc]

Agree, though what so many people overlook when applying salt is that the mind makes things up during normal consciousness as well - the subreddit I linked above is full of not-actually-scientific scientific thinking. You seem less prone to falling for these tricks which is a nice change of pace!

> Either way, they entail a wealth of knowledge and profundity - and until we get "real" "time" readouts of the experiences themselves or anomalous spikes in future variables with meta-tech sensors - it's entirely within the realm of plausible deniability when faced with the [quasi-rightful] tryant that is modern science .

Scientific thinkers do love epistemology, when it works in their favour at least!

> I'm exceedingly interested in detachments from the illicit though - and postulations dealing strictly with the extents of thought in sobriety . Ie - our consciousness defined by the spatial axis' x, y, z is somehow interacted with by a "consciousness" defined by the spatial axis' x, z, z² , what forms of "consciousness" might exist when emergently related to a reality substrate dictated by differing mathematical constants, what forms of "consciousness" exist within the span of a second [their relative experience of existence feels like 80 years], what variables of sustenance exist in the ebbs of post temporal/spatial transcendence - and what avenues of "life" base their "existence" around such things?

I think our (default) consciousness is kind of hardwired to 3D reality and our (human-longevity-distorted) sense of time, and as a consequence we continue to make bad decisions as a species.....what's your take on this theory?

> and how do all of these hypothetical instances relate to the perception of us from an outsider perspective ?

Exactly...which is why I think people often find psychedelic trips "more real than reality" at the time, and are certain of it, but can't recall why afterwards.

> So many questions, so much socioeconomic stiflement, so little time

Ha! Too true, too true.

Only in degrees, sure, but degrees go from zero to infinity, where it is within that range that we sit is the tricky part!

> and if beliefs about consciousness can be debunked, that without experience we can't theorize about it (you need "access") then maybebthere is more to it.

This sounds like its right in the wheelhouse of what I'm interested in, but I can't tell what you're getting at exactly.

> You lost me a bit with the first paragraph. Illusionism wants to negate phenomenal consciousness. Don't think many people can get on that page.

I'm getting at how on specific topics, it seems as if the human mind is unable to distinguish between reality and perception, fact and opinion. Whether we have free will is simply not known, not is it known whether the entirety of the universe is deterministic. If it was otherwise someone could point to a proof (or something approaching it), but all anyone has is stories, most of which have obvious flaws in them. On this topic it's perhaps not such a big deal, but I find the phenomenon annoying and it seems rather dangerous.

> His do calculus is interesting, and he's highly influential in the machine learning literature, but he has a fair amount of detractors.

This is a completely uninformed question but I am curious: are there any ML libraries you know of that specifically address causality (like, chains of causality, not simply direct correlation)?

Maybe I don't understand the problem then, because to me if one fully and "properly" accepts that illusionism is in effect (which includes representing heuristics predictions as truths), I'd think a workflow could be worked out such that people would be better able to realize that the core proposition is simply unknown at this point in time, which perhaps could get more people on the same page for a change.

> But we don't need an -ism for that.

Memes can be an effective popular way to get knowledge into otherwise resistant minds, just look at how well "We have no free will!" has worked, despite the truth of the matter being unknown.

> My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination.

Using Occam's Razor?

> It's part of the brain, it's simply a sub system.

This is metaphysics.

Try thinking of illusion not as a True/False binary but as a multidimensional spectrum.

This simple approach (consciously overriding subconscious heuristics) has great utility with many ideas.

> how could they ever understand what that is

Try thinking of "understand" not as a True/False binary but as a multi-dimensional spectrum.

Psychedelic trips can often pierce the veil, though we don't really have a very sophisticated means of dealing with what's discovered - heck, even proponents are often not very helpful.

> heuristic is not working without logic and probability. heuristic is an undercategory of it and is mostly using probabilitys!

Citation please.

Also note I said: "...there is substantial evidence that heuristics do not run on (actual, flawless) logic."

> u have not all info, but you still use logic and probability to come to a solution. Like trail and error, statistics and so on. all of those methods cant work without logic and probability.

You can also flip a coin to come to a solution.

>>> Kants Imperatives gives you everything you need. The hypothetic gives you the logic and the categoric gives you the clear goal you need to attend.

>> Is this necessarily an evidence-based True Fact, or might it be merely a heuristic powered belief?

> My sentence of Kant and his Imperatives is not very precise. So im not sure what exactly you ask to be true here.

Is it objectively true that it gives you everything that you need?

> A fact is the ationalistic/hypothetic system that is like causal and determiend analytics, methods that work to create truth and function. They are evidence-based but also use probability. As heuristic is also evidence-based in the end, but its only a probability where you expect the evidence to be.

If probabilistic, then not guaranteed to give a correct answer.

> And the categoric imperative is also a method that works for moral.

A sledge hammer "works" for opening a locked door also, but how optimal is it?

> So further, u can understand that moral, like all other systems, is a system of goals and methods and you can analyze goals and methods with the hypothetical/rational system (including logic and probability). And thats also evidence-based but also heuristic!

Whether one gets remotely correct answers is another matter.

> If people disagree with other peoples logics and conclusions, then there must be a reason for it. One reason could be, they dont have all the facts. Another reason could be, they dont have the same goals/methods (this is very important). And a third reason could be, they dont manage to come to the right conclusion, even if they have the facts and the same goals. And a forth reason could be, all first three together.

Another potential issue: there is no correct answer and the person isn't smart enough to realize it, due to the shit education systems we have going on here on planet Earth.

> > > > So for example, you have to jews analyzing a moral problem but both come to different conclusions. So where is the problem? They done have the same moral, they dont have the same facts or they dont understand them in the same way. or everything together.

One problem: people are not taught how to recognize when their thinking is unsound.

> of course its a big problem if you have two different systems, but you think its the same. this is the reason for many wars and many misunderstandings and social separations. and not just in morals.

Agree on this!

> I don't disagree with this, what I am proposing is that a descriptive model and/or mathematics or logic can only be applied to a moral problem or dilemma after one has presupposed or established a particular ethical framework, moral philosophy, and/or particular moral norms and judgments. Descriptive models, non-normative facts, and math/logic alone can never solve a moral problem or dilemma, in order to arrive at a moral judgment or conclusion one must presuppose an ethical framework or particular norms/value-judgments.

I suspect you have a particular implementation in mind, and in that implementation what you say is indeed correct.

> But we're not necessarily talking about resolving moral disputes between different people, but also of individual people having difficulty determining the correct moral course of action (i.e. "resolving a moral dilemma"), and this meme has nothing to say about the latter case (and that's assuming it says anything substantive or useful RE the former case, which I'm not sure it does).

All decisions are made within an environment, and I reckon most of those decisions are affected at least to some degree by causality that exists (but cannot be seen accurately, to put it mildly) in that environment....so any claims about "can or cannot" are speculative imho.

> The point is, once again, that mathematics or logic only enter into the question after one has decided or settled which ethical framework, moral philosophy, or particular moral values/judgments are right and correct, irrespective of how common or popular those ethical frameworks or moral values/judgments may be, or the extent to which people disagree about them.

I think we are considering the situation very differently: I am proposing that if a highly detailed descriptive model of things was available to people, perhaps with some speculative "math" in it, this may be adequate enough to produce substantial positive change. So no doubt, my approach is other than the initial proposal here, I do not deny it (or in other words: you are correct in that regard).

> ...many if not most people will persist in sticking with ethical frameworks or particular moral values/judgments other than the right or correct one.

To me, this is the main point of contention: would/might my alternate proposal work?

> And it may well not "increase harmony", it could even lead to the opposite; sometimes the truth is bad, depressing, or even outright harmful, after all.

Agree....it may work, it may backfire (depending on how one does it). Also: I am not necessarily opposed to ~stretching the truth (after all, everyone does it).

> But these psychological and sociological questions are nevertheless separate questions from the meta-ethical question raised by the OP, i.e. whether and how maths or logic can help resolve moral problems or dilemmas.

Agree, mostly (I can use some math in my approach).

> I'm having trouble discerning what exactly you mean by this, and how it relates to what I'm saying.

A bit like this is what I have in mind:

https://i.redd.it/5lkp13ljw34a1.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/zdbmoy/90_of_the_people_are_center_dont_let_the_radicals/

My theory is that humans disagree with each other less than it seems, but there is no adequately powerful mechanism in existence (or well enough known) to distribute this knowledge (assuming I'm not wrong).

> What does "flawless" mean here exactly- does it just mean that you've done the math correctly? But yes, I'm certainly assuming that one is doing the math correctly- even if ones math is correct, it still can only enter into the picture after we've settled the question of what moral philosophy, ethical framework, or specific values/judgments are right or correct.

What I'm trying to say that yes, you are correct when it comes to reconciling mathematical formulas themselves, whereas I am thinking that showing people some "math" on top of some ontology (of various ideologies, situations, etc) may persuade them to "lighten up" a bit. Here, the math doesn't have to be correct, it only has to be persuasive.

> Again with these vague phrases. I said that "the tricky question" was what moral philosophy, ethical system, or moral values/judgments one should adopt, not how math or logic can help resolve moral dilemmas... but, as you note, there are more than one "tricky question", which I'm happy to concede, and so what I really meant (and what I more properly should have said) was that the question of the correct/right ethical framework or moral philosophy is trickier than the question of how math/logic can help us solve moral problems.

I think we're in agreement, except for this part: "the correct/right ethical framework or moral philosophy" - I do not believe that absolute correctness necessarily necessary for a substantial (say, 50%++) increase in harmony (although, some things would have to be correct, presumably).

> And yes, for the record, I most definitely do care about which facts are correct...

Most everyone believes that, but I've had more than a few conversations that strongly suggest otherwise - I'd be surprised if you and I haven't had a disagreement or two before! As Dave Chappelle says: consciousness is a hell of a drug.

If one is making an assertion about the truth value of a proposition based on criticism of the messenger, but I am making this claim broadly (applicable to all people).