https://gaiusbaltar.substack.com/p/is-consciousness-fading-in-modern

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48475536)

to be fair, iirc, I once wrote a paper taking issue with Kant's distinction between synthetic and analytic truths – arguing that there's no difference at all – particularly the idea of distinguishing between them on the basis of the process of reasoning.  I remember my prof found one of my counterexamples very convincing, but I can't find the paper now. o__0 I think I showed how one of Kant's (or Quine's? or Chalmers'?) examples of inductive reasoning could be reduced to deductive reasoning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48475829)

I'll finish reading later

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48475939)

I'd be interested in reading your thesis if you can somehow scrounge it up. Also I'm not so sure about it being useless. We're about to hit a very brave new world of induction-based artificial intelligence

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48475951)

great point about AI – I hadn't thought about that – ofc phil/mind is more relevant than ever, but you're totally right about epistemology becoming increasingly significant too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48476541)

This concept doesn't even exist in other races

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48475977)

THE MEMORY OF A GODS EXISTENCE BORN FROM THE CHAOS OF CREATION

IT IS VANISHING

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48476218)

first of all, it has to be said: the author is fucking insufferable.  the way he talks about that woman at the beginning to frame the concept?  my guess is that they dated, and whenever they disagreed about something, he accused her of being bad at reasoning and self-reflection¹ because he himself is rigid in his thinking.  and now he's turned her into this whole case study in epistemology to feel superior to her.²

his point about "stagnation" implies he's never read Kuhn's work on paradigms.  on the societal level, it's actually productive to have periods of "normal science" where we stick to certain schools of thought rather than immediately revising our beliefs whenever we accumulate a bit more knowledge.  this makes way for scientific revolution when we've gathered a LOT more evidence and can propose a clean new model.  as an individual, the standard for revising our mental models can be lower and we can tweak them more often than we do as a scientific community, BUT we still need to strike a balance.  we can't over-adjust with every single new piece of info.  stagnating, to a certain degree, is important: it provides consistency and stability and allows us to fully explore a framework before discarding it.  this dude seems like the type to believe a new conspiracy theory every day.

don't get me wrong: he's right that most people are fucking stupid, mindless sheep.  but his theory is overly-contrived nonsense.  he doesn't need the deduction/induction distinction.  all reasoning about the real world is necessarily built on premises derived from observation, i.e. induction.

it sounds like they're both good at formal logic, so the difference between how he reasons and how his (I assume) ex-girlfriend reasons is just that they incorporate their experiences differently into their webs of belief (see Quine).  she's more hesitant than he is to draw new conclusions based on incomplete information.  and that's fine!  he did absolutely nothing to demonstrate that she examines her mental processes any less than he does – he just SAID she did.³

it's not that complicated, bro.  there are two obvious, overarching reasons so many people believe dumb things.  one is that they are bad at analyzing evidence to form and revise beliefs on top of existing ones; it doesn't matter how much of their process is deductive vs. inductive.  the other is, as he touched upon, that their lower-level assumptions/axioms/priors are bad.  again, all beliefs are just reasoning on top of observations, so this ultimately comes to the same thing as the first, but it's useful to think about them separately in the process of arriving at conclusions.  an important consideration about this point is that many people are brainwashed.  their lower-level assumptions – toward the center of their webs of belief – generally include having way too much faith in people whom they consider authorities.  I don't think that's new, though.  I think this guy just thought about epistemology for the first time and wrote a messy article about why he thinks he's smarter than anyone who reaches different conclusions from his.

--

¹and don't forget ~eMoTiOnAl~

²the genopolitics story was a self-own – I'm not saying there's definitely no merit to the idea, but he absolutely didn't demonstrate that she was bad at inductive reasoning bc she didn't buy into that shit smh

³she has poor spatial awareness!!  oh what a cognitive deficit!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48477354)

--

Allow me to perform some inductive reasoning of my own!  It sounds like you have a highly-intelligent ex-girlfriend who often came to different conclusions from your own.  Because you yourself are rigid in your thinking, you reconciled these differences by accusing her of being bad at reasoning and self-reflection, and (of course!) "emotional."

Here are a few Philosophy 101 concepts to look into, if you're not already aware of them, and why I think your analysis could benefit from (re)considering them:

1. 𝙆𝙪𝙝𝙣'𝙨 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙖 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙜𝙢 𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙛𝙩𝙨.  This may better inform your thoughts about stagnation.  Basically, Kuhn says that on the societal level, it's actually productive to have periods of "normal science" where we stick to certain schools of thought rather than immediately revising our beliefs whenever we accumulate a bit more knowledge.  This makes way for "scientific revolution" when we've gathered a _lot_ of evidence and can propose a clean, new model.

On an individual level (and this part is just me spitballing; I'm not sure what/if he's written about applying this to individuals), the standard for revising our mental models can be lower and we can tweak them more often than we do as a scientific community.  _But_ we still need to strike a balance.  We can't over-adjust with every single new piece of info.  Stagnating, to a certain degree, is important: it provides consistency and stability and allows us to fully explore a framework before discarding it.

2. 𝙌𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙚'𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙗 𝙤𝙛 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙛𝙨. I'm probably gonna butcher this summary, but: Quine proposed that beliefs are interconnected like a web, where the strands represent logical, empirical, or conceptual relationships.  Changing any belief can affect others, depending on their connections.

Under this framework, Quine challenges the analytic/synthetic distinction, as each belief emerges from a combination of conclusions derived through formal logic and synthesis.  The web of beliefs renders your distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning inconsequential, offering a clearer way to understand how people arrive at flawed beliefs.  One reason is that they're bad at forming and revising beliefs on top of existing ones (using deduction _and_ induction).  The other is, as you touched upon, that their lower-level assumptions/axioms/priors -- the things closer to the center of their webs of belief -- are fundamentally flawed.  It's useful to consider these things separately.  When you do, you see another reason many people mindlessly accept bad ideas -- one which I think you overlooked.  It's because their close-to-central assumptions include having way too much faith in people whom they consider authorities; in other words, they're brainwashed.

I think that the difference between how you reason and how your ex-girlfriend (I assume) reasons is just that you incorporate your experiences differently into your webs of belief.  She's more hesitant than you are to draw new conclusions based on incomplete information.  And that's fine!  You did nothing to demonstrate that she examines her mental processes any less than you do -- you just said she does.  (Having poor spatial awareness means nothing.)  Your piece comes across as an attempt to rationalize why you believe your reasoning process is superior to others', particularly those who reach conclusions different from yours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48477499)

You single?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48478361)

it's not like everything he says here is stupid or wrong, it's just... he comes at these issues from a self-important and pseudo-intellectual standpoint that I think makes his analysis a lot messier than it needs to be

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48479115)

https://substack.com/@theshapeofpunktocome

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4142a74b-c168-4a2f-b9bf-6322a3c9c91a_2268x2268.jpeg

there's just no point in debating here

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5652911&forum_id=2#48479127)