[ExI] Open Individualism

[efc at swisscows.email]

At the risk of jumping on toes, I think part of your disagreement might 
perhaps be similar to our (Jason and mine) disagreement around the MWI and 
interpretations of quantum physics.

I think after a _long_ discussion we came to the conclusion that the 
fundamental disagreement was around what can be directly known and proven, 
vs what is implied, and the status of implications of theories, vs proven 
facts of theories.

I think after finding some labels we ended up on the scientific realism vs 
anti-realism spectrum, with a healthy dose of agnosticism as well in the 
form of instrumentalism.

Jason brought up a good point that we should always keep looking and 
expanding our boundaries, and I agreed, but if there is no hard proof, I 
think we should be very clear that we are speculating.

When it comes to speculation and philosophy, I guess you can opt either 
for the analytic tradition, á la handmaiden of the sciences and focus on 
clarifying. But then you have the other side, the non-analytic with a 
focus on existentialist themes as well as speculation to "inspire" 
science.

Just a few cents from the side lines.

Best regards,
Daniel


On Sat, 6 Jan 2024, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 8:42 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       On Sat, Jan 6, 2024, 10:55 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       On Sat, Jan 6, 2024, 7:21 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       I want someone else to say:  this is not science.
> 
> 
> This is not science.  "Open individualism" has been redefined in this very discussion, in a moving-the-goalposts fashion
> with no acknowledgement that said redefinition happened, when it was shown to conflict with what evidence could be
> mustered.
> 
> 
> I think you should follow up on my replies, which you seem to have missed.
> 
> 
> I think you are not debating in good faith, so further debating the topic with you is pointless.  I will grant that you are probably
> not being deliberately dishonest.  Therefore, you are probably deluding yourself, so it would do you good to seriously consider the
> evidence I have presented to this end, such as pointing out the multiple logical fallacies you have engaged in.
> 
>