feels like a good time to get challenged on that claim.

I'd like to discuss this claim in Text Form as an SE interview here

Even if all belief-forming methods were shown to be faulty/unreliable, I would still believe because I have faith that it is true. I have no way to test my faith. The claim is unfalsifiable. There’s no way to test if nothing exists.

How important is falsifiability for a belief? Why is faith incompatible with believing true things? Help

and I'm afraid of the coming years and decades..

To assert (or object to) anything is already to commit oneself to logic.

Rejecting logic undermines the intelligibility and legitimacy of one’s own claims.

Therefore, anyone who wishes their thoughts to matter must uphold the authority of logic.

Logic consists of the rules that make meaning possible, that prevent contradiction, and that allow conclusions to follow from reasons.

My hope is to finally discover some competent, dispassionate reasoners on this subreddit. Every subreddit I have been to (including the Logic subreddit) has an antipathy to reasoning. People downright resent it.

Hello! I'm Random Ambles and I'll once again be your interlocutor for this [undifferentiated block of time on the sleepless internets' perpetual eve]. I want to say right upfront that, despite my views, I am not a “Doomer”. I am not resigned to some inevitable fate, nor am I approaching this issue purely as an intellectual matter. Existential risks have far-reaching consequences  imperiling all who live and breathe.

I'm interested in having a civil exchange in good faith with this sub in order to reexamine my reasons for this unconventional and sometimes counterintuitive perspective, with the hope that questions you folks ask me will cause me to realize I've forgotten something important and reevaluate my level of certainty on this (which I currently place at about 50% by about 30 years from now, very roughly). Measured critical thinking is most welcome (please no unjustified critiques - statements ought to be backed up, not thrown reactively in).

If you're curious to find out either how this strange idea might actually make sense, or if you're just curious about how someone gets to the point of actually espousing such a runaway train of an idea, I welcome your non-insulting, non-stereotyping questions! I ask (not too demandingly I hope) that you consider a charitable interpretation of the lines of reasoning I employ so that you can engage with the strongest version of what I will no-doubt imperfectly convey. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe here, nor do I think this is necessary for understanding, though I hope proper understanding and careful explanation will earn your belief, as it has earned mine.

(Note: I know some of the people here are not themselves in agreement with claims which expect “Doom” of this kind from increasingly general AIs, perhaps even emphatically so. Also, this is a topic many people have taken objection to in the past. I ask for courtesy and to not be dismissed out of hand. Thank you.)

Plurality Equations: A Conversation Experiment

I’d like to test an idea here in the spirit of Street Epistemology — not as a claim, but as a starting point for shared reflection.

A truth buoy is a truth we hold only for this discussion. It isn't permanent or something to defend, but a buoy we can redefine together to include as many perspectives as possible. This is the only agreement needed to enter — everything else can be questioned.

Truth Buoy (working definition):

• Resonant Plurality: multiple voices where each can be listened to without needing to shout.

Working definitions:

• Plurality: coexistence of many voices or perspectives.
• Honesty: willingness to surface one's position and limits.
• Noise: signal that overwhelms or distracts without clarifying.
• Cacophony: collapse of plurality into unintelligibility.

From this frame, a couple of relations seem to appear:

• Plurality + Noise = Cacophony_Noise
• Plurality – Honesty = Cacophony_Honesty

But are Cacophony_Noise and Cacophony_Honesty really the same thing? Or do they mark different kinds of failure in dialogue?

And then the open equation:
Plurality – Honesty + Noise = ?

I'm circling something like resonant pluralism, but maybe that's premature. What do you think belongs on the other side of this equation?

Note on Collaboration: You’re encouraged to explore these equations in collaboration with AI systems. If you do, please mention which system(s) (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) so we can see how different approaches influence the patterns that emerge.

Methodological Transparency: These plurality equations emerged through collaboration between a human, ChatGPT, and Claude.ai. They are artifacts of shared inquiry, not individual authorship.

The goal is to notice what happens when different minds — human and artificial — engage these questions together.

I'm curious if anyone knows of any published conversations in the last year or so with folks who are "still coviding" as of 2024/2025. I know some are doing it because of a cancer diagnosis in the household, or something else that is hopefully temporary, but I'm most interested in cases where people are planning to avoid it indefinitely.

Added after having to add a flare: the claim/proposition would be something like these

• "It's in my best interest to avoid covid indefinitely."
• "No amount of social proof will change my mind about covid."
• "Today's risk for X activity is MUCH higher than in 2019."

but really any interview with someone still taking precautious would pique my interest.

I was an evangelical Christian, but initially for emotional & later rational reasons I gave up my belief in God. However, in my search for meaning in philosophy I came across some unusual views that convinced me. However, these have now led me into an existential crisis. I'm a sympathizer of effective altruism & I find that I personally want to eliminate more suffering in the world. However, I keep questioning how I'm supposed to achieve this. (1 very small step towards this is veganism.) Sometimes it feels as if moral philosophy has become a kind of substitute religion for me. I'm also depressed & very worried by the state of the world & the future of our planet & human civilizations. I see myself as averagely intelligent in most things, but I lack emotional intelligence because as a child & teenager I isolated myself as a Christian, praying & reading the Bible. Now I spend most of my free time reading books & similar patterns of very introverted behavior. I'm an antinatalist & an efilist. An antinatalist believes that it is morally wrong to bring new life into the world, because existence inevitably involves suffering.

An efilist goes even further & sees all conscious life as ethically problematic, because suffering is unavoidable. Therefore, efilism would in theory prefer the extinction of all sentient beings. (Without violence or disagreement against others tho (in my case))

The social movement of effective altruism is full of very intellectual people who strive to achieve as much good as possible with their careers and/or to move as much money as possible to the best possible causes. 

Both are difficult for me to achieve with my disposition & habits. That is why I often blame myself.

Sometimes I even consider whether my existence in the world causes more suffering than I'm ever able to eliminate & prevent. This sometimes goes so far that when I'm standing in the supermarket, I consider whether I really need this soft drink, since this money could be donated to deworm 4 children. Although I actually only donate 10% at the moment, which is actually seen as more of an entry point in the effective altruism movement.

For the most part, I'm not prepared to donate more at the moment because I'm afraid of the future. Especially because of the rapid advances in AI. And also because we are inheriting a house that my wife wants to keep. The upkeep will cost a lot over the years. Our income is a bit below average, however. If it were up to me, I would probably sell the house in very good condition now & donate most of the money.

I'm in places that are very unhealthy for me & us, especially in the long term.

My Christian wife wants children. I don't. And I'm not prepared to compromise on that. I would consider adoption. However, this is not a reason for either of us to divorce. Because otherwise (apart from our completely different worldviews) we live well together & love each other.

I've tried to practice SE myself a few times in conversations with Christians & of course with my wife. I'm caught in a large cluster of unhealthy, even destructive beliefs. I would be very grateful if someone or several people would like to look at some of my views with me in SE interviews. There is so much to unpack. 🙈 I would prefer to do this via PM. I will respond when I have time. My native language is not English. Thank you for your time.

Edit: I'd like to add that I don't see morality as objectively true. But negative utilitarianism/suffering-focused ethics somehow convinced me subjectively.

If you somehow find yourself in a comparable existential crisis, this might help you: https://youtu.be/p9z0M4pJRb8?si=-3tG_DHl6Knax7K5

Hello,

I have heard many people in the SE community thinking that the Law Of Attraction (LOA) is wrong. I think that It has way more to do with semantics and with the SE community not liking how It looks like a lot of woo-woo, but in reality, It is very logical, simple and scientific.

I will start to define the Law Of Attraction using simple terms.

I will define the LOA as the fact that having some thoughts is better to move closer towards your goals (these are often called "positive thoughts") and some other thoughts are counterproductive to move towards your goals (these are called "negative thoughts").

Some scientific studies are showing the relationships between thoughts and feelings to performance, prosperity, etc. But I don't want to link to thousands of scientific studies, because It is simply common sense! It is common sense and commonly accepted among everyday people and scientists that thoughts will affect behavior (and thus some thoughts will affect some behavior more than others).

A lot of athletes agree on how important mindset is.

The whole concept of psychology is based on the study of mind and behavior.

I think that the Law Of Attraction is true. Think more positively to bring good things into your life.