My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. — Benj96

The answer to this question is not easy. The answer will cover the psychological, one's intelligence, and the epistemological, and that's just the beginning. People sometimes forget just how important the psychological is in the formation of our beliefs. What I mean is, for example, one's ego plays a role in what you believe is true, and it plays a role in what you're willing to reject in terms of your beliefs. When the ego gets involved, in many cases truth doesn't matter, what matters is protecting one's ego. Also, you have peer pressure which extends all the way up the ladder of life.

Second, one's ability to think through some of these difficult subjects is often beyond the ability of some. You have to know your limitations and be willing to learn. Even here the ego raises its ugly head. Some people think they have all the answers or at least more answers than they have a right to bloviate about. Also, I mentioned intelligence, and it's important, but more important is being knowledgeable. Sometimes people with less overall intelligence can be more knowledgeable about a certain subject. This is where hard work pays off.

A third problem is not having a good epistemological background. I can't overemphasize the importance of this subject. And since the subject is quite vast one has to seek out the best philosophers to study. I chose a Wittgensteinian approach because I don't think many philosophers can match his intellect.

One of the problems with epistemology is that some people have to narrow a view of epistemology, and others have to broad a view. In other words, some limit their epistemology to science, and others allow too much subjective nonsense into their thinking.

So where do you start? You have to examine your head. What are you trying to accomplish? How big is your ego? Are you afraid of being wrong? Do you love philosophy? And you have to seek out the best of the best and learn from them because 90% of what you'll read in philosophy is just bullshit. Moreover, in a philosophy forum, many people haven't even studied the subjects they're arguing for or against. So 98% percent of what you read in here is bullshit.

As I mentioned, much can be said on this topic, and I haven't scratched the surface.

that process [being a human] has reached such complexity and sophistication that it seems to involve what we call intent, will, deliberation — ENOAH

And I agree with you here. Austin has a way of putting it that we project a self that has “intention” back into a situation, but only when it doesn’t meet our ordinary expectations (Why did you do that (in that situation)?) But it is not a question that always has an answer because I don’t have a “will” that causes my acts nor do I “mean” every word (I don’t “intend” my raised arm to be the act of signaling a taxi.)

Of course it is trustworthy; but it's not your mind. There's no your, no you. — ENOAH

And I take this to suggest we have no recourse other than to rely on (trust) the human (brain/body/responses, etc). However, with the acknowledgment of the human propensity to undermine ourselves, hide from ourselves, delude ourselves, etc., or, in other words: our inevitable limitation and failings, we are driven to want to escape the human; to have knowledge take our place—something certain we can count on (trust).

The question (which I won't take the time here) is more like, how can I ensure I am input with the coding which will yield the most functional results for that very system (which I share with all minds) and for my body and my species? — ENOAH

And this is a worthwhile question (and closer to part of @Benj96’s OP). If we realize that: to be human we must turn—as Socrates suggests in a cave, and Wittgenstein (PI #108) says around our “real need”—towards our humanity, per Nietszche (embracing what we actually can not nor should not escape) and attempt to perfect it, as rallied to by Emerson, what does that path look like? As humans? individually? (Which I believe we can take up with @Sam26 above)

our inevitable limitation and failings, we are driven to want to escape the human; to have knowledge take our place—something certain we can count on (trust). — Antony Nickles

Well said from where I'm standing. Especially the bit about knowledge displacing being.

what does that path look like? — Antony Nickles

Not to be "cute": that path doesn't "look" like anything. The "looking" is already an act within the cave. We happen to always be, and always already are on the path by being. Any turning or looking is looking away.

People sometimes forget just how important the psychological is in the formation of our beliefs — Sam26

I'd dare say the metaphysical (for humans) is the psychological.

Some people think they have all the answers — Sam26

Note: any claim or assertion I make has the implied preface "In my opinion, but then, at tge end of the day, what do I know," notwithstanding any appearance to the contrary.

98% percent of what you read in here is bullshit. — Sam26

And this is not facetious, isn't that residual 2% just our ego's demand for the comfort of certainty in knowledge, a thing we are constructing as we go? Isn't the 2% just well crafted bullshit?