Calling his post an argument is being VERY generous as it is nothing but just a bunch of assertions that he repeats without any reason to logic to explain it all. I asked for it and all I got was just him repeating it back to me. Not to mention his assertions are bonkers, just look at this:

Your counterpoints are so off the mark, they’re not even wrong. They’re just ignorant of what they are attempting to address. You can’t even see that perception is reality (which is tautological) has to be the case. Your points miss the point and are pointless.

I will enumerate the perquisites that your belief system needs to accept in order to understand these concepts.

1: Consciousness is fundamental and all that exists.

You don’t believe it so you can’t understand any ramifications thereof.

2: Everything in physical reality is a construct of one’s mind. Created by consciousness and translated by the brain.

You can’t fathom such a concept which is antithesis of naïve realism and the basis of idealism.

3: Other minds in superposition are part of number 2 and constructed by each of us. You don’t understand number 2 and so therefore can’t understand 3.

My you is a lonely, insecure, p-zombie (can’t understand the analogy) who uses arrogance to cover his fears. My you likely has few if any friends who tolerate your abrasive, egotistical personality.

Your you is an entirely different construct but you don’t even realize that you have constructed the you you are so enamored of and that your me you are trying to disabuse is also your creation. At least I know I’ve created the p-zombie that is labeled Ian and is tilting at windmills.

There is no reason to believe his premises.

However, what Tolle means by "time" or having a "sense" of it, is the anxiety that comes with the need to meet a deadline, needing to wake up early, or running late for instance - being "on time" as we know it. — Zolenskify

He's still wrong in that sense as well, I wasn't talking about circadian rhythm. It's also funny how he talks about not needing to do stuff when the guy literally has more than enough money to feasibly do that. His words ring hollow.

For example, having a job, and the "on-timely" nature that comes along it, is not an expectation we have of animals. — Zolenskify

This is a moot point as comparing one animal to another when they have different rituals, behavior, etc shows an ignorance of the natural world. Animals technically have "jobs" in pack or social animals, ever seen lions hunt? As for being on time, there's cases of that too.

(many of these expectations being unnecessary and sort of arbitrary - but ultimately result from the human condition - according to Tolle) — Zolenskify

Debatable. Like I said before the guy has more than enough money to afford to not have to do anything. But he is pretty stupid when it comes to reality.

I did and to be honest I'm surprised it was a best seller. It got a lot of things wrong, one thing being that animals have no sense of time (it's just not true).

What exactly does pointing mean?

It's not just me who says so.

2. A network is still amenable to a referential act effected by an index finger i.e. I can still do this: :point: to the network of neurons responsible for a mental faculty (here memory). Fuzziness is pointable! — Agent Smith

Actually no you can't. I said it is different areas in concert, but you can't point to a network of neurons and say this anymore I can point to a network of neurons and say ego is here.

All I can really say is that it's the brain, but I can't point to a part and say it's here. That's how emergence works.

You seem awfully invested in there being no ego.

I believe "ego" is such a word. — Agent Smith

You'd be wrong then.

So, you can't :point: (point) at a part of the brain and say "here, this is the memory" (perhaps memory is a diffuse network); nevertheless, there's still something you can use your index finger on! — Agent Smith

No because again it's different parts of the brain in concert with each other, even if there is something you can point to you can't point to memory or measure or feel it so by your logic we have no memory. Like I said, complicated. Same with the self, it isn't located in a specific part of the brain but rather "all over" (so to speak).

You really aren't getting anywhere with your questions.

Isn't this more or less susceptible to ship of Theseus? — john27

That's what I said. Buddhism also has a similar point.

Brain localization of function. — Agent Smith

Not really, like I said as in memory it's many parts in concert not just one area.

If something is complicated, it usually means one can't make anything out of it. — Agent Smith

Not usually, it's like the case with memory. You can't really feel or weigh it but you know it's real (well some would debate it), the issue though is that there isn't really an area of the brain that stores it all. You can't really cut a piece out and alter memory like that.

The same goes with the self, or ego. It's complicated, the result of several areas of the brain in concert with each other. To ask someone to "Locate the self or ego" is asking the wrong question. It's not in one area and you won't find it if you try to reduce it to it's component parts.

I'm a human being (I'm not a 100% certain though as I feel quite animalish sometimes). I hope that explains it. — Agent Smith

Kind of an irrelevant statement, being human doesn't mean the question is important.

Like I said, it's complicated. That's all I can say. Not even Buddhism says anything about there not being a self, or ego (a common mistake really as buddha said nothing on it when he was asked).

My question though is why do you care? Not everything can be analyzed and quantified.

Have they though?

I can't see the air and there isn't a way to truly isolate it. The same goes for gravity, where is gravity located? You don't feel gravity, you just notice it's effects yet if asked to identify or locate it you wouldn't be able to.

The ego, on the other hand, neither can be weighed, nor felt. — Agent Smith

Neither can gravity yet it exists. Waves can't be weighed or felt either yet they exist. Again you're just appealing to ignorance here. Some things are more than their component parts. The human "body" is just made up of millions of smaller individual parts, yet the whole is more than the parts. I believe it's called emergence, which is a property where you can't locate it in any one area. The ego is the same way, there is no one "Spot" where it is located, same with memory. It's not like you can slice a part of the brain and make someone forget, it's more complex that way.

the ego is unreal; after all, unlike a chair or a football, you can't say :point: is our ego. — Agent Smith

Except it isn't unreal, it's just more complex than you know like any aspect of the human mind/brain.

Just because you can't identify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By that logic air and gravity wouldn't exist either and neither would magnetism or the human body.

Given a description of a man, if no real individual matches it, is the man described real? — Agent Smith

Sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.

In a sense there is a new you because nothing that makes up you is permanent. You're appealing to some core that doesn't really exist.

I don't get this. Why you say that? — Raymond

Because the guy is literally arguing for solipsism.

Which is the same as defending solipsism.

If not the body, then who are you? It's who I see in the water. It's what other people see of me. The brainy mental universe and the physical one around me make it possible for me to live. In that sense they are essential for me. But they are no me. — Raymond

Apparently you aren't your body either. I forget the argument they used but it's similar to the ship of Theseus

The ego is an illusion to the extent it can't be zeroed in on. Can you tell me what's your ego? Is it your body? Is it your mind? Quid sit? — Agent Smith

Just because you can't zero in on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is an illusion. There are lots of phenomenon like that.

Living without an image of yourself how you should be leads to ego death. Living like you feel makes the mental image of yourself disappear and you are as you are. You're your body then, fully alive between the outer physical world and the inner mental world, without a second you disturbing. — Raymond

From what I read about Buddhism and the ego the goal isn't ego death, because then there wouldn't be anything to keep you alive. They would also strongly argue that you aren't the body, for a lot of reasons.

I also find it odd you're positing an external reality when in my thread you tried defending solipsism, just a side note.

How exactly is the ego an illusion? People say that a lot but is there a way to truly know?

one loves poetry, art, nature, another being... these are not self. — EnPassant

Well they are self though in that they are what one "likes" which is a personal thing. I don't think there is such a thing as being truly selfless as everything is motivated by some level of egoic desire.

Well it's also taking average doubt to an absurd conclusion. Just because I can't solidly prove others are conscious doesn't mean they aren't and I'm the only one who exists.

Sure all I have are their actions and behaviors and that they are humans like me. But why is that not enough. I mean if one's behavior isn't enough to prove consciousness then that spells trouble for me, because then how do I know I am conscious and not just acting in such a manner.

It's just an absurd conclusion to a very old problem.

It's a thought experiment. The point being that we can't prove other people are conscious, not strictly. But some take that to the extreme end and think that they are the only ones who exist. Most people who subscribe to it though don't jump to that absurd conclusion that other people don't exist, just that they can't prove they are conscious. So they behave as though they were and that everything is real because if they don't then they could cause serious harm if they were real.

Which to me seem...unnecessary. I mean if you're gonna behave and treat everything as real just say it's real. I get the uncertainty but our lives are mired in uncertainty and we just take somethings for granted whether we want to or not.

But yes, it is a useless theory. It changes nothing about reality.

It's you who doesn't get it. Gnight! — Raymond

No...no...just you. Using just one interpretation you agree with, and a fringe one at that. Enough said.

I mean...you still think observation has anything to do with consciousness.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Because I can verify a tiger.

It's also not a case of absence of evidence but more like reasonable doubt. Like in the case of unicorns I can say there are none within reasonable doubt, because there are no bones or anything like that of them. I can't say it's beyond all possible doubt, I mean...no one can because there is always going to be SOME degree of doubt.

In the case of other people I assume they have minds because they are humans like me and I know I have a mind. To me I go with parsimony and the simplest explanation is that they are humans like me and so they have a mind.

One could say I made them, but they need evidence for that. Or that they are p-zombies, but then that also raises doubts about me as well. If they look and do everything as a normal human would do then how do I know I'm not a p-zombie?

I think any reasonable conclusion would show that other people exist and have minds. Anything else would honestly make me question the motivation of the other person. Even if you did believe other folks didn't have minds it doesn't change anything about how they act.

They still act and behave as though they have minds, which to me is the same thing. It would also pose the question of what use or importance is there of a mind if other beings can behave in all the same ways without one. Then you would have to explain how these things behave as though they have minds but they don't.

Solipsism just needlessly complicates things and calls it "doubt" but really it's a dead end philosophy.

Again it's not hidden variables but I'm getting tired of repeating myself to someone who doesn't get it.

How do you know? — Raymond

Again, because it has been measured. What is so hard to understand about that? You are taking the effects of collapse to mean that observing the effect means you caused it, but you don't have the evidence to show that you caused the collapse, you're just observing the effects of it.

To put it differently, for TG (the/that guy) you are still in a superposition of observing up and down. Your observation causes a local split, but only when TG observes the superposition of you observing up and down, the global splits in two distinct states. — Raymond

Except it doesn't because quantum principles don't apply to macro level objects. Also you're using the weakest interpretation of QM as fact.

Only when he observes you, from both the states with spin up and spin down, two new states will appear when TG observes you, one in which you have observed spin up and one in which you have observed spin down, no matter if the state it comes from contains up or down only. — Raymond

For him to observe me I would have to exist outside of him, which would render solipsism false.

So you as well as him are always in superposition, and observing causes the superposition to live happily after observing but in separate worlds. — Raymond

No we aren't. Superposition doesn't apply at the classical level, at least in terms of the quantum way. Stop citing many worlds as though it's fact, it's the weakest interpretation out there which posits something it cannot prove. Also it would disprove solipsism.

He doesn't the deny the reality of roller-coasters, but he denies there are actually other people in the roller-coaster having the same experience. The guy in this polemic says there are other solipsists rolling along, so he's not a solipsist. — Raymond

Solipsism is saying that one's own existence or mind (depends on the degree of doubt) is the only thing that can be sure to exist. So if you accept the reality of rollercoasters then you aren't a solipsist because you believe something besides you exists. There also, by definition, CANNOT BE OTHER SOLIPSISTS.

Huh. So he's like Neo in the Matrix, if I understand correctly? — john27

Sort of, except unlike the matrix where there are other minds but in virtual bodies solipsism says one cannot know about the existence of other minds. Most find the concept absurd though and there is no way to prove it.

Ray on the other hand is jumping through hoops trying to show what the guy in the original Quora link is trying to say and failing. As I said, when asked he didn't explain anything just defaulted to saying "you don't get it" each time, so to say "he's actually saying X" is giving him way more credit then is due and putting words in his mouth. If you read the same link I did you'll find no explanation of his reasoning, and I spent rows trying to get it out of him only to be met with irrelevant quotes and him just insisting it's right with no reasoning.

Quantum physics has nothing to do with solipsism, they are completely different matters entirely and you have to be an idiot to think otherwise. Not to mention the obvious flaw with being a solipsist and posting on the internet.

You cannot have minds in superposition (again using superposition incorrectly since it's not about location or anything you're trying to use) with solipsism because that would be admitting other minds exist and therefor it ceases to be solipsism.

The process of collapse, say a superposition of a spin up spin down state, is induced by a measurement, but before someone actually sees the outcome, the whole is still in a superposition, like the cat and the poison in the covered cage of Schrödinger — Raymond

Again, not entirely. Also the point of the Schrodinger experiment was to show how it doesn't apply to the macro world. Again, the collapse happens at measurement or according to the double slit experiment by the particle itself. It doesn't need someone, why is that so hard to understand. It's a fairly objective collapse, not subjective. In this case observation just means interaction with the outside world, which could be anything. It, again, has nothing to do with a person or consciousness.

But again collapse only refers to isolated systems, it has nothing to do with solipsism.

Maybe you should educate yourself first, before pointing at "authority" without understanding the subject. I too once thought a collapse is objective but the very Copenhagen interpretation gives the possibility to always maintain that nature is in a superposition until measured by us (in the many worlds interpretation there is no collapse at all). — Raymond

No, no, no no no. I also point to authority because these people do the math and actually use the terms right which you don't. Also that is not what it says, it doesn't suggest that nature is in a superposition unless measured. Also to just refer to the interpretation as a blanket statement that is generally agreed on is wrong. Even within that particular field there isn't an official agreement on what it IS and there are some disagreements depending on the school of thought in it. Regardless observer in that school doesn't mean conscious person either way.

Objective collapse theory is equivalent to hidden variables. — Raymond

Again with the hidden variables nonsense, you have no evidence for it.

So again, the guy is right, and if you like there is authority claiming collapse is not caused by us, and there is authority claiming it is. We just don't know, by the very nature of superposition and their attachment with the observer. — Raymond

Again, no he isn't. Because, AGAIN, he isn't using superposition correctly and neither are you. And it is known that collapse isn't caused by us, it's caused by anything interacting with the system. Observer does not mean us, it means any interaction with a quantum system with the external world. That by itself disproves solipsism.

There can't be something like pure chance, as QM implies, and which directs collapse. Chance needs a deterministic substrate. — Raymond

Yes there can and quantum physics is evidence of it. It doesn't need a deterministic substrate. You're still stuck in classical physics thinking which is your first error.

So you measure a spin direction, and he claims you are still in a superposition of two worlds, one in which you measure spin up, and one in which you measure spin down. The many world interpretation even backs him up on this. — Raymond

Many worlds is just one of many and a minority view at that. IT doesn't prove anything. It's also never been proven. And again you are putting words in his mouth, he never said any of that and even if he did it does NOT prove solipsism.

How do you know there is a collapse if you don't look? — Raymond

Because it has been measured, duh.

It's the observer that causes collapse. — Raymond

Wrong again, at least in the sense of using it. Observation causes collapse, which can mean any THING and not a conscious entity.

It's clear from your writing you don't understand the subject, much like the guy in the Quora link. The appeal to authority works here because unless you have a degree in the subject you have no business "doing your research" or "thinking of this stuff yourself". It just perpetuates the same nonsense that they have to deal with. Stop embarrassing yourself and actually talk to the people who do this stuff. Philosophy can't help you here. The other errors is that you're citing the interpretations as facts when really they're just attempts to explain the math that is rock solid. They are far from settled. So saying "many worlds backs him up" is just empty because you pick a theory you agree with (and a fringe one at that).

Sorry dude, you're just wrong here and so is the guy. QM has nothing to do with solipsism.

It's not so-called authority, all the interpretations are is attempts to explain the math. It's not a stretch to call the field purely math based. Interpretations is EXACTLY about the math.

Unfortunately there has yet to be an agreement on which one accurately explains the math.

The only objective way out are hidden variables. — Raymond

Again no it isn't and trying to posit such a thing is useless if you have no way to measure it. There is no problem of the collapse either.

So the guy is just right. Because you don't understand the problem and secretely project an objective collapse on nature. — Raymond

No, he is still in the wrong and so are you. You still use observer incorrectly just like he uses superposition incorrectly. If he did know how it's used his argument would make no sense. I'm also getting the sense you don't understand superposition either. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with location, it's not either-or, it's not we don't know either. In a sense it's both, but it runs counter to our understanding in the macro world. It is an objective collapse, it's not my fault you haven't grasped what is meant by observer in QM.

It's one thing to cite the measurement problem because that is inevitable in science, measuring something alters it (taking tire pressure lets air out, etc). But it's another to think observer in QM has anything to do with consciousness when it does not, no matter what YOU think.

To say solipsists in superposition is just nonsense to people who ACTUALLY know what superposition means.

The principle of quantum superposition states that if a physical system may be in one of many configurations—arrangements of particles or fields—then the most general state is a combination of all of these possibilities, where the amount in each configuration is specified by a complex number.

You have to be an idiot to think that has anything to do with solipsism. If anything it runs counter to it.

It's not the math telling you that. That's the easy part. It's the interpretation that's the hard part. — Raymond

The interpretation is just a way to simply the math behind it. It's one of the large problems of quantum physics to be honest, to even understand what is meant requires a lot of high level math.

How do you know I haven't got a degree? What is so important about a degree? I actually studied physics if you put so much value in that. Quantum field theory was my last year's choice subject. And let me tell you, your opponent is right. — Raymond

I have talked to people who studied the matter. Also saying you took physics is laughable as that has nothing to do with what is going on in the quantum level. I'm also surprised you took QFT and still insist an observer is conscious. This leads me to believe you don't know what you are talking about.

And my opponent isn't right because he isn't using superposition correctly, he's a software engineer he doesn't understand it.

All people claiming an actual collapse is occurring in a measuring device, or in any interaction, are fooling themselves. — Raymond

They really aren't. You just keep insisting otherwise when the facts show it's nothing to do with consciousness. Observer doesn't mean what we think when we hear it. I also know you don't understand what you are talking about because superposition has to do with probability, so saying we are solipsists in superposition doesn't make any sense. It would still be wrong because it's admitting there is something else outside of you which can be observed and recorded. You can't have superposition if it's just you.

So the lesson to be learned: everyone claiming that collapse is an objective event hasn't understood QM. It's hard to believe. That's why I think hidden variables are real and actually constituting space. — Raymond

Well you are right in that people don't understand it, but you're wrong about the collapse not being objective. There is also no such thing as hidden variables with it either, it's just weird and counter to how physics in the macro world works.

I'm beginning to think you don't get it either. I only know enough to know when folks get it wrong and you definitely have got it wrong. I doubt you actually took QFT.

That's because, again, the basic interpretation says that an observer (so not a measuring device) is needed to collapse the wavefunction. — Raymond

A measuring device is an observer.

But the something existing apart from you can be said to be still in a superposition. Which means you are a kind of solipsist, denying the collapse you or I see. — Raymond

No it can't because that isn't what existing in a superposition is. It's not either-or it's something new entirely, like a weird form of probability. You can't claim it to be in superposition because it's not at the quantum level, this stuff doesn't apply to the macro world. It's also only in very specific situations.

Of course they tell you that. I have thought about it a lot. I thought the same as you. Precisely because I don't do it for a living, I know that people who say that a measuring device measures or collapses independently of us are wrong. — Raymond

Sorry but if you don't have a degree on the stuff you don't really have business calling the guys who actually do the math right or wrong, that's why philosophy on this stuff is useless. Whether you want to admit it or not "Observer" doesn't mean what you want it to mean in QM. You're just wrong here.

Except that isn't true. Trust me when I say I have asked people who do this for a living and they say consciousness has nothing to do with it. And unconscious photo detector can collapse the wave function.

Here your opponent is right. You don't know. You can just state it, like in the article you linked, but the basic principles say only a conscious observer can do it. — Raymond

Except he isn't. He isn't using superposition right because it's not applicable to solipsism. It doesn't mean either-or, it's something new entirely which is why I know he's not using it right and neither are you. I can only assume you don't have a degree in this stuff if you keep insisting consciousness has something to do with it and it doesn't. Any act of measurement will collapse it, conscious or not. You know it collapsed because the sensor tells you, so you know the result but you had no hand in it. They didn't really explain it much to me because they said it required teaching me quantum physics but suffice to say consciousness doesn't play a part. I trust them.

So your friend is right in claiming that the world is in a superposition if he doesn't look. — Raymond

He's not though because that's not what superposition is, that's another thing people misunderstand. It doesn't mean "either-or".

Many worlds, decoherence, knowledge collapse, etc. Only hidden variables offer objective collapse. So if you hold this against him, you can take him down. It's the orthodox view (the ruling view) that gave rise to it. Let the guy think what he wants. If he wants to be solipsist, just tell him that according to you he is non-existent or in any case, you can't be sure of his reality. — Raymond

Many worlds is just an interpretation not really fact. And that doesn't really stop his argument either, it would just be admitting he is right. I can only know he is wrong by definition. You can't have other minds under solipsism because they are at best uncertain. Claiming to know there are others in superposition (which by the way is wrong and he doesn't bother to explain himself) is essentially nullifying solipsism.

Not to mention taking the p-zombie thought experiment and citing it as a fact.

Actually to claim anything existing in superposition (which again isn't how you use the term) would nullify solipsism because it's acknowledging something else existing (or at the very least knowing) apart from you. So in a sense he can't have solipsism AND superposition in his argument.

I did ask him about it but all he really said was that my worldview wouldn't allow me to understand his view, which is just a copout for having to actually explain it.

I told him that you can't have solipsism, even if superposition applied to it, with other minds. To say "We are solipsists in superposition" (stupid but for the sake of argument lets say it isn't) directly contradicts solipsism's claim about not knowing other minds exist. As soon as you claim knowledge of other minds it ceases to be solipsism.

That was directly quoted from the matter about observation on quantum systems so it's clear that observer doesn't mean conscious observer. It's just shorthand for whatever or whoever is taking measurements, which can be a computer sensor. Measuring isn't always done by a conscious observer, you're making the same mistake the general population does when they think of observer.

That's not true. Directly quoted from the page on an observer in QM:

"The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."

So it's not a person at all which renders the whole consciousness part moot. Observer seems to be the most frequently misunderstood term in QM because it implies a conscious observer when it really doesn't.

But that's not really fact though right? That's just one out of MANY interpretations of it.

Also if I understand "observer" is misunderstood to mean conscious observer which it does not. It can be anything measuring it even a sensor.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. According to what I have read Quantum Mechanics doesn't imply solipsism at all.

Did you take a look at the conversation in Quora I linked?

You might be right. He also did use "naive realism" like some kind of slur or excuse for not explaining it.

That is why I invite people to look through the thread I originally linked with my conversation about it because I can't do it justice how it was like talking to a wall.

That's what it sounds like to me. Because most of his replies were "you just don't get it" and I told him that the inability to explain something usually means you don't understand what you're talking about. Not once does he explain his point in the whole conversation I had with him, and you can check.

He just accused me of being a naive realist, like that had anything to do with it. And kept saying my worldview wouldn't understand his explanation or "you won't get it". It was all just a bunch of dodges to avoid having to show any sort of reasoning.

I wouldn't call him a strict follower when he doesn't even use superposition in the way it is meant to. I've google both definitions of it and neither one supports his case. Superposition is when you add two states and get another state, that's it. Even in the physics examples they don't back his point.

But his only reply is "you don't understand superposition or solipsism" every single time. If you look at the replies he just name drops people but when you google it they don't truly back his points.

Well according to him (and in the long series of replies) he is because we all exist in superposition, to which I said that isn't how superposition is used and the fact that there are other minds (even IN superposition) means it's not solipsism.

It honestly sounded like a VERY roundabout view of realism, or a version of it.

But there cannot be 7 billion solipsists, by definition.

I just need someone to tell me if I was in the right with the points that I made against him in the thread because philosophy isn't my strong suit.

Like...would superposition have anything to do with it?

Except that isn't what his is putting forth.

What you are talking about is subjectivism in which I can admit. But that isn't what he's getting at. IF you take a look at the comments you see that he says everyone else is a p-zombie and that his mind made them all (im paraphrasing I think), because he insists that consciousness is primary just because Max Plank made some remark about it being so (and according to him "lots of bright people") and I said that doesn't mean anything.

In his scenario there is no communicating to others. I think you might want to read it again, as well as the follow ups he makes in the comments. He mentions anti-realism as well.

I eventually gave up because I found that there was no reasoning with him. Trying to get him to explain just resulted in him saying I didn't get it.

But I do know what he is saying isn't solipsism. He even tried to work superposition into it.

But what I am trying to get at is this though, is the argument the guy posted right or was I correct in my questioning of it. Philosophy is my weak point but even I could see the rest of his post isn't consistent with solipsism.

I also don't understand what Irrealism is from the wayback article but it's mostly argued by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Westerhoff
http://www.janwesterhoff.net/

All of this has my head spinning a bit as I don't have an answer for much of it except the Quora guy.