= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
janos comments on How many words do we have and how many distinct concepts do we have? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (20)
That is a very good suggestion.
I guess I am pretty confused. And as I said, I'd be very open to the proper way to view such things.
It seems we've got one group of words (reality, universe, multiverse, world, nature,..) and another group of words (experience, and consciousness, and mind) and I am very confused at what each of these words refer to, and how they are related.
Is there something the way of a standard lexicon for that you can point me to?
I think one solution is to break it down, first beginning with only reality. We can then split reality into absolute reality and relative reality, which correspond to the absolute states and relative states of Everett's model.
At this point, we haven't made any distinct deviations from what our most general physics models are, nor from the traditions of philosophy (Kant, Plato, Leibniz, ect ect).
Has a mistep been made?
For the record, when Newton essentially defined the study of physics, he said "it will be convenient to distinguish reality into absolute and relative." I'm paraphrasing by using "reality" where he said "time and space". My point is the consistency of my suggestions with physics and philosophy and rational though in general are not some casual comment, but the consequence of an inquirey of the type you suggest.
If you want to discuss the nature of reality using a similar lexicon to what philosophers use, I recommend consulting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/
I have a very strong philosophical background. I've discussed many of those topics with the authors.
Basically, what I'm trying to do is draw the attention to something that is usually missed by people engaging in these topics.
That is: absolute is not objective.
There is a fundamental disconnect with the way most people organize truth and reality.
They do no have clear concepts of objective and absolute. The sequence on how to use words, is basically 6 parables that state words are not absolute. It's such a simple point, but most people can look right at that sentence, and not have the foggiest clue what it means.
Traditionally (in the history of philosophy) the Rationalist is the lone defender of the distinction between objective and absolute.
I'm curious if that tradition is held up by contemporary rationalists.
It may help if you stop focusing on words which seem to be tripping you up when they are used in different contexts. The word "rationalist" means very different things in different context. Don't conflate "rationalist" in the strict philosophical sense with rationalist in the sense meant generally on LW.
Yeah, I made a huge mistake.