= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016 - 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 (119)
I tried listening to the video on the 1.5× speed. Even so, the density of ideas is horribly low. It's something like:
That was the first 16 minutes, then I became too bored to continue.
My opinion?
Well, of course if you define a "rationalist" as a strawman, you can easily prove the strawman is foolish. You don't need more than one hour to convince me about that. No one in this community is trying to derive whether the sun is shining from the first principles.
I am not sure whether "universe is rational" is supposed to mean that (a) the universe has a relatively short description which could be understood by a mind, or that (b) the universe itself is a mind, specifically a rational one. Seems like the meaning was switched in the middle of an argument, using a sleight of hand.
In summary, my impression is of muddled thinking, and of feeling superior to the imaginary opponents. Actually, maybe the opponents are not imaginary -- there are many fools of various kinds out there -- it just has nothing to do with the kind of "rationality" that we use here, such as described e.g. by Stanovich.
Regarding the "Universe is rational"-strawman: I think the mistake which the video is trying to point out, is the mistake that a description of the universe is the universe. When it is only a description, same with anything. It is language and that is the limitation.
So for those that believe the universe is for example physics, instead of our projection, that's the flaw I think. It's simple, ask a person if gravity is real, after they respond "yes" ask them, is this not a human projection (your projection) upon the universe? What is the real universe?
What I wonder is what lesswrongers think of this strawman if it wasn't one, an actual argument towards someone (rationalist in this context) who made the statement gravity is real and not a projection of mind: "G R A V I T Y and everything else which is occurring to me in consciousness"
I'm not sure what you mean with this, because "Universe is a mind" seems more of an argument then stating the opponent believes the "universe is rational" (the strawman) like "What you think is the universe is your mind projection of labels and symbols yet you're not aware of it"
Well. I think usually what we see in others is just a projection of our own mind. "The world is your mirror"
But is there someone who can refute the argument made in the video, if you had the argument which the strawman was?
Otherwise it seems to me "Only fools would make the argument of which the strawman was targeted towards".
I wonder if any rationalist ever heard about "map is not the territory". /s
Ask a person whether a tree is real. Isn't that also just a human projection upon the nature?
We could spend days trying to pinpoint what exactly do we mean by "tree" etc. I am just saying that this is not specific to science or "rationalists", so why use it as an argument against them. There are useful things that could be said about the topic, but the "drive-by shooting" done in the video helps no one.
The LW-style answer would be something like: Yes, I obviously perceive the idea of gravity in my mind (because that's the only organ I have for perceiving ideas), but it is reasonable to assume that there is something "out there" that causes those perceptions in systematic ways. (I might be living in Matrix, but then "gravity" would refer to the specific law of the Matrix.)
That would probably require having that argument in a shorter written form, with footnotes explaining what did the author actually mean by saying this or that.
Otherwise: inferential distances, illusion of transparency, and all the way words can go wrong. :(
Most things are, or I can't really know what is not a human projection, but as long as we're aware of it, it's fine.
Well, there are probably "rationalists" aware of this or "scientists" as explained early on in the video. The argument is for those who aren't aware of the "map is not the territory".
Whether or not it helps someone or doesn't, that's hard to know, the like:dislike ratio and comments could be scraped. How this is relevant I don't understand. You don't know with a high %, neither do I.
People who take offense probably dislike and click away, or don't watch the whole video, those who argue against it already failed?
Now you, however, are still perceiving the idea of your, mind, organ and so forth. That's just other layers deep which you aren't aware of. Which makes it seem you don't fully understand the argument: Which is somewhere, something, subjective experience. Whatever is occurring when you're meditating for example.
But the LW-style answer seems like an agreement: is this true?
The context is found outside the matrix, so anything and everything is out of context.
I want to clarify that writing about these things is equally untrue then the empirical investigation, so we're both wrong by being in the matrix.
"I'm mapping the trajectory of this planet, yet I understand this is simply a human projection" Of course you can remove the "yet I understand this is simply a human projection" when it's ever-present.
No. If someone says that gravity is real they usually mean that the word points to is real. Maps reference objects on the terrritory. A person well educated in physics will tell you when you ask them for the specific of the gravitational effect that it's due to space time curvuture and not because a force is pulling on substance in the way Newtonian metaphysics assumes. If you ask them whether gravity exists they will still say "Yes".
It's quite typical for lay people to misuse language and overload terms. According to https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant-for-autodidact-physicists it's a typical issue for lay people who think they made discoveries in physics.
The sleight of hand from going from rational₁ to rational₂ as described by Viliam is also typical for that kind of thinking. It's interaction with language on a way that's fundamentally flawed.
Objects is still a map, so is territory, so is this entire sentence. That's why it's a matrix. (virtual reality)
Which is one of the mistakes made by said scientists, especially if you ask them multiple times on this same point, to point out there might be a flaw. Because they won't question it otherwise.
"The cat sitting on the mat" is a map. The cat sitting on the mat is territory.
Insisitng that your opponents have an extra pair of quotes around everything, while they insist they don't have is not much of an argument.
The argument is that everything is a map including anything written here, in quotes or not. It's the written language and so forth, however, many layers deep the maps go.
By excluding all maps in direct experience you uncover the territory. Which is you. Which is arational. But only by direct experience.
The second sentence contradicts the first. Either there is a territory to be uncovered, or it is not the case that everything is a map.
I know that it contradicts, the point is that you can see for yourself is this the case. By realizing all the concepts of "you" are maps, and that there is no need for thinking (creating new maps) to reveal this truth, you can merge with arational reality. But it can only be done by direct experience. This is an empirical investigation.
Our world works in different ways than the movie matrix.
It's no mistake. It's just interpreting words to have a certain meaning and it's quite valuable to see them as having that meaning for practical purposes.
It's an analogy.
But that doesn't make it more likely to be true, especially if we are certain it is a human projection.
We usually believe that despite the fact that the content of our minds is only mental, we aren't Boltzman brains or live in a simulation but that there's a physical world out there with whom we interact. Do you disagree with the existence of such a physical world?
To judge how likely it is that something is true you first have to understand what's meant with the claim. Currently you seem to deal with language in a way where you don't get what's meant. It's like tax protestors in the US making claims about what laws are supposed to mean only to get imprisoned by courts when their intepretation of the meaning of language differs from that of other people. It's the same mechanism.
I completely agree, however you do not exist in this world, there are the world and it is arational. Everything is a map, and saying something is a map was still a map, an infinite paradox within the arational reality. Rational or irrational is a map, so is math or other types of science or of communication.
I don't understand at all because I am discussing the meaning of language, while you are thinking I am misunderstanding your meaning of your language? Is this the case?
Language is a map, so is saying "Language is a map". It's not the territory. Neither is "It's not the territory". Neither is "Neither is "It's not the territory"." and so forth.