= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
reguru comments on Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
There seems to be quite some denial on LW then regarding the topic. I don't understand why, if what you are saying is true.
That's a straw man argument, as far as I remember, I never said that. Personally, it seems to me as "the map is not the territory" is one of the maps which some, I am not saying you or anyone else, might think is the territory. This is only speculation.
So you do agree with the video, who else?
If for example, you were the person who was attached to the map being the territory, or not aware of it, and the argument was not a straw man.
Of course, you don't have to agree with a certain method of delivery, like the straw man.
I don't think so. What I see is people pointing out that the video is attacking straw men. (Extra-specially strawy, as regards LW in particular; but very strawy even if applied more broadly to people who explicitly aim to be rational.)
Some of it is things the video said, and you've said you agree with it. I don't think there's anything in my (admittedly not especially generous) paraphrase that doesn't closely match things said in the video.
Nope. I agree with some of what the video says. You know the old joke about the book review? "This book was both original and good. Unfortunately the parts that were original were not good, and the parts that were good were not original." In the same way, the video seems to me to combine (1) stating things that I think would be obvious to almost everyone here, (2) making less-obvious claims without any sort of justification, which in many cases I think are entirely false, and (3) gloating about how the maker is so much more advanced than those poor deluded rationalists.
You couldn't respond to my statement that "the map is not the territory"- is one of the maps which you use, regularly, thus fall into the category of which the straw man is targeted towards. In my opinion, and what I think.
I do agree with it, I think everything is arational and within the arational there is irrationality and rationality.
Which is probably not the target audience, do you believe there are those who know nothing of rationality yet think math and language is the territory and be Spock? Although I understand now why you can't agree with all the arguments/fallacies in the video, but a few.
Which less obvious claims without justification and why are they false? That's what I am looking for to learn.
Ok, how does this apply to any of the arguments made?
No, I didn't, which is not the same thing. But yeah, it's hard to respond to because it's not clear what you're saying. Any given thing anyone says can be called a "map", which tells us nothing about the particular thing or the particular person who says it. So if there's a specific criticism you're making, would you care to make it clearer?
Quite likely not. But it's the audience here, to which you brought the video and asked "what do you think?".
I already listed some in an earlier comment. You did reply to that comment but not in a way that gave me much reason to hope for constructive discussion.
I hope you will forgive me for saying that I don't get the impression that you are here to learn at all.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. The things I was describing aren't arguments; my comment applies not to the arguments (of which there are actually rather few in the video) but to the maker's repeated comments about how people who consider themselves rational are so far beneath his level of "awareness".
"The map is not the territory" Is a map. You are using maps for your argumentation. That's what you base rationality on. Reality is arational, rationality/irrationality is within it. It's a paradox. I make the same mistake, because it's communication. The arational reality you can experience yourself through subjective experience.
I agree, but I wanted to point it out regardless, even though I understand now why you can't accept the video in its entirety.
How do you have a constructive discussion?
Truthfully no. I think however it's possible?
The arguments made in the video, what does this have to do with that? Seems more like a subjective opinion which you projected upon the world. I think I would have done the same thing, however.
Of course. There is no alternative to doing that. So if you're saying that just to inform me: thanks, but I already knew. And if you're saying it as a criticism: you need to explain what the actual criticism is, rather than just saying something that's vacuously true of anyone saying anything.
One of the prerequisites is that the people involved are actually willing to engage with one another's arguments.
Very little, except that one of the reasons why the video contains so few arguments given its length is that its maker wastes a lot of time talking about how much better than us he is.
There is an alternative, which rationalists doesn't understand because it cannot be understood. It is arational, which is the reality, the map is not the territory, neither is "the map is not the territory" and so on. You can notice myself making the same mistake because that's what I have to do to get to you, but you still have to figure it out yourself.
The criticism is that you do not understand the point of the video, the point is that you can sit down, become aware of all the maps, and notice that reality does not disappear because what you call "you" (The I thought) lose attachment to maps.
That is a lack of awareness, because if you had awareness by such an exercise you would immediately notice that the map is not the territory and that there has to be no map which to point this out. If it's still hard, that's fine, but at least by becoming aware you are not aware, you have increased your awareness.
Notice how everything I just said was a map, and every single letter after that, it doesn't have to be, you can view the words for what they are, absolutely nothing, nothing in the word of which the word "nothing" says it is, simply no - thing.
But what if the point is that all arguments are equally untrue, it is a map when the territory is not the map? What if the argument is to come to the truth which you can only figure out for yourself? Our engagement is the problem itself. Not that from the engagement's perspective, but what's actually is tried to be communicated by me, when it cannot be.
It is natural for people to one-up another I think. It is a way to give the point across or to invoke reaction as the person who were afflicted may look into it. It's not actually harsh in the sense that it is a kneejerk reaction or feeling of superiority, ego-wise. Personally, the world is your (mine, and everyone else's) mirror.
Because you think in patterns of being superior, you actually believe others do it too, because how else do people think? (You think) This isn't a straw man, but it is speculation and I think it is applicable to myself.
But what you go on to present is not an alternative.
Do you really imagine that those of us who attempt to be rational think that reality would disappear without our attachment to maps? This is real Strawy McStrawface stuff.
"Maps" are how human beings think about the world. So, are you (1) suggesting that we not think about the world any more, or (2) claiming to have a way of doing it that doesn't rely on maps? If #1 then, well, good luck to you but I don't think it can be done. If #2 then I don't believe you. Like it or not, you think (and feel, and experience "awareness", and everything else) with your brain and all its interactions with the world are mediated by "maps", and if you think you've escaped that then I guarantee all you have actually done is to fool yourself into not noticing the maps you're using. That does not, I'm afraid, count as higher "awareness".
But maybe you're making a more modest claim, namely that we should be aware of our map-using. Yup, we should. What makes you think we aren't?
The world is rational enough that application of rational techniques enables us, e.g., to make machines that can take us from one continent to another in less than a day. So any notion of "arationality" that could possibly describe the actual world needs to be compatible with that.
Then "the point" is bullshit, because some arguments lead to demonstrable real-world benefits and some don't.
Take a look somewhere around 32:00 in the video (I am just going on the times I listed above; I am not going to sit through it again to check the exact time) and see whether you can tell me with a straight face that the reason I think the person making the video is thinking in patterns of being superior is because I do it.
From what I can (barely) understand, reguru is advocating the notion of enlightenment as understood in the East, if in a very confusing way. Abandoning the reliance on rationality is a major idea in Zen Buddhism, for example, and koans are one of the ways to move in that direction.
I think that the territory might be the experience of enlightenment. I wonder what gjm, yudkowsky, Lumifer, reguru or some other rationalist would say after becoming enlightened.
Yeah, I think s/he's aiming for something of the sort. I don't think s/he's doing it very well, though.
An alternative to thinking. Which is "awareness".
I think that's the case, you think "you" have to think, not a strawman, but what I suspect. Thinking IS everything to you? Is not?
I know, that's why they are human projections, that's why it's inherently flawed in relation to the arational, not between different thinking. That's why the arational simply is, without understanding or reasoning. It's not a map. You can't think of it, but you can gain awareness of it, being aware that everything is a human projection is a start. Might be the limitations of rationality, because you can't think your way through this.
No, I've said it's fine to think, to have human projections, to do math, physics, other science.
Of course, you don't have to think.
The world doesn't disappear, neither does anything else. That was the point of "reality won't disappear without your attachment to maps". When you silence all thoughts, or when you become aware of thoughts instead of thinking of thoughts. Might you be arational? Because there's nothing to do. Just awareness.
But, here's the kicker, it's always the case. You can think however much you want and it's exactly the same.
If you understand what I said in the above paragraph, maybe you can see that it might be always the case.
Awareness is not thinking. Please try and understand the difference, by meditating. Otherwise, you can't ever understand what I am talking about. Just because you might think that you can only think about things, there is a difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought
But don't meditate unless you really want to, the Wikipedia article gives enough of a definition.
I have never said that human projections are bad, the brain, neuroscience, neural pathways and so forth, it's all cool, but there's still a lot left. But you are really missing the point.
What you're saying is that you are "maps, that maps of the brain have created your awareness"? or is this a strawman? Don't you see this leads nowhere, that you actually believe the territory is the map without realizing it? The territory is arational.
I never denied that these are maps, in fact, I have said so multiple times. However, when you are becoming aware, there will be no map of the territory or YOU thinking about maps. It makes no sense. We become aware of the territory then we create maps.
Are you sure you are not creating maps? Are you aware that you don't exist, for example, that this is a map? Or will you rationalize this and hold on? They are all logical conclusions you've made. There's probably a lot of things you can become aware of now which you mistake for not being a map. The more advanced mistake is to talk about neuroscience. Because if you really are honest you believe that you exist, that there is a being, a creature of some kind. That it's not a map. Now this is speculation of course.
You might even say things like "I exist" in your mind without being aware that your thoughts might be untrustworthy, true dogmatic thinking is to ourselves. Or let's say you might say "it's maps created out of physical brain" lost in thought.
No that's maps. The map is not the territory. The territory is arational, which I mean by the world.
So we have different definitions of "world" now?
Anyway, to answer your point, I have no issue whatsoever with planes, science, going into space, quantum mechanics... Neuroscience. Rationality. This is not the question. It's just a layer, our projections. It's not undermining it, even though you might think so.
In relation to the arational which I didn't mention specifically, just an attempt at defiining which cannot be definied?
Maps in relational to human projections obviously have "real world benefits" and some don't, that's why rationality still is fine, as long as you are aware :D
Well, you are doing it the moment you believe that someone is trying to be more superior than you, because that can't be the case. How dare they. I don't know if that's the case, but my overall impression that it all starts with ourselves. I can understand why you would think this, but it's very difficult. I don't know how you can let go of this point.
Maybe I can reassure you that the point was not to be superior for superior sake. Maybe to "motivate" you? Maybe? I don't know.
You shouldn't do anything without your own research and skepticism, so it truly is your work.
An alternative for what purpose?
If you mean "something that does what thinking does", only better, you haven't begun to make a case.
If you mean "something entirely separate that we should do some of the time" then sure, there are plenty of things we should do other than thinking, and I can't imagine why anyone would think we need to be told that.
No shit. Do you think people here imagine that the world disappears when we go to sleep or watch a movie or have sex or anything else that doesn't involve much thinking?
I never said it was. I said that you do it with your brain. Those are not at all the same thing.
But if you imagine that when you are in the state you call being "aware" you are somehow perceiving the world directly and map-less: Nope. You've just got yourself into a state where you are oblivious to the maps involved.
That is not my my opinion, nor is it something I have said. Perhaps you might try the experiment of reading what I write with the hypothesis that I understand more rather than less than you do, and see whether it makes better sense.
Not so much a strawman as word salad. But for sure it isn't what I'm saying.
It may please you to believe that you know what I believe better than I do, but I see no reason to agree.
I never claimed to be "not creating maps". I don't know which of multiple things you mean by "you don't exist" but if what you mean is, say, that my notion of myself is a mental construct that may diverge from how the world really is then yes, I'm aware of that.
(I may well think that fact less earth-shattering than you would like me to think it, though.)
You consider that e.g. whether I am on the earth or the moon is "just a layer", a matter of "our projections"? Because that is a thing the human race has discovered how to change, by careful use of well-calibrated maps.
If your attempts at "awareness" have detached you so far from reality that you really do think that: well, I'm sorry, and it's too bad you didn't come here earlier when there was still a prospect of a cure.
You keep trying to tell me what I believe (and feel). You keep getting it wrong. Perhaps your "awareness" doesn't confer quite as much insight as you suppose?
I let go of it ages ago. It's no fault of mine that you keep harping on it.
So, what are the available alternatives, then? Is it one of the those things where you sit for nine years gazing at the wall and then enlightenment comes? Are you suggesting koans?
That is highly unlikely -- otherwise you wouldn't be able to operate in reality.
I think if you care about the truth, THE ACTUAL TRUTH you can diverge time and effort into it depending on your own situation. The illusion of rationality will help you, by observing as many variables you can similar to a General on a battlefield, for the long-term victory.
Of course, the truth is already as it is, it's only an illusion to not become aware of it, it's as if you are watching a visual illusion, and suddenly you see the other perspective and it was what it was.
From the perspective of arational reality, you're fine to be rational as long as you are aware. It's as if you say before every equation "I am aware this is a human projection" yet you remove this paragraph from the equation OF the equation because it's too obvious.
If you didn't operate in reality people would come to you and ask, what are you doing? If it was thousands of years ago, people would say "I want what you have" and those who didn't operate in reality says "You came to me"
I don't know what that means. You don't claim direct unmediated access to the underlying reality, do you?
It's possible that would require you to want to learn. It's not up to us to make you want to learn.
I am telling you now then, I want to learn how to learn. I am honest about that, I think.
So how do I learn how to learn? That's still a drive to learn.
Consider distinguishing between "the map is the territory" and "the map is an accurate representation of the territory".
Regardless how accurate or inaccurate a map is, it is still a map. But some maps are more or less accurate over other maps. That's fine. That's human projections.
I argue that the territory is arational, which means any representation in relation to the territory is all the same.
The second sentence contradicts the first.