= 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)
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.
Here we again have usage of the word "arational" without an indication of what's meant with it. Earlier in this thread there was a charge that the video mixes two distinct context together. If you want to learn you could take that suggestion to become more clear and speak about what you mean.
I'm made up of neurons that exist in the physical world.
Noticing that you don't understand is a good first step. It's usually required for learning. Learning is hard when one already thinks one understands. In rationalist terms that's the skill of "noticing confusion".
Basically you argue that there the meaning of language as if language is made up of plantonic ideals and in the next sentence you say that everything is just a map and therefore there's no such thing as the meaning. That's internally inconsistent.
As far as the substance goes, you argue against "is_a" statements and that "A is not B" when that isn't claimed. The claim is "A references B". Reference is a concept that's distinct from identity ("is_a").
Arational is independent of reasoning and understanding. It is what it is, any map is not the arational.
That's a logical conclusion, a map. You haven't seen your own neurons and even if you could in this very moment, you couldn't be the neurons which you are seeing. You are constant, you can become aware of the neurons which you observing somehow, but you know that it's not you. Even if you somehow could look into your brain, there would always be a middle-man, a mirror, a computer, screen, the software that runs the computer and so forth.
If you exclude all of which you think is you, you will be left with you, no doubt. By that, I mean truly excluding all the senses, thoughts and everything which you think is you. All non-constants. You do not change. The body changes, thoughts changes, senses, feelings changes. You cannot be something which changes, you can become aware of the changes.
When you have increased your awareness in this way, and after you have excluded everything you think is you (including the I thought) and in desperation, your brain will finally show you who you are. Which might be the arational.
Speculation: Being arational does not require a map, even if some may call it "void" "nothingness" "nothing and everything" or the experience "enlightenment". Since you become arational, you were and already are everything. Technically, you are your environment and the environment doesn't exist or revolve around a "you" I think, from neurophilosophy or something.
When talking subjective experiences of experiencing things, whatever it is might actually be objective.
Now these are extraordinary claims which for me is speculation, it is a map like any other and I was just thinking out loud, even if it might not be relevant to the discussion. Sorry about that.
In the same way, you wouldn't buy an expensive object if you already had said expensive object, because you think you already have something, you don't think you need something.
I don't understand again, I mean that language is a map, all communication, every letter, every word, it's a human projection. I t ' s a h u m a n p r o j e c t i o n a n d n o t t t r u e .
I understand that everything is a reference, and some might not think about it. But what's the different between "is x" and "references to x" it's just a shortcut to say "is x"? Even if "is x" might be argued is flawed, like you think I mean, so the counter argument is "I reference to x, which means, is x in my language" but what I mean is that everything is a map, human projection, reference or not. The arational exists outside of reasoning etc.
Are you advocating cartesian dualism?
You confuse ontology and epistology. It might not be possible for me to prove that I'm made up of neurons but that doesn't mean that I'm not made up of neurons. You can't go from one to the other easily.
You seem to have an understanding of what's
trueis supposed to mean that you unquestioningly accept. A concept that you learned as a child and where you now get into trouble because it doesn't matches the complex reality. The problem is the concept that you have in your head.The fact that the concepts inside your head doesn't make sense doesn't mean that other people can't reason and don't mean something useful when they speak of truth.
References is a different concept than identity and "is". It's a concept that you currently don't seem to understand.
In computer programming it's different to store a pointer than to store a variable that contains it's own data. Can you follow the analogy in the realm of computers?
Sounds to me more like the Vedantic monism of self-is-all, to me.
Vedantic monism doesn't have independence but 'everything is connected'.
No, non-dualism where the territory is what you are and all maps are simply human projections. But by direct experience, not by writing of it, you, actually investigating yourself.
I don't know, but still is the neurons a map within the territory? With my claim that you are the territory, by direct experience of it yourself, (not objective, subjective).
True in relation to the arational. One small truth over the other is irrelvant to the larger picture, but within the picture they are. But it's only subjective experience, by the nature of this investigation.
That's a clarification, but regardless it is quite irrelevant to what we're discussing I think (or what I want to discuss).
It's relevant to the concept of what a reference happens to be. Of course if you are not interested in learning that or discussing it, than there's no reason to talk about it.
In dualism the maps in my head and what I am on a physical level are independent. In the physicalist view of the world the maps in our heads are dependent on neuron wiring patterns. You seem to argue that the dualist view is true. Otherwise you don't get your independence.