Are you advocating cartesian dualism?

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.

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.

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).

You seem to have an understanding of what's true is 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.

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.

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?

That's a clarification, but regardless it is quite irrelevant to what we're discussing I think (or what I want to discuss).

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.

The purpose is a map, friend, there's more than maps. Personally I think it brings us closer to the truth of us, our existance, our nature. Regarding doing other things than thinking, I agree with that, one thing doesn't have to go at the cost of something else.

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?

That's a strawman argument. I was talking about silencing all thoughts or becoming aware of thoughts instead of thinking of thoughts. You might think X activity goes under that umbrella, but I don't necessarily, so that's a strawman.

I do think that a lot of you believe that the map is the territory, even though you will deny it. That's the point I am trying to make as well. But you're not arguing against those points, just where you can get in an easy strawman? I'm just speculating though.

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.

So we are talking about different things, I specifically stated my definition yet you bring up your own as if it's possible to argue when we mean different things for different words.

I'm talking about thinking, awareness and similar. You are talking of maps which you are thinking about? It's another layer. For example, in your direct experience, you have all these different things you attribute maps to. Take this as your reference point in this conversation, not maps from neuroscience or anything else if possible.

If you were becoming aware of things, you aren't in the moment of awareness thinking about how your brain created this that is my definition of awareness. It's less so of a map. In that direct experience, you can see the map for what it is.

Would it be proper to say that the territory is oblivious to the maps involved, in that case?

I'm telling you that you are god and the universe, but I have to feed it to you as a "subjective experience" because you are asleep. You are in a matrix of maps. :D

But I don't know.

Take it, however, you want.

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.

That was an assumption.

Not so much a strawman as word salad. But for sure it isn't what I'm saying.

What I mean was that you create a map, which all other maps span out from, the first map is the brain and within that map,there is thinking, awareness, feeling and so forth. Maybe even before that it's the universe, physics of the neurons and so forth, or however many layers it might be.

"What you are saying YOU (the actual you) are is: Maps and the map which is the brain, have created your awareness"

"If you aren't aware of the maps, it's because you are oblivious to them, not because they don't exist"

Is that what you say?

If so sit down and meditate and ask yourself that again?

It may please you to believe that you know what I believe better than I do, but I see no reason to agree.

Mr. gjm, relax. Ok?

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.

According to you, 1) Everything is apparently a map. Even though the territory isn't.

2) But if you are oblivious to the maps, that's not because they don't exist. It's because you're oblivious to them.

So the baseline is that everything is a map. because of 1 and 2, but isn't the territory the actual baseline?

The territory is oblivious to the maps, right? Which is you.

I know I am proposing something different by saying the territory is oblivious to the maps, using a little bit of your wording, but that's my point. You are the territory and within the territory is the maps, the universe, all perceptions of which you label things and project upon. When you silence thoughts (and become oblivious to maps according to you, or think I am) you are it.

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.

It is a human projection. You have said it yourself, that it is a map. A map is a projection in my definition. It's a strawman, you saw that I mentioned that science and selecting some maps over others is fine, that's not the argument. It's that we believe the map to be the territory, even though you say you don't.

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 was just assuming, I had no clue what you believe. Even if this is a Tu quoque fallacy: You did kind of the same with the video.

I let go of it ages ago. It's no fault of mine that you keep harping on it.

About the video? Okay, sorry.

First, you should probably read the documents we refer to as the Sequences before you try to "correct" us.

There's plenty of others who disagree with you, I think, based on my experience writing with others here.

We all know this.

Yet a lot don't really know it, by that I mean actually experiencing. (no absolute truth I get it, but let's not make maps without understanding that we are)

You seem to be referring to meditative states. A lot of us do this, for various reasons. It really has little to do with rationality or arationality. Quieting down and dissociating from one's thoughts certainly helps with clear thinking.

The meditative state is always the case, of course, we may practice meditation more intensely. Not being attached to thoughts is baseline in my opinion, if it can be done for oneself.

Just because you're in a meditative state of thoughtlessness doesn't mean that you're doing anything beyond engaging with yet another set of maps.

That's not correct during the meditative state? The state can be constant.

Again, lots of us meditate, and we're all about beauty. Not sure where you're getting this perspective.

I'm sure that's likely, but there can be a lot more to meditation we think, trying to understand who we truly are and what is actually more likely to be the truth?

I see buried in here a sales pitch for engaging in some kind of meditative or mindfulness practice. I admit that the foundational documents of Less Wrong don't explicitly advocate for taking up meditation, but it's a popular community topic.

It's increasing awareness so we can less be attached to the map of our maps and so forth. It's like a layer on top of it all in my opinion, while simply being as it is.

I highly doubt so from my experience, although I can see why it should be. It's so obvious that it is not obvious. Maybe.

But what you go on to present is not an alternative.

An alternative to thinking. Which is "awareness".

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.

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?

"Maps" are how human beings think about the world.

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.

So, are you (1) suggesting that we not think about the world any more, or

No, I've said it's fine to think, to have human projections, to do math, physics, other science.

(2) claiming to have a way of doing it that doesn't rely on maps?

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 #1 then, well, good luck to you but I don't think it can be done. If

If you understand what I said in the above paragraph, maybe you can see that it might be always the case.

2 then I don't believe you. Like it or not, you think (and feel, and experience "awareness", and everything else)

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Then "the point" is bullshit, because some arguments lead to demonstrable real-world benefits and some don't.

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

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.

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.

1) if gravity is only a map, why it exists outside of our brain? Anyone can have their opinion about gravity, but that doesn't mean that a different map it's going to let you fly or have a different acceleration from the correct map;

Gravity is within arational reality, it's our label whether it is classical or modern physics. Gravity is a human projection. Your brain is a human projection. These things are easy logical conclusions, so should they be easily seen as such?

2) why the brain, who is many, many orders of magnitude above the smallest constituents of reality, should be able to perceive the underlying territory with a simple and undefined things like "silent of all thoughts"?

I don't really understand what your question is about. Is it about who is capable of understanding the insights provided?

Regardless if I misunderstand, what I said is probably one of the most difficult things to achieve but "silent of all thoughts" was simply an argument, a map, if you do become silent of all thoughts, reality does not disappear. All those thoughts were maps, the present moment is the way it is.

Then some thoughts will sneak in obviously because you can't really silence all thoughts with thoughts. You just get more thoughts, because you believe you are in control. That is creating maps. You don't flow with the stream of life, you are resisting.

The brain is a remarkable thing, you should be able to perceive underlying territory at any moment, since that is the way it is. That you understand that "YOU" is a logical conclusion, the same with gravity, anything :)

If we lived in the kind of universe where learning didn't help, where drawing more-correct conclusions and fitting your behavior better to the environment didn't help, then evolution and indeed biological life wouldn't work either. The kind of world where maps don't have anything to do with territories is a dead world, one in which there are no maps because becoming a mapper is worthless.

It's a question of truth, you can be truthful that these things are maps, and yet nothing really changes, except you are meta-aware and no longer ignorant, it takes a radical shift in open-mindedness to see this, and I don't mean it at all in the way you might think. Because the you, and many others, are so attached to their maps, they are stuck in a lie, in a maximum-security prison forever, but only because they have beliefs and maps.

I do agree with you on these points, it's obvious, right? I know, but just because it's obvious doesn't mean it is the territory, because it's not, it's not at all. They are concepts we have, and because of our ego we can't really let go of it.

You can discover the world, which is not a map, and because you'll see how obvious this is, there won't be anything more perfect, not even 1000 x sunsets or 1000 x "aha"-moments can compare.

"Every communication is inaccurate" is inaccurate, but more-or-less true. "Every communication is equally inaccurate" is very much less accurate, to the point of being a flat lie. After all, if communication didn't work (better than non-communication), then there wouldn't be any. The existence of falsehoods implies the existence of (relatively accurate) truths, because if there wasn't such a thing as a truth, then why would we bother making up lies? A lie only fools anyone because they believe it to be a truth.

It depends on what perspective, from the arational they are all the same, and there's nothing wrong with that. But now I am writing as a map, from the arational. Not the arational itself, it exists beyond reasoning or understanding. Do you understand how different things matter in relation to what?

Communication can work just fine, but it's still communication, you might believe that some communication is better than others, and it might be the case. But, it's still what it is in relation to the arational. I don't see any issue in some extreme rationalist having high expected value +, making excellent decisions, yet still being aware in relational to the arational it is all the same.

The existence of falsehoods implies the existence of (relatively accurate) truths, because if there wasn't such a thing as a truth, then why would we bother making up lies? A lie only fools anyone because they believe it to be a truth.

Sure, this is obvious, but everything is still the way it is. We're conditioned to say "THIS IS ME" "IM THIS" "IM SPECIAL" it screams "ego" "identity" and so forth. The universe IS, all of reality IS, and we're IT.

It's because I don't think the arguments made can be refuted, because of the inherent nature of the subject. It's like denying subjective experience although that's all you really have. (from an odd perspective)

I am convinced but I wonder how to properly argument for it, as no one wants to continue to argue. Maybe I want to teach others, but I am not sure if I am lying to myself.