At last, I've finally found something that you cannot change. Well then, just call this "reality" and discard everything we've said so far.
But if you are creating these maps at every given moment, isn't the maps changing depending on you? :D
Yeah, call me when someone learns to affect the map.
Can we call it your perception of the map? Because that's all there really is, that's why it's a map. Nothing exists which isn't in your present moment, except as maps.
Check this out:
https://www.mindandlife.org/remembrance-things-come-predictive-nature-mind-contemplative-practices/
If you're interested in giving meditation a try again, try the headspace website/app.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzTnS_IONU
Meditation for beginners on youtube from actualized is a great start, he also has a guided meditation track and more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXmG1x1ih1U
In my opinion by not approaching the meditation for benefit's sake will you paradoxically benefit the most, but I don't know, it's a speculation. Alan Watts h...
So... you can change laws of physics?
I don't know, I'm not a physicist. Based on my limited knowledge is that you cannot change the map. Imagine everything in the world being a map called X, and it has a revision number. Just because you know the maps are X and have a revision number doesn't undermine the content of the maps themselves. Your life experience might become different, however.
Who is then?
For there to be control, there has to first be someone or something which can be controlled and a controller. All is illusionary. You can create maps, ...
1) law of physics change for people who have different maps
I'm saying laws of physics is a map. Our reality is arational and exists without reasoning or understanding. Sure your map may be more accurate than other maps, but it's never the territory as it's a human projection.
2) you're just calling reality "maps that can't change", in which case there's no point in having this conversation.
No, of course, you can change maps. But it'll always be a map. "It's a map and it'll never be the territory, as it is a map"
...If that's true,
One is responsibility: if you do "place" people on a path, you assume some. You do, don't you?
As far as I see it, rationality isn't bound to the matrix (virtual reality) which we create. In this present moment, you can be aware of all thoughts and question them, even the existence of yourself. These are all concepts we have pre-determined to be the territory without realizing it in the first place. All are maps.
The responsibility is of the individual to do the work and it's always the case, as that's where the maps are coming from, they are a ...
Whether you want to use the binary enlightened/unenlightened distinction is up to you. I'm not a fan of binary classifications.
I like to use enlightened/unenlightened, because if you are enlightened you know. But you also might be tricking yourself that you are enlightened, thus cannot become something which you think you are. I think I have had a glimpse and some of it transitioned over. But then there is the ego, the monkey mind. Very close but still far away.
...I'm just saying that you are making assumptions about me that are not true. You likely don'
People go on paths regardless what you do, the better you are at convincing the likelihood they venture on a specific path is higher, I think. I don't see why it's a question of qualification, that would be more from the paradigm of the ego I think.
You seem to be strongly attached to whether or not something exist and the binary classification of something either existing or not.
No, I think it's unlikely, however.
That suggests that I have a single map of "I". That doesn't happen to be the case. There might have been a time where my level of introspection was structured in a way where it's true but that's not the case today.
You aren't enlightened are you? It's unlikely that you aren't in the trap of the ego otherwise.
...You argument resolves around you yourself having a wrong map that
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.
What I mean is that you don't exist, but arational reality does and "you" is the entirety of reality. The body which you see is a part of arational reality. But you can only experience this yourself. Talking of it is the same thing, it is thinking (when what I am saying is that we should not think) because it's just creating maps upon maps. If you just look around, imagine this is arational reality. Then you name an object, that's a thought, which is a map. When thoughts are quiet and you are not labeling and you have given up the notion of "...
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 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.
What makes you think I am arguing for the dualist view? Is it the overall impression or some certain statements?
I do write "subjective experience" and so forth to ease in and try and make this a bit more understandable. :D
I don't fully understand what you mean.
Gravity is a human projection.
But why would being aware something is a human projection change the projection itself?
Dude, we already know that rationality is inside the mind. Reality ("the thing that doesn't go away when you stop believing it") doesn't have to play by any rules.
I get this moment you're having, it's obvious when we talk about a brand new science, that is neuroscience. Even if there are a lot of work still left. In relation to you, that is still a map, that you have a mind. Okay, now I might be playing on definitions if "mind" doesn't mean arational reality to you.
...But it does. It's a fact that our puny brains are Turing complete
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.
The thought that you know everything interesting about the world, is a thought.
In fact, by thinking that you know, you won't ever be able to know. Because you think you already have what you seek, thus you cannot gain what you seek. In the same manner, you won't buy an expensive object when you already have said object.
...I also feel like my sense of wonder diminished. As I write this, I am a little unhappy, and in a period of depression, but I had similar feelings, if less intense, even before this period.
I was wondering whether you have any advice on how
Because you won't say it straight up how you are thinking, I have to guess, so that discussion can continue.
"You've just got yourself into a state where you are oblivious to the maps involved." What does this mean? So everything is a map?
You have not yet succeeded in communicating any new insights to me; we may of course disagree about why that is.
I've numerous times said communication is inherently flawed due to the nature of the concept. It's a subjective experience, which you can find out for yourself.
I know how it's like to think that you're smarter than anyone else, that's fine, I get that feeling too.
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...
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 agr...
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
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 inhere...
A lot of things have you confused the territory being the map.
For example, that you exist, is a map.
That there is a being there, creature of some kind, it's a map.
That you have a brain.
Every. Single. Word. Is A Map.
What is the territory?
Become silent of all thoughts, without using thoughts to manipulate or lie, neither using thoughts not to manipulate or lie.
You think you are in control, thus the flow of life doesn't flow effortlessly. :)
But it's fine to let go, and be present in this moment, where there, you are, the territory, which is arational.
There w...
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 constit
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 r...
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.
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nwu/reality_is_arational/
-8 Yet still no one being able to refute my arguments.
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.
Arational is independent of reasoning and understanding. It is what it is, any map is not the arational.
I'm made up of neurons that exist in the physical world.
That's a logical conclusion, a map. You haven't seen your own neurons and even if you could ...
All types of communication are the same, it's a subjective experience which can't be communicated.
So it was a straw man?
"Reality is arational." is an easily defensible position, though it would take some work to make an idea worth entertaining out of it.
That's not even following the position, as you already created a map or look to create one.
..."Everything you do is arational." is flatly solipsistic and useless. You must agree that words have meaning, if only subjunctively, by your usage of them. 'Rational' means something, and it describes behavior. Behavior is goal-directed, and be judged by how well it achieves those goals. That is what bare ration
I don't know what that means.
The truth that the map is not reality, without adding another map, by direct, subjective experience. This is a map.
You don't claim direct unmediated access to the underlying reality, do you?
Assumption or strawman?
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?
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...
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.
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...
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.
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?
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 ...
Our world works in different ways than the movie matrix.
It's an analogy.
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.
But that doesn't make it more likely to be true, especially if we are certain it is a human projection.
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?
"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 parado...
Objects is still a map, so is territory, so is this entire sentence. That's why it's a matrix. (virtual reality)
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".
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.
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.)
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.
...Some of it is things the video said, and you've said you agree with it. I don't think the
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.
"Hey, losers! Rationality is overrated because you confuse the map with the territory, you aren't aware of your own thoughts and don't distinguish them from reality, and you're 100% confident you're right and therefore can't change your minds!".
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...
Rationality the word might as well be tree, it doesn't mean anything. It's simply a limitation of the mind to not see the obvious truth right there, or let's say nowhere.
I did not succeed in getting my most basic point across, neither do I know how to right now.
In addition, a good way to establish that your subject matter is real and not imaginary is to show people.
With the limitations of language, our current technology? You can only figure out the truth for yourself, it is empirical, it can't be otherwise.
I suppose in principle you could describe a time when you made the mistake in question.
Which mistake? In what larger context?
I feel we have a deep communicational barrier here. You probably didn't read "Rationality A-Z" (the canonical LW text).
I have not read that.
On the other hand, I have no idea what you mean by "matrix"
Virtual reality, as in the movie Matrix.
"context"
This is a bit harder to explain, imagine everything said is out of context from the subjective experience. Context can only be found within the subjective experience.
..."awareness" and other stuff, and you don't bother to explain. (By "no idea" I actual
But "rationalism" or "rationality" in, say, the sense commonly used on LW does not in fact mean denying any of that.
But that's what you're mostly doing in your post. I will bring this up below.
The guy in the video comes across (to me at least) as smugly superior even while uttering a succession of trivialities, which doesn't do much to encourage me to watch more.
I don't think everyone shares that view, at least it's not for me. I don't know if I am contradicting myself, though. If someone was similar but in differing in opinion t...
Ask a person whether a tree is real. Isn't that also just a human projection upon the nature?
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.
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.
Wel...
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.
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 any...
I think he's aware of the stereotype, but obviously, from my perspective, people are getting triggered left and right that rationality might somehow be wrong.
Of course not wrong in the sense that rationality in the matrix might still be considered "superior" over all other Ways in the matrix. But it is still the matrix and we're happy to play that game because it's fun :)
Was the youtube link video? Do you have the video of the TED talk? Audio is boring, but I can wait.