You say you’re not, yet you’re contradicting your previous statement where scientific facts are irrelevant to your other senses [emotions]. Which you completely omitted in responding to. Please explain. Is it a blind spot?
This is just not a very interesting or useful line of thinking.
I’m unsure why accepting facts to the extent where falsehoods by other senses are overwritten, is uninteresting or not useful.
I (and most people on this forum) already try to live as rationalists, and where your proposal implies any deviation in from that framework, your deviations are inferior to simply doing what we are already doing.
It’s obviously not inferior or superior as I’ve already explained a flaw in your reasoning, which you’re either already too much of an affective death spiral to notice, or completely omitting because you have some vague sense that you are right. You could’ve welcomed me rather than prove to me what I’ve been saying all along. :)
Furthermore, you consistently rely on buzzwords of your own invention (“aligning with reality”, “emotionally submitting”) which greatly inhibit your attempts at clarifying what you’re trying to say.
It’s very explanatory. If you go against what you are and your purpose then you are not aligned with reality. If you go alongside with what you are and your purpose then you are aligned with reality. Accepting facts in all senses, including emotionally. By everything I’ve written so far, it should able to connect the dots with your pattern-recognition machine what these ’buzzword’s mean? If I say X means this, this that, multiple times then you should have a vague sense in what I mean it?
Perhaps if you read the essays as I suggest, you could provide substantive criticisms/improvements that did not rely on your own idiosyncratic terminology.
I wasn’t using ‘my terminology’ when I explained your contradiction, and that this contradiction is the problem?
“For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses.”
.
You’re believing that you and your environment are separate based on “relevant” senses. Scientific evidence is irrelevant to your some of your senses, it is technical. If all of your senses were in resonance, including emotional, then there wouldn’t be such a thing where scientific evidence is irrelevant in this context.
You say you’re not, yet you’re contradicting your previous statement where scientific facts are irrelevant to your other senses [emotions].
Where did I say scientific facts are irrelevant to my emotions?
It’s obviously not inferior or superior as I’ve already explained a flaw in your reasoning, which you’re either already too much of an affective death spiral to notice, or completely omitting because you have some vague sense that you are right.
Please remind me or re-highlight where this flaw/contradiction happened. I did not notice you pointing it out before and cannot ascertain what you’re referring to.
By everything I’ve written so far, it should able to connect the dots with your pattern-recognition machine what these ’buzzword’s mean? If I say X means this, this that, multiple times then you should have a vague sense in what I mean it?
I have an idea of what you’re trying to say, but I suspect that you don’t. Your thinking is not clear. By using different words, you will force yourself to interrogate your own understanding of what you’re putting forth.
You’re believing that you and your environment are separate based on “relevant” senses. Scientific evidence is irrelevant to your some of your senses, it is technical. If all of your senses were in resonance, including emotional, then there wouldn’t be such a thing where scientific evidence is irrelevant in this context.
Is this what you’re talking about where you say I’m making an error in reasoning? If so it seems like you just misunderstood me. The gravitational pull of a distant atom is causally present but practically irrelevant to any conceivable choice that I make. This is not a statement that I feel is particularly controversial. It is obviously true.
“For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense”
In a technical sense.
“but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses.”
The relevant sense here is your emotions.
Technically you understand that self and environment is one and the same, but you don’t emotionally resonate with that idea [you don’t emotionally resonate with facts].
Otherwise, what do you mean with:
“For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense”It’s true...?
“but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses.”But it’s false… for a relevant sense?
What is the ‘relevant sense’? (not emotions?)
Is it more or less probable that ‘you and your environment’ is separated and based on what evidence?
I have an idea of what you’re trying to say, but I suspect that you don’t. Your thinking is not clear. By using different words, you will force yourself to interrogate your own understanding of what you’re putting forth.
Emotionally accepting or submitting to something is an empirical fact. There are no different words, but if there is, you’re free to put them forward.
The gravitational pull of a distant atom is causally present but practically irrelevant to any conceivable choice that I make. This is not a statement that I feel is particularly controversial. It is obviously true.
You keep using analogies rather than the example you gave earlier. Why? I already understand what you mean, but the actual example is not irrelevant to your decisions.
So what you actually meant was:
“You and your environment are not separated. This is obviously true”?
Can you confirm? Please spot the dissonance and be honest.
You’re reading way too much into word choice things and projecting onto me a mentality that I don’t hold.
“You and your environment are not separated. This is obviously true”?
Can you confirm? Please spot the dissonance and be honest.
Indeed, that was what I said. It is still true.
The gravitational pull of a distant atom is causally present but practically irrelevant to any conceivable choice that I make.
This is also true. Whether or not that particular atom is there or is magically whisked away, it’s not going to change where I decide to eat lunch today. The activity of that atom is not relevant to my decision making process.
That’s it. What part of this is supposed to be in error?
Indeed, this is true in the sense that it’s most likely that this is the case based on the available evidence.
I’m glad that you’re aligned with reality on this certain point, there’s not many that are, but I wonder, why do you claim that helping others is not helping yourself, excluding practicality of semantics? It seemed as you were very new to the concept of non-emotional attachment to identity/I because you argued my semantics.
But, you claimed earlier that none of this is actually factual would you like to elaborate on that? That these are my interpretations of vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas.
The reason why I push this is because you contradict yourself and you very much seemed to have an opinion on this specific matter.
I feel it might help you to know that none of this is actually factual. These are your interpretations of really vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas, ideas about which very smart and well-read people can and do disagree.
For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses. The same could be said for the idea that helping another is helping yourself. That’s not true if the other I’m helping is trying to murder me—and if I can refute the generality with one example that I came up with in half a second of thought, it’s not a very useful generality.
So… “none of this is actually factual”, it’s philosophical ideas, but later on you agree that “you and your environment are not separated. This is obviously true” by saying “Indeed, that was what I said. It is still true.” Which you did but it was ”...in some narrow technical sense...” and ”...but it is also very much false … relevant …” now it’s “It’s true” “factual”? Is it also a “philosophical idea” and a part of the ideas that “none of this is actually factual”?
Your statements in order:
not actually factual.
really vague philosophical ideas
may be true in some narrow technical sense
but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses
indeed, that what was I said
it is still true
It’s fine to be wrong and correct yourself :)
The activity of that atom is not relevant to my decision making process.
That’s it. What part of this is supposed to be in error?
Yeah, it isn’t, but the example you gave of you and environment, is relevant to your decision-making process, as evident by your claim (outside of practicality) and of semantics that “helping others is not helping yourself” for example. So using an analogy which is not relevant to your decision-making process in contrary to your example where it is, is incorrect. That’s why I say use the example which you used before. Instead of making an analogy that I don’t disagree with.
It seemed as you were very new to the concept of non-emotional attachment to identity/I because you argued my semantics.
Not really, I’ve been practicing various forms of Buddhist meditation for several years and have pretty low attachment to my identity. This is substantially different from saying with any kind of certainty that helping other people is identical to helping myself. Other people want things contrary to what I want. I am not helping myself if I help them. Having low attachment to my identity is not the same thing as being okay with people hurting or killing me.
The rest of your post, which I’m not going to quote, is just mixing up lots of different things. I’m not sure if you’re not aware of it or if you are aware of it and you’re trying to obfuscate this discussion, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I will untangle the mess. You said:
For example, neuroscience will tell you, that you and your environment are not separate from each other, it’s all a part of your neural activity. So helping another is helping you. If that doesn’t resonate enough, for example, evolutionary biology that we’re all descendants from stardust might. Or that there is a probability that you don’t exist (as per QM) although very small. So what happens? Your identity and self vanishes, as it’s no longer aligned with reality, you accept facts, emotionally.
Then I said,
I feel it might help you to know that none of this is actually factual. These are your interpretations of really vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas, ideas about which very smart and well-read people can and do disagree. For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses. The same could be said for the idea that helping another is helping yourself. That’s not true if the other I’m helping is trying to murder me—and if I can refute the generality with one example that I came up with in half a second of thought, it’s not a very useful generality.
Since I have now grasped the source of your confusion with my word choice, I will reengage. You specifically say:
For example, neuroscience will tell you, that you and your environment are not separate from each other, it’s all a part of your neural activity. So helping another is helping you.
This is a pure non sequitur. The fact that human brains run on physics in no way implies that helping another is helping yourself. Again, if a person wants to kill me, I’m not helping myself if I hand him a gun. If you model human agents the way Dennis Hoffman’s character does in I Heart Huckabees you’re going to end up repeatedly confused and stymied by reality.
So what happens? Your identity and self vanishes, as it’s no longer aligned with reality, you accept facts, emotionally.
This is also just not factual. You’re making an outlandish and totally unsupported claim when you say that “emotionally accepting reality” causes the annihilation of the self. The only known things that can make the identity and self vanish are
high dose psychotropic compounds
extremely long and intense meditation of particular forms that do not look much like what you’re talking about
and even these are only true for certain circumscribed senses of the word “self”.
So let’s review:
I don’t object to the naturalistic philosophy that you seem to enjoy. That’s all cool and good. We’re all about naturalistic science around here. The problem is statements like
So helping another is helping you.
and
Your identity and self vanishes, as it’s no longer aligned with reality.
These are pseudo-religious woo, not supported by science anywhere. I have given you very simple examples of scenarios where they are flatly false, which immediately proves that they are not the powerful general truths you seem to think they are.
This is substantially different from saying with any kind of certainty that helping other people is identical to helping myself.
No, it’s not.
Other people want things contrary to what I want.
What does that have to do with helping yourself, thus other people?
Having low attachment to my identity is not the same thing as being okay with people hurting or killing me.
Yeah, but ‘me’ is used practically.
The fact that human brains run on physics in no way implies that helping another is helping yourself.
I said your neural activity includes you and your environment and that there is no differentiation. So there is no differentiation by helping another as in helping yourself.
Again, if a person wants to kill me, I’m not helping myself if I hand him a gun. If you model human agents the way Dennis Hoffman’s character does in I Heart Huckabees you’re going to end up repeatedly confused and stymied by reality.
That’s the practical ‘myself’ to talk about this body, its requirements and so on. You are helping yourself by not giving him a gun because you are not differentiated by your environment. You are presuming that you are helping yourself by giving gun because you think that there is another. No there is only yourself. You help yourself by not giving the gun because your practical ‘myself’ is included in ‘yourself’.
This is also just not factual. You’re making an outlandish and totally unsupported claim when you say that “emotionally accepting reality” causes the annihilation of the self. The only known things that can make the identity and self vanish are
high dose psychotropic compounds
extremely long and intense meditation of particular forms that do not look much like what you’re talking about
and even these are only true for certain circumscribed senses of the word “self”.
I don’t deny that it is not that factual as there is limited objective evidence.
These are pseudo-religious woo, not supported by science anywhere. I have given you very simple examples of scenarios where they are flatly false, which immediately proves that they are not the powerful general truths you seem to think they are.
I disagree with ‘helping another is helping you’ being psuedo-religious woo but it’s because we’re talking about semantics. We have to decide what ‘me’ or my ‘self’ or ‘I’ is. I use the neural activity as the definition of this. You seem to use some type philosophical reasoning where you are presuming I use the same definition.
So we should investigate if your self and identity can die from that and if other facts which we don’t embrace emotionally leads to a similar process but for their area. That’s the entire point of my original post.
It doesn’t look like there’s anywhere to go from here. It looks like you are acknowledging that where your positions are strong, they are not novel, and where they are novel, they are not strong. If you enjoy drawing the boundaries of your self in unusual places or emotionally associating your identity with certain ideas, go for it. Just don’t expect anybody else to find those ideas compelling without evidence.
These are the steps I did to have identity death: link to steps I also meditated on the 48 min hypnosis track youtube If you are interested in where I got my ideas from and if you want to try it yourself. It’s of course up to you but you have a strong identity and ego issues and I think it will help “you”(and me).
Yeah, it’s also called ‘Enlightenment’ in theological traditions. You can read the testimonies here. MrMind has, for example, read them, but he’s waiting a bit longer to contact these people on Reddit to see if it sticks around. I think the audio can work really well with a good pair of headphones and playing it as FLAC.
You say you’re not, yet you’re contradicting your previous statement where scientific facts are irrelevant to your other senses [emotions]. Which you completely omitted in responding to. Please explain. Is it a blind spot?
I’m unsure why accepting facts to the extent where falsehoods by other senses are overwritten, is uninteresting or not useful.
It’s obviously not inferior or superior as I’ve already explained a flaw in your reasoning, which you’re either already too much of an affective death spiral to notice, or completely omitting because you have some vague sense that you are right. You could’ve welcomed me rather than prove to me what I’ve been saying all along. :)
It’s very explanatory. If you go against what you are and your purpose then you are not aligned with reality. If you go alongside with what you are and your purpose then you are aligned with reality. Accepting facts in all senses, including emotionally. By everything I’ve written so far, it should able to connect the dots with your pattern-recognition machine what these ’buzzword’s mean? If I say X means this, this that, multiple times then you should have a vague sense in what I mean it?
I wasn’t using ‘my terminology’ when I explained your contradiction, and that this contradiction is the problem?
.
That’s the improvement we have to make.
Where did I say scientific facts are irrelevant to my emotions?
Please remind me or re-highlight where this flaw/contradiction happened. I did not notice you pointing it out before and cannot ascertain what you’re referring to.
I have an idea of what you’re trying to say, but I suspect that you don’t. Your thinking is not clear. By using different words, you will force yourself to interrogate your own understanding of what you’re putting forth.
Is this what you’re talking about where you say I’m making an error in reasoning? If so it seems like you just misunderstood me. The gravitational pull of a distant atom is causally present but practically irrelevant to any conceivable choice that I make. This is not a statement that I feel is particularly controversial. It is obviously true.
“For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense”
In a technical sense.
“but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses.”
The relevant sense here is your emotions.
Technically you understand that self and environment is one and the same, but you don’t emotionally resonate with that idea [you don’t emotionally resonate with facts].
Otherwise, what do you mean with:
“For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense” It’s true...?
“but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses.” But it’s false… for a relevant sense?
What is the ‘relevant sense’? (not emotions?)
Is it more or less probable that ‘you and your environment’ is separated and based on what evidence?
Emotionally accepting or submitting to something is an empirical fact. There are no different words, but if there is, you’re free to put them forward.
You keep using analogies rather than the example you gave earlier. Why? I already understand what you mean, but the actual example is not irrelevant to your decisions.
So what you actually meant was:
“You and your environment are not separated. This is obviously true”?
Can you confirm? Please spot the dissonance and be honest.
Thanks, this is clarifying.
You’re reading way too much into word choice things and projecting onto me a mentality that I don’t hold.
Indeed, that was what I said. It is still true.
This is also true. Whether or not that particular atom is there or is magically whisked away, it’s not going to change where I decide to eat lunch today. The activity of that atom is not relevant to my decision making process.
That’s it. What part of this is supposed to be in error?
Indeed, this is true in the sense that it’s most likely that this is the case based on the available evidence.
I’m glad that you’re aligned with reality on this certain point, there’s not many that are, but I wonder, why do you claim that helping others is not helping yourself, excluding practicality of semantics? It seemed as you were very new to the concept of non-emotional attachment to identity/I because you argued my semantics.
But, you claimed earlier that none of this is actually factual would you like to elaborate on that? That these are my interpretations of vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas.
The reason why I push this is because you contradict yourself and you very much seemed to have an opinion on this specific matter.
So… “none of this is actually factual”, it’s philosophical ideas, but later on you agree that “you and your environment are not separated. This is obviously true” by saying “Indeed, that was what I said. It is still true.” Which you did but it was ”...in some narrow technical sense...” and ”...but it is also very much false … relevant …” now it’s “It’s true” “factual”? Is it also a “philosophical idea” and a part of the ideas that “none of this is actually factual”?
Your statements in order:
not actually factual.
really vague philosophical ideas
may be true in some narrow technical sense
but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses
indeed, that what was I said
it is still true
It’s fine to be wrong and correct yourself :)
Yeah, it isn’t, but the example you gave of you and environment, is relevant to your decision-making process, as evident by your claim (outside of practicality) and of semantics that “helping others is not helping yourself” for example. So using an analogy which is not relevant to your decision-making process in contrary to your example where it is, is incorrect. That’s why I say use the example which you used before. Instead of making an analogy that I don’t disagree with.
Not really, I’ve been practicing various forms of Buddhist meditation for several years and have pretty low attachment to my identity. This is substantially different from saying with any kind of certainty that helping other people is identical to helping myself. Other people want things contrary to what I want. I am not helping myself if I help them. Having low attachment to my identity is not the same thing as being okay with people hurting or killing me.
The rest of your post, which I’m not going to quote, is just mixing up lots of different things. I’m not sure if you’re not aware of it or if you are aware of it and you’re trying to obfuscate this discussion, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I will untangle the mess. You said:
Then I said,
Since I have now grasped the source of your confusion with my word choice, I will reengage. You specifically say:
This is a pure non sequitur. The fact that human brains run on physics in no way implies that helping another is helping yourself. Again, if a person wants to kill me, I’m not helping myself if I hand him a gun. If you model human agents the way Dennis Hoffman’s character does in I Heart Huckabees you’re going to end up repeatedly confused and stymied by reality.
This is also just not factual. You’re making an outlandish and totally unsupported claim when you say that “emotionally accepting reality” causes the annihilation of the self. The only known things that can make the identity and self vanish are
high dose psychotropic compounds
extremely long and intense meditation of particular forms that do not look much like what you’re talking about
and even these are only true for certain circumscribed senses of the word “self”.
So let’s review:
I don’t object to the naturalistic philosophy that you seem to enjoy. That’s all cool and good. We’re all about naturalistic science around here. The problem is statements like
and
These are pseudo-religious woo, not supported by science anywhere. I have given you very simple examples of scenarios where they are flatly false, which immediately proves that they are not the powerful general truths you seem to think they are.
No, it’s not.
What does that have to do with helping yourself, thus other people?
Yeah, but ‘me’ is used practically.
I said your neural activity includes you and your environment and that there is no differentiation. So there is no differentiation by helping another as in helping yourself.
That’s the practical ‘myself’ to talk about this body, its requirements and so on. You are helping yourself by not giving him a gun because you are not differentiated by your environment. You are presuming that you are helping yourself by giving gun because you think that there is another. No there is only yourself. You help yourself by not giving the gun because your practical ‘myself’ is included in ‘yourself’.
I don’t deny that it is not that factual as there is limited objective evidence.
I disagree with ‘helping another is helping you’ being psuedo-religious woo but it’s because we’re talking about semantics. We have to decide what ‘me’ or my ‘self’ or ‘I’ is. I use the neural activity as the definition of this. You seem to use some type philosophical reasoning where you are presuming I use the same definition.
So we should investigate if your self and identity can die from that and if other facts which we don’t embrace emotionally leads to a similar process but for their area. That’s the entire point of my original post.
It doesn’t look like there’s anywhere to go from here. It looks like you are acknowledging that where your positions are strong, they are not novel, and where they are novel, they are not strong. If you enjoy drawing the boundaries of your self in unusual places or emotionally associating your identity with certain ideas, go for it. Just don’t expect anybody else to find those ideas compelling without evidence.
I agree.
These are the steps I did to have identity death: link to steps I also meditated on the 48 min hypnosis track youtube If you are interested in where I got my ideas from and if you want to try it yourself. It’s of course up to you but you have a strong identity and ego issues and I think it will help “you”(and me).
You’ve had people complete these steps and report that the “What will happen after you make the click” section actually happens?
Yeah, it’s also called ‘Enlightenment’ in theological traditions. You can read the testimonies here. MrMind has, for example, read them, but he’s waiting a bit longer to contact these people on Reddit to see if it sticks around. I think the audio can work really well with a good pair of headphones and playing it as FLAC.