There’s a lot of inferential distance from your way of thinking to the way of thinking towards which this points.
In particular you assume that the standards you use to judge something as an inferior result easily survive the ontological crisis that involved in going from one ontology to another.
I’ve now read the linked post. I’m confused about what relevance it has.
Are you saying that, once we stop looking at the world as a bunch of discrete objects and start seeing quantum fields, or whatever, instead, then it’s no longer trivial or even possible to say things like “this cake is delicious, but that cake is not”?
Or, are you using that sort of “ontological crisis” as an illustrative example only, but actually suggesting some different, unrelated, sort of ontology shift? If so, then what might this alternative ontology be, and why should we prefer it?
The article doesn’t posit that the any one frame of perception must be considered absolute, at the cost of others. Only that perception can be subdivided into various spheres, with some being more primary than others. However a person chooses to use that information is up to them. For some, it may be an irrelevant distinction.
With regards to liking or disliking cake, that would be a subjective evaluation.But subjectivity is as much a part of how a person experiences reality as the presence of objects around him, so being able to distinguish between what one likes and dislikes is not trivial, but I wouldn’t say that kind of theme has to do with the nature of perception that the article addresses, which is more about being able to run multiple levels of analysis of the reality in front of you. If someone likes cake, that’s fine, but that doesn’t stop some of the ingredients from being potentially dangerous to their health, for example. Can a person extend their perception to acknowledge that some of the ingredients on the box reasonably shouldn’t be present in food, instead of being myopic about their desires?
The thrust of the article is to point out that discernment is important. Whilst that may imply a needed ontology shift, none is being presented at the moment.
What standards do you[1] use to judge whether something is an inferior result?
If you bake a pie, and I bake a pie, and all our friends try both pies, and they think my pie is delicious but your pie is mediocre, or bad, is there some sense in which your pie is, nonetheless, not inferior?
What if, following my approach, I am able to bake ten desserts, all different, but all widely acknowledged to be delicious; whereas you, following your approach, can only bake ten different pies (some good, some not so great), and are at a loss as to how to make any of the other things I can make? Is there some sense in which your approach is not inferior?
What sort of alternative ontology would you apply to this scenario, and why?
(Disclaimer: I have not yet read the linked post by Wei Dai; I will comment further when I’ve done so. UPDATE 2019-02-01: I’ve read it now, see sibling comment.)
[1] Or, if not you, then whoever subscribes to the mindset in question (whom you are representing in this conversation).
There’s a lot of inferential distance from your way of thinking to the way of thinking towards which this points.
In particular you assume that the standards you use to judge something as an inferior result easily survive the ontological crisis that involved in going from one ontology to another.
I’ve now read the linked post. I’m confused about what relevance it has.
Are you saying that, once we stop looking at the world as a bunch of discrete objects and start seeing quantum fields, or whatever, instead, then it’s no longer trivial or even possible to say things like “this cake is delicious, but that cake is not”?
Or, are you using that sort of “ontological crisis” as an illustrative example only, but actually suggesting some different, unrelated, sort of ontology shift? If so, then what might this alternative ontology be, and why should we prefer it?
The article doesn’t posit that the any one frame of perception must be considered absolute, at the cost of others. Only that perception can be subdivided into various spheres, with some being more primary than others. However a person chooses to use that information is up to them. For some, it may be an irrelevant distinction.
With regards to liking or disliking cake, that would be a subjective evaluation.But subjectivity is as much a part of how a person experiences reality as the presence of objects around him, so being able to distinguish between what one likes and dislikes is not trivial, but I wouldn’t say that kind of theme has to do with the nature of perception that the article addresses, which is more about being able to run multiple levels of analysis of the reality in front of you. If someone likes cake, that’s fine, but that doesn’t stop some of the ingredients from being potentially dangerous to their health, for example. Can a person extend their perception to acknowledge that some of the ingredients on the box reasonably shouldn’t be present in food, instead of being myopic about their desires?
The thrust of the article is to point out that discernment is important. Whilst that may imply a needed ontology shift, none is being presented at the moment.
https://wiki.obormot.net/Archive/WhatIsWrongWithOurThoughts
What standards do you[1] use to judge whether something is an inferior result?
If you bake a pie, and I bake a pie, and all our friends try both pies, and they think my pie is delicious but your pie is mediocre, or bad, is there some sense in which your pie is, nonetheless, not inferior?
What if, following my approach, I am able to bake ten desserts, all different, but all widely acknowledged to be delicious; whereas you, following your approach, can only bake ten different pies (some good, some not so great), and are at a loss as to how to make any of the other things I can make? Is there some sense in which your approach is not inferior?
What sort of alternative ontology would you apply to this scenario, and why?
(Disclaimer: I have not yet read the linked post by Wei Dai; I will comment further when I’ve done so. UPDATE 2019-02-01: I’ve read it now, see sibling comment.)
[1] Or, if not you, then whoever subscribes to the mindset in question (whom you are representing in this conversation).