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.)
I never said that
Some of it is things the video said, and you’ve said you agree with it. I don’t think there’s anything in my (admittedly not especially generous) paraphrase that doesn’t closely match things said in the video.
So you do agree with the video
Nope. I agree with some of what the video says. You know the old joke about the book review? “This book was both original and good. Unfortunately the parts that were original were not good, and the parts that were good were not original.” In the same way, the video seems to me to combine (1) stating things that I think would be obvious to almost everyone here, (2) making less-obvious claims without any sort of justification, which in many cases I think are entirely false, and (3) gloating about how the maker is so much more advanced than those poor deluded rationalists.
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 there’s anything in my (admittedly not especially generous) paraphrase that doesn’t closely match things said in the video.
I do agree with it, I think everything is arational and within the arational there is irrationality and rationality.
the video seems to me to combine (1) stating things that I think would be obvious to almost everyone here,
Which is probably not the target audience, do you believe there are those who know nothing of rationality yet think math and language is the territory and be Spock? Although I understand now why you can’t agree with all the arguments/fallacies in the video, but a few.
(2) making less-obvious claims without any sort of justification, which in many cases I think are entirely false, and
Which less obvious claims without justification and why are they false? That’s what I am looking for to learn.
(3) gloating about how the maker is so much more advanced than those poor deluded rationalists.
Ok, how does this apply to any of the arguments made?
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?
Which is not the target audience
Quite likely not. But it’s the audience here, to which you brought the video and asked “what do you think?”.
Which less obvious claims without any sort of justification and why are they false?
I already listed some in an earlier comment. You did reply to that comment but not in a way that gave me much reason to hope for constructive discussion.
That’s what I am looking for to learn.
I hope you will forgive me for saying that I don’t get the impression that you are here to learn at all.
Ok, how does this apply to any of the arguments made?
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the question. The things I was describing aren’t arguments; my comment applies not to the arguments (of which there are actually rather few in the video) but to the maker’s repeated comments about how people who consider themselves rational are so far beneath his level of “awareness”.
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 paradox. I make the same mistake, because it’s communication. The arational reality you can experience yourself through subjective experience.
Quite likely not. But it’s the audience here, to which you brought the video and asked “what do you think?”.
I agree, but I wanted to point it out regardless, even though I understand now why you can’t accept the video in its entirety.
I already listed some in an earlier comment. You did reply to that comment but not in a way that gave me much reason to hope for constructive discussion.
How do you have a constructive discussion?
I hope you will forgive me for saying that I don’t get the impression that you are here to learn at all.
Truthfully no. I think however it’s possible?
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the question. The things I was describing aren’t arguments; my comment applies not to the arguments (of which there are actually rather few in the video) but to the maker’s repeated comments about how people who consider themselves rational are so far beneath his level of “awareness”.
The arguments made in the video, what does this have to do with that? Seems more like a subjective opinion which you projected upon the world. I think I would have done the same thing, however.
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.
How do you have a constructive discussion?
One of the prerequisites is that the people involved are actually willing to engage with one another’s arguments.
The arguments made in the video, what does this have to do with that?
Very little, except that one of the reasons why the video contains so few arguments given its length is that its maker wastes a lot of time talking about how much better than us he is.
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 mistake because that’s what I have to do to get to you, but you still have to figure it out yourself.
The criticism is that you do not understand the point of the video, the point is that you can sit down, become aware of all the maps, and notice that reality does not disappear because what you call “you” (The I thought) lose attachment to maps.
That is a lack of awareness, because if you had awareness by such an exercise you would immediately notice that the map is not the territory and that there has to be no map which to point this out. If it’s still hard, that’s fine, but at least by becoming aware you are not aware, you have increased your awareness.
Notice how everything I just said was a map, and every single letter after that, it doesn’t have to be, you can view the words for what they are, absolutely nothing, nothing in the word of which the word “nothing” says it is, simply no—thing.
One of the prerequisites is that the people involved are actually willing to engage with one another’s arguments.
But what if the point is that all arguments are equally untrue, it is a map when the territory is not the map? What if the argument is to come to the truth which you can only figure out for yourself? Our engagement is the problem itself. Not that from the engagement’s perspective, but what’s actually is tried to be communicated by me, when it cannot be.
Very little, except that one of the reasons why the video contains so few arguments given its length is that its maker wastes a lot of time talking about how much better than us he is.
It is natural for people to one-up another I think. It is a way to give the point across or to invoke reaction as the person who were afflicted may look into it. It’s not actually harsh in the sense that it is a kneejerk reaction or feeling of superiority, ego-wise. Personally, the world is your (mine, and everyone else’s) mirror.
Because you think in patterns of being superior, you actually believe others do it too, because how else do people think? (You think) This isn’t a straw man, but it is speculation and I think it is applicable to myself.
But what you go on to present is not an alternative.
you can sit down, become aware of all the maps, and notice that reality does not disappear because what you call “you” lose attachment to maps.
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.
“Maps” are how human beings think about the world. So, are you (1) suggesting that we not think about the world any more, or (2) claiming to have a way of doing it that doesn’t rely on maps? If #1 then, well, good luck to you but I don’t think it can be done. If #2 then I don’t believe you. Like it or not, you think (and feel, and experience “awareness”, and everything else) 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”.
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?
It is arational
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.
what if the point is that all arguments are equally untrue
Then “the point” is bullshit, because some arguments lead to demonstrable real-world benefits and some don’t.
Because you think in patterns of being superior, you actually believe others do it too
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.
From what I can (barely) understand, reguru is advocating the notion of enlightenment as understood in the East, if in a very confusing way. Abandoning the reliance on rationality is a major idea in Zen Buddhism, for example, and koans are one of the ways to move in that direction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course, you don’t have to think. The world doesn’t disappear [...]
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?
Awareness is not thinking
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.
you might think that you can only think about things
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.
What you’re saying is that you are “maps, that maps of the brain have created your awareness”? or is this a strawman?
Not so much a strawman as word salad. But for sure it isn’t what I’m saying.
Don’t you see this leads nowhere, that you actually believe the territory is the map without realizing it?
It may please you to believe that you know what I believe better than I do, but I see no reason to agree.
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?
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.
(I may well think that fact less earth-shattering than you would like me to think it, though.)
No that’s maps [...] It’s just a layer, our projections
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.
you believe that someone is trying to be more superior than you, because that can’t be the case. How dare they
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 don’t know how you can let go of this point
I let go of it ages ago. It’s no fault of mine that you keep harping on 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 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.
You are repeatedly telling me I’ve said things I actually haven’t, telling me I think things I actually don’t, telling me I don’t know things I actually do, etc., etc. You have not yet succeeded in communicating any new insights to me; we may of course disagree about why that is.
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.
I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of “Bored now. Bye.” (And I see you just can’t help continuing to speculate uncharitably about the contents of my mind.)
I will say it more explicitly: I do not believe that continuing to discuss this stuff with you is a good use of my time. I gravely doubt it’s a good use of the time of anyone else here, but of course it’s not for me to say what others should do. I think your attempts at “awareness” have regrettably left you hopelessly confused and self-deluded. I do not think you have anything useful to teach me, and I do not think you are open-minded enough to learn anything from me.
I am not interested in having discussion continue.
I will say it more explicitly: I do not believe that continuing to discuss this stuff with you is a good use of my time. I gravely doubt it’s a good use of the time of anyone else here, but of course it’s not for me to say what others should do.
How is this relevant to the discussion? You’re talking about different things now.
I think your attempts at “awareness” have regrettably left you hopelessly confused and self-deluded. I do not think you have anything useful to teach me, and I do not think you are open-minded enough to learn anything from me.
I can make the same argument, but I don’t see how it leads to anywhere. Why not try and argue for your point? Whenever I make an argument you seem to ignore it completely, use your own definition or strawman. When I try and figure out what you’re thinking, you’re saying I am speculating what you’re thinking two times now, so what? Then tell me what you are thinking.
Maybe you just realize you can’t defend your point and have to rationalize the dissonance.
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?
all arguments are equally untrue
That is highly unlikely—otherwise you wouldn’t be able to operate in reality.
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 are watching a visual illusion, and suddenly you see the other perspective and it was what it was.
That is highly unlikely—otherwise you wouldn’t be able to operate in reality.
From the perspective of arational reality, you’re fine to be rational as long as you are aware. It’s as if you say before every equation “I am aware this is a human projection” yet you remove this paragraph from the equation OF the equation because it’s too obvious.
If you didn’t operate in reality people would come to you and ask, what are you doing? If it was thousands of years ago, people would say “I want what you have” and those who didn’t operate in reality says “You came to me”
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.)
Some of it is things the video said, and you’ve said you agree with it. I don’t think there’s anything in my (admittedly not especially generous) paraphrase that doesn’t closely match things said in the video.
Nope. I agree with some of what the video says. You know the old joke about the book review? “This book was both original and good. Unfortunately the parts that were original were not good, and the parts that were good were not original.” In the same way, the video seems to me to combine (1) stating things that I think would be obvious to almost everyone here, (2) making less-obvious claims without any sort of justification, which in many cases I think are entirely false, and (3) gloating about how the maker is so much more advanced than those poor deluded rationalists.
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.
I do agree with it, I think everything is arational and within the arational there is irrationality and rationality.
Which is probably not the target audience, do you believe there are those who know nothing of rationality yet think math and language is the territory and be Spock? Although I understand now why you can’t agree with all the arguments/fallacies in the video, but a few.
Which less obvious claims without justification and why are they false? That’s what I am looking for to learn.
Ok, how does this apply to any of the arguments made?
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?
Quite likely not. But it’s the audience here, to which you brought the video and asked “what do you think?”.
I already listed some in an earlier comment. You did reply to that comment but not in a way that gave me much reason to hope for constructive discussion.
I hope you will forgive me for saying that I don’t get the impression that you are here to learn at all.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the question. The things I was describing aren’t arguments; my comment applies not to the arguments (of which there are actually rather few in the video) but to the maker’s repeated comments about how people who consider themselves rational are so far beneath his level of “awareness”.
“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 paradox. I make the same mistake, because it’s communication. The arational reality you can experience yourself through subjective experience.
I agree, but I wanted to point it out regardless, even though I understand now why you can’t accept the video in its entirety.
How do you have a constructive discussion?
Truthfully no. I think however it’s possible?
The arguments made in the video, what does this have to do with that? Seems more like a subjective opinion which you projected upon the world. I think I would have done the same thing, however.
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.
One of the prerequisites is that the people involved are actually willing to engage with one another’s arguments.
Very little, except that one of the reasons why the video contains so few arguments given its length is that its maker wastes a lot of time talking about how much better than us he is.
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 mistake because that’s what I have to do to get to you, but you still have to figure it out yourself.
The criticism is that you do not understand the point of the video, the point is that you can sit down, become aware of all the maps, and notice that reality does not disappear because what you call “you” (The I thought) lose attachment to maps.
That is a lack of awareness, because if you had awareness by such an exercise you would immediately notice that the map is not the territory and that there has to be no map which to point this out. If it’s still hard, that’s fine, but at least by becoming aware you are not aware, you have increased your awareness.
Notice how everything I just said was a map, and every single letter after that, it doesn’t have to be, you can view the words for what they are, absolutely nothing, nothing in the word of which the word “nothing” says it is, simply no—thing.
But what if the point is that all arguments are equally untrue, it is a map when the territory is not the map? What if the argument is to come to the truth which you can only figure out for yourself? Our engagement is the problem itself. Not that from the engagement’s perspective, but what’s actually is tried to be communicated by me, when it cannot be.
It is natural for people to one-up another I think. It is a way to give the point across or to invoke reaction as the person who were afflicted may look into it. It’s not actually harsh in the sense that it is a kneejerk reaction or feeling of superiority, ego-wise. Personally, the world is your (mine, and everyone else’s) mirror.
Because you think in patterns of being superior, you actually believe others do it too, because how else do people think? (You think) This isn’t a straw man, but it is speculation and I think it is applicable to myself.
But what you go on to present is not an alternative.
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.
“Maps” are how human beings think about the world. So, are you (1) suggesting that we not think about the world any more, or (2) claiming to have a way of doing it that doesn’t rely on maps? If #1 then, well, good luck to you but I don’t think it can be done. If #2 then I don’t believe you. Like it or not, you think (and feel, and experience “awareness”, and everything else) 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”.
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?
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.
Then “the point” is bullshit, because some arguments lead to demonstrable real-world benefits and some don’t.
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.
From what I can (barely) understand, reguru is advocating the notion of enlightenment as understood in the East, if in a very confusing way. Abandoning the reliance on rationality is a major idea in Zen Buddhism, for example, and koans are one of the ways to move in that direction.
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.
Yeah, I think s/he’s aiming for something of the sort. I don’t think s/he’s doing it very well, though.
An alternative to thinking. Which is “awareness”.
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?
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.
No, I’ve said it’s fine to think, to have human projections, to do math, physics, other science.
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 you understand what I said in the above paragraph, maybe you can see that it might be always the case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Not so much a strawman as word salad. But for sure it isn’t what I’m saying.
It may please you to believe that you know what I believe better than I do, but I see no reason to agree.
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.
(I may well think that fact less earth-shattering than you would like me to think it, though.)
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.
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 let go of it ages ago. It’s no fault of mine that you keep harping on it.
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.
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.
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 was an assumption.
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?
Mr. gjm, relax. Ok?
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.
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.
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.
About the video? Okay, sorry.
You are repeatedly telling me I’ve said things I actually haven’t, telling me I think things I actually don’t, telling me I don’t know things I actually do, etc., etc. You have not yet succeeded in communicating any new insights to me; we may of course disagree about why that is.
Bored now. Bye.
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?
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.
I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of “Bored now. Bye.” (And I see you just can’t help continuing to speculate uncharitably about the contents of my mind.)
I will say it more explicitly: I do not believe that continuing to discuss this stuff with you is a good use of my time. I gravely doubt it’s a good use of the time of anyone else here, but of course it’s not for me to say what others should do. I think your attempts at “awareness” have regrettably left you hopelessly confused and self-deluded. I do not think you have anything useful to teach me, and I do not think you are open-minded enough to learn anything from me.
I am not interested in having discussion continue.
How is this relevant to the discussion? You’re talking about different things now.
I can make the same argument, but I don’t see how it leads to anywhere. Why not try and argue for your point? Whenever I make an argument you seem to ignore it completely, use your own definition or strawman. When I try and figure out what you’re thinking, you’re saying I am speculating what you’re thinking two times now, so what? Then tell me what you are thinking.
Maybe you just realize you can’t defend your point and have to rationalize the dissonance.
Have a good day,:D
Get that feeling often..? X-D
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?
That is highly unlikely—otherwise you wouldn’t be able to operate in reality.
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 are watching a visual illusion, and suddenly you see the other perspective and it was what it was.
From the perspective of arational reality, you’re fine to be rational as long as you are aware. It’s as if you say before every equation “I am aware this is a human projection” yet you remove this paragraph from the equation OF the equation because it’s too obvious.
If you didn’t operate in reality people would come to you and ask, what are you doing? If it was thousands of years ago, people would say “I want what you have” and those who didn’t operate in reality says “You came to me”
I don’t know what that means. You don’t claim direct unmediated access to the underlying reality, do you?
The truth that the map is not reality, without adding another map, by direct, subjective experience. This is a map.
Assumption or strawman?
Mumbo-jumbo deepities.
I’m out.
So it was a straw man?
No, it was a failed attempt to communicate.
All types of communication are the same, it’s a subjective experience which can’t be communicated.
It’s possible that would require you to want to learn. It’s not up to us to make you want to learn.
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.