I wonder if any rationalist ever heard about “map is not the territory”. /s
ask a person if gravity is real, after they respond “yes” ask them, is this not a human projection (your projection) upon the universe? What is the real universe?
Ask a person whether a tree is real. Isn’t that also just a human projection upon the nature?
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.
The LW-style answer would be something like: Yes, I obviously perceive the idea of gravity in my mind (because that’s the only organ I have for perceiving ideas), but it is reasonable to assume that there is something “out there” that causes those perceptions in systematic ways. (I might be living in Matrix, but then “gravity” would refer to the specific law of the Matrix.)
But is there someone who can refute the argument made in the video
That would probably require having that argument in a shorter written form, with footnotes explaining what did the author actually mean by saying this or that.
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.
Well, there are probably “rationalists” aware of this or “scientists” as explained early on in the video. The argument is for those who aren’t aware of the “map is not the territory”.
Whether or not it helps someone or doesn’t, that’s hard to know, the like:dislike ratio and comments could be scraped. How this is relevant I don’t understand. You don’t know with a high %, neither do I.
People who take offense probably dislike and click away, or don’t watch the whole video, those who argue against it already failed?
Yes, I obviously perceive the idea of gravity in my mind (because that’s the only organ I have for perceiving ideas), but it is reasonable to assume that there is something “out there” that causes those perceptions in systematic ways. (I might be living in Matrix, but then “gravity” would refer to the specific law of the Matrix.)
Now you, however, are still perceiving the idea of your, mind, organ and so forth. That’s just other layers deep which you aren’t aware of. Which makes it seem you don’t fully understand the argument: Which is somewhere, something, subjective experience. Whatever is occurring when you’re meditating for example.
But the LW-style answer seems like an agreement: is this true?
The context is found outside the matrix, so anything and everything is out of context.
I want to clarify that writing about these things is equally untrue then the empirical investigation, so we’re both wrong by being in the matrix.
“I’m mapping the trajectory of this planet, yet I understand this is simply a human projection” Of course you can remove the “yet I understand this is simply a human projection” when it’s ever-present.
But the LW-style answer seems like an agreement: is this true?
No. If someone says that gravity is real they usually mean that the word points to is real. Maps reference objects on the terrritory.
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”.
The sleight of hand from going from rational₁ to rational₂ as described by Viliam is also typical for that kind of thinking. It’s interaction with language on a way that’s fundamentally flawed.
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.
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.
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.
Our world works in different ways than the movie matrix.
Which is one of the mistakes made by said scientists
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.
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.
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?
But that doesn’t make it more likely to be true,
To judge how likely it is that something is true you first have to understand what’s meant with the claim. Currently you seem to deal with language in a way where you don’t get what’s meant. It’s like tax protestors in the US making claims about what laws are supposed to mean only to get imprisoned by courts when their intepretation of the meaning of language differs from that of other people. It’s the same mechanism.
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 communication.
To judge how likely it is that something is true you first have to understand what’s meant with the claim. Currently you seem to deal with language in a way where you don’t get what’s meant. It’s like tax protestors in the US making claims about what laws are supposed to mean only to get imprisoned by courts when their intepretation of the meaning of language differs from that of other people. It’s the same mechanism.
I don’t understand at all because I am discussing the meaning of language, while you are thinking I am misunderstanding your meaning of your language? Is this the case?
Language is a map, so is saying “Language is a map”. It’s not the territory. Neither is “It’s not the territory”. Neither is “Neither is “It’s not the territory”.” and so forth.
I completely agree, however you do not exist in this world, there are the world and it is arational.
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.
however you do not exist in this world
I’m made up of neurons that exist in the physical world.
I don’t understand at all
Noticing that you don’t understand is a good first step. It’s usually required for learning. Learning is hard when one already thinks one understands.
In rationalist terms that’s the skill of “noticing confusion”.
because I am discussing the meaning of language
Basically you argue that there the meaning of language as if language is made up of plantonic ideals and in the next sentence you say that everything is just a map and therefore there’s no such thing as the meaning.
That’s internally inconsistent.
As far as the substance goes, you argue against “is_a” statements and that “A is not B” when that isn’t claimed. The claim is “A references B”. Reference is a concept that’s distinct from identity (“is_a”).
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 in this very moment, you couldn’t be the neurons which you are seeing. You are constant, you can become aware of the neurons which you observing somehow, but you know that it’s not you. Even if you somehow could look into your brain, there would always be a middle-man, a mirror, a computer, screen, the software that runs the computer and so forth.
If you exclude all of which you think is you, you will be left with you, no doubt. By that, I mean truly excluding all the senses, thoughts and everything which you think is you. All non-constants. You do not change. The body changes, thoughts changes, senses, feelings changes. You cannot be something which changes, you can become aware of the changes.
When you have increased your awareness in this way, and after you have excluded everything you think is you (including the I thought) and in desperation, your brain will finally show you who you are. Which might be the arational.
Speculation:
Being arational does not require a map, even if some may call it “void” “nothingness” “nothing and everything” or the experience “enlightenment”. Since you become arational, you were and already are everything. Technically, you are your environment and the environment doesn’t exist or revolve around a “you” I think, from neurophilosophy or something.
When talking subjective experiences of experiencing things, whatever it is might actually be objective.
Now these are extraordinary claims which for me is speculation, it is a map like any other and I was just thinking out loud, even if it might not be relevant to the discussion. Sorry about that.
Noticing that you don’t understand is a good first step. It’s usually required for learning. Learning is hard when one already thinks one understands. In rationalist terms that’s the skill of “noticing confusion”
In the same way, you wouldn’t buy an expensive object if you already had said expensive object, because you think you already have something, you don’t think you need something.
Basically you argue that there the meaning of language as if language is made up of plantonic ideals and in the next sentence you say that everything is just a map and therefore there’s no such thing as the meaning. That’s internally inconsistent.
I don’t understand again, I mean that language is a map, all communication, every letter, every word, it’s a human projection. I t ′ s a h u m a n p r o j e c t i o n a n d n o t t t r u e .
As far as the substance goes, you argue against “is_a” statements and that “A is not B” when that isn’t claimed. The claim is “A references B”. Reference is a concept that’s distinct from identity (“is_a”).
I understand that everything is a reference, and some might not think about it. But what’s the different between “is x” and “references to x” it’s just a shortcut to say “is x”? Even if “is x” might be argued is flawed, like you think I mean, so the counter argument is “I reference to x, which means, is x in my language” but what I mean is that everything is a map, human projection, reference or not. The arational exists outside of reasoning etc.
Arational is independent of reasoning and understanding. It is what it is, any map is not the arational.
Are you advocating cartesian dualism?
That’s a logical conclusion, a map. You haven’t seen your own neurons and even if you could in this very moment, you couldn’t be the neurons which you are seeing.
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 understand again, I mean that language is a map, all communication, every letter, every word, it’s a human projection. I t ′ s a h u m a n p r o j e c t i o n a n d n o t t t r u e .
You seem to have an understanding of what’s true is supposed to mean that you unquestioningly accept. A concept that you learned as a child and where you now get into trouble because it doesn’t matches the complex reality.
The problem is the concept that you have in your head.
The fact that the concepts inside your head doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean that other people can’t reason and don’t mean something useful when they speak of truth.
But what’s the different between “is x” and “references to x” it’s just a shortcut to say “is x”?
References is a different concept than identity and “is”. It’s a concept that you currently don’t seem to understand.
In computer programming it’s different to store a pointer than to store a variable that contains it’s own data. Can you follow the analogy in the realm of computers?
No, non-dualism where the territory is what you are and all maps are simply human projections. But by direct experience, not by writing of it, you, actually investigating yourself.
You confuse ontology and epistology. It might not be possible for me to prove that I’m made up of neurons but that doesn’t mean that I’m not made up of neurons. You can’t go from one to the other easily.
I don’t know, but still is the neurons a map within the territory? With my claim that you are the territory, by direct experience of it yourself, (not objective, subjective).
You seem to have an understanding of what’s true is supposed to mean that you unquestioningly accept. A concept that you learned as a child and where you now get into trouble because it doesn’t matches the complex reality. The problem is the concept that you have in your head.
The fact that the concepts inside your head doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean that other people can’t reason and don’t mean something useful when they speak of truth.
True in relation to the arational. One small truth over the other is irrelvant to the larger picture, but within the picture they are. But it’s only subjective experience, by the nature of this investigation.
References is a different concept than identity and “is”. It’s a concept that you currently don’t seem to understand.
In computer programming it’s different to store a pointer than to store a variable that contains it’s own data. Can you follow the analogy in the realm of computers?
That’s a clarification, but regardless it is quite irrelevant to what we’re discussing I think (or what I want to discuss).
That’s a clarification, but regardless it is quite irrelevant to what we’re discussing I think (or what I want to discuss).
It’s relevant to the concept of what a reference happens to be. Of course if you are not interested in learning that or discussing it, than there’s no reason to talk about it.
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.
In dualism the maps in my head and what I am on a physical level are independent. In the physicalist view of the world the maps in our heads are dependent on neuron wiring patterns.
You seem to argue that the dualist view is true. Otherwise you don’t get your independence.
You speak of an reality that’s rationalist being independent from one that’s arational. If they are truly independent you have at least a dualist view (and possible more categories).
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 “you” existing, you have merged.
Of course it requires you to do the work, and it’s probably going to take a long time to give up the map of “you”, I haven’t done it myself.
You seem to be strongly attached to whether or not something exist and the binary classification of something either existing or not.
Of course it requires you to do the work, and it’s probably going to take a long time to give up the map of “you”,
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 argument resolves around you yourself having a wrong map that you haven’t given up. As a practical matter it’s questionable whether you are even at the moment on a course that leads in a direction of giving it up, but that would be a debate about spiritual guidance.
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 you haven’t given up. As a practical matter it’s questionable whether you are even at the moment on a course that leads in a direction of giving it up, but that would be a debate about spiritual guidance.
Of course, I am becoming more aware of it. I do think that I am on the course of giving it up, one can give it up at any moment, but it might just happen randomly.
My argument also revolves around placing you and others on the path.
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.
There are two aspects here. One is responsibility: if you do “place” people on a path, you assume some. You do, don’t you? The other one is knowing what you are talking about. You are a pseudonymous handle on the ’net. Is there a particular reason to believe you have a clue?
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 projection.
That is my assumption, and everything simply is. You are your environment, you do not exist independent and are able to filter out things which you do not like, that’s assuming control and holding onto the belief of the existence of you and all other beliefs.
The other one is knowing what you are talking about. You are a pseudonymous handle on the ’net. Is there a particular reason to believe you have a clue?
I simply give my argument which can be refuted, argued or discussed for and against. After the discussion, you update your map regardless what you choose to do or not. I do, however, speculate that we are self-organizing and if it as if everything is already on the path, by looking back.
You aren’t enlightened are you? It’s unlikely that you aren’t in the trap of the ego otherwise.
Whether you want to use the binary enlightened/unenlightened distinction is up to you.
I’m not a fan of binary classifications.
I’m just saying that you are making assumptions about me that are not true. You likely don’t have preexisting categories for the state in which I happen to be when it comes to my relationship with the self.
My argument also revolves around placing you and others on the path.
Basically you are inspired by an idea and try to preach it to people who think differently and categorize other people on a path where they are less evolved than you are.
In a Buddhist view, that would likely be seen as strong attachment to ego. From the way you are writting it appears like you don’t have self awareness of that fact. The people I know who had samadi experiences are not like that but are generally more self aware of drives like that.
They also generally aren’t attached to binary classfication as much. It also seems that you don’t have awareness of how that issue affects you.
It gives the impression that you think you have read a book and the task is simply about implementing the concepts through work. And maybe through spreeding the gospel. That’s however not how it works. It’s a typical approach for New Agey people and those often don’t get very deep because they treat some knowledge as dogma with prevents letting go of concepts.
That said, I’m not seeking the end that the Buddhist seek. I’m also not saying that anybody should.
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’t have preexisting categories for the state in which I happen to be when it comes to my relationship with the self.
That’s true, it’s only assumptions. I assume you have ego because I have it, because I think a lot have it and here as well. It seems to be such a norm. But I don’t know how to spot it outside of my own assumptions from experience. Maybe some MRI scans have seen this ‘self’-hallucination.
In a discussion, isn’t it possible when someone is making an assumption about you, that you reply it is not true? Is it the case you do not have an ego?
Basically you are inspired by an idea and try to preach it to people who think differently and categorize other people on a path where they are less evolved than you are.
I might be dogmatic in thinking I am more aware of certain things, but that’s just the order of whatever. It’s a paradigm of the ego definitely, transcending it would be interesting.
It can also be the case it doesn’t seem like many can even phantom to understand what I am communicating, or even are able to see everything from their perspective.
In a Buddhist view, that would likely be seen as strong attachment to ego. From the way you are writting it appears like you don’t have self awareness of that fact.
You have to see it from the perspective of ego, an ego lies. By spotting which text is from the ego and thus removing it, I have tricked myself in the process and strengthened my ego. There isn’t a bad part of “I” “you” or anyone else, which is the ego, the whole thing is it. But I do become more aware of my unawareness, and tricking myself in the process. This is hard.
The people I know who had samadi experiences are not like that but are generally more self aware of drives like that. They also generally aren’t attached to binary classfication as much. It also seems that you don’t have awareness of how that issue affects you.
We go to those that are enlightened, they do not come to us. Nothing matters, everything is nothing. Binary classifications is such a non-issue. :)
implementing the concepts through work. And maybe through spreeding the gospel. That’s however not how it works.
I know.
It’s a typical approach for New Agey people and those often don’t get very deep because they treat some knowledge as dogma with prevents letting go of concepts.
That seems like a strawman.
That said, I’m not seeking the end that the Buddhist seek. I’m also not saying that anybody should.
Everything I have said is secular, but I think that you see the world through your own eyes.
Maybe it was because of the word “enlightened/unenlightened/enlightenment”?
That’s true, it’s only assumptions. I assume you have ego because I have it, because I think a lot have it and here as well. It seems to be such a norm.
The problem was that the issue we were talking wasn’t whether I have ego but whether I have a single concept of “I” or self identity. I actually don’t have an attachment to a single concept of self identity but I consciously use different one’s at different times.
We go to those that are enlightened, they do not come to us.
That seems like a familar sentiment, but if that’s what you believe in what brought you here? Why do you think you took a journey to this place? Are you aware of the reasons that brought you here? If so, what do you think they are?
Is there anybody who you consider enlighened and whom you meet in person to learn from them and spent actual time learning from them?
That seems like a strawman.
It’s a general pattern to which some people fall victim.
To what extend you fall victim to it might be more questionable.
Maybe it was because of the word “enlightened/unenlightened/enlightenment”?
It’s because of seeing the state of total detachment as the goal. I don’t see it as a desireable state to sit in a monastery in a state of compassion doing nothing. I see it as a more desirable state to be connected to the world. I like having a mind. It’s useful for dealing with the world.
I also consider the word enlightenment to be no secular word. It also mixes a few different notions. It mixes the state that a person has who can lead a good meditation. Then there’s the notion of ego-detachement. There’s letting go of karma and reaching a samadi experience.
While we are with the samadi experience, in hypnosis circles there a state that get’s described this way called Esdaile state. Esdaile was a doctor who did amputations without anesthetica. I’m not sure to what extend he succeeded putting patients in that state but it’s funny to think of the state of eternal bliss being used for the practical prupose of being able to to amputation surgeries.
I wonder if any rationalist ever heard about “map is not the territory”. /s
Ask a person whether a tree is real. Isn’t that also just a human projection upon the nature?
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.
The LW-style answer would be something like: Yes, I obviously perceive the idea of gravity in my mind (because that’s the only organ I have for perceiving ideas), but it is reasonable to assume that there is something “out there” that causes those perceptions in systematic ways. (I might be living in Matrix, but then “gravity” would refer to the specific law of the Matrix.)
That would probably require having that argument in a shorter written form, with footnotes explaining what did the author actually mean by saying this or that.
Otherwise: inferential distances, illusion of transparency, and all the way words can go wrong. :(
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.
Well, there are probably “rationalists” aware of this or “scientists” as explained early on in the video. The argument is for those who aren’t aware of the “map is not the territory”.
Whether or not it helps someone or doesn’t, that’s hard to know, the like:dislike ratio and comments could be scraped. How this is relevant I don’t understand. You don’t know with a high %, neither do I.
People who take offense probably dislike and click away, or don’t watch the whole video, those who argue against it already failed?
Now you, however, are still perceiving the idea of your, mind, organ and so forth. That’s just other layers deep which you aren’t aware of. Which makes it seem you don’t fully understand the argument: Which is somewhere, something, subjective experience. Whatever is occurring when you’re meditating for example.
But the LW-style answer seems like an agreement: is this true?
The context is found outside the matrix, so anything and everything is out of context.
I want to clarify that writing about these things is equally untrue then the empirical investigation, so we’re both wrong by being in the matrix.
“I’m mapping the trajectory of this planet, yet I understand this is simply a human projection” Of course you can remove the “yet I understand this is simply a human projection” when it’s ever-present.
No. If someone says that gravity is real they usually mean that the word points to is real. Maps reference objects on the terrritory. 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”.
It’s quite typical for lay people to misuse language and overload terms. According to https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant-for-autodidact-physicists it’s a typical issue for lay people who think they made discoveries in physics.
The sleight of hand from going from rational₁ to rational₂ as described by Viliam is also typical for that kind of thinking. It’s interaction with language on a way that’s fundamentally flawed.
Objects is still a map, so is territory, so is this entire sentence. That’s why it’s a matrix. (virtual reality)
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.
“The cat sitting on the mat” is a map. The cat sitting on the mat is territory.
Insisitng that your opponents have an extra pair of quotes around everything, while they insist they don’t have is not much of an argument.
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.
The second sentence contradicts the first. Either there is a territory to be uncovered, or it is not the case that everything is a map.
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.
Our world works in different ways than the movie matrix.
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.
It’s an analogy.
But that doesn’t make it more likely to be true, especially if we are certain it is a human projection.
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?
To judge how likely it is that something is true you first have to understand what’s meant with the claim. Currently you seem to deal with language in a way where you don’t get what’s meant. It’s like tax protestors in the US making claims about what laws are supposed to mean only to get imprisoned by courts when their intepretation of the meaning of language differs from that of other people. It’s the same mechanism.
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 communication.
I don’t understand at all because I am discussing the meaning of language, while you are thinking I am misunderstanding your meaning of your language? Is this the case?
Language is a map, so is saying “Language is a map”. It’s not the territory. Neither is “It’s not the territory”. Neither is “Neither is “It’s not the territory”.” and so forth.
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.
I’m made up of neurons that exist in the physical world.
Noticing that you don’t understand is a good first step. It’s usually required for learning. Learning is hard when one already thinks one understands. In rationalist terms that’s the skill of “noticing confusion”.
Basically you argue that there the meaning of language as if language is made up of plantonic ideals and in the next sentence you say that everything is just a map and therefore there’s no such thing as the meaning. That’s internally inconsistent.
As far as the substance goes, you argue against “is_a” statements and that “A is not B” when that isn’t claimed. The claim is “A references B”. Reference is a concept that’s distinct from identity (“is_a”).
Arational is independent of reasoning and understanding. It is what it is, any map is not the arational.
That’s a logical conclusion, a map. You haven’t seen your own neurons and even if you could in this very moment, you couldn’t be the neurons which you are seeing. You are constant, you can become aware of the neurons which you observing somehow, but you know that it’s not you. Even if you somehow could look into your brain, there would always be a middle-man, a mirror, a computer, screen, the software that runs the computer and so forth.
If you exclude all of which you think is you, you will be left with you, no doubt. By that, I mean truly excluding all the senses, thoughts and everything which you think is you. All non-constants. You do not change. The body changes, thoughts changes, senses, feelings changes. You cannot be something which changes, you can become aware of the changes.
When you have increased your awareness in this way, and after you have excluded everything you think is you (including the I thought) and in desperation, your brain will finally show you who you are. Which might be the arational.
Speculation: Being arational does not require a map, even if some may call it “void” “nothingness” “nothing and everything” or the experience “enlightenment”. Since you become arational, you were and already are everything. Technically, you are your environment and the environment doesn’t exist or revolve around a “you” I think, from neurophilosophy or something.
When talking subjective experiences of experiencing things, whatever it is might actually be objective.
Now these are extraordinary claims which for me is speculation, it is a map like any other and I was just thinking out loud, even if it might not be relevant to the discussion. Sorry about that.
In the same way, you wouldn’t buy an expensive object if you already had said expensive object, because you think you already have something, you don’t think you need something.
I don’t understand again, I mean that language is a map, all communication, every letter, every word, it’s a human projection. I t ′ s a h u m a n p r o j e c t i o n a n d n o t t t r u e .
I understand that everything is a reference, and some might not think about it. But what’s the different between “is x” and “references to x” it’s just a shortcut to say “is x”? Even if “is x” might be argued is flawed, like you think I mean, so the counter argument is “I reference to x, which means, is x in my language” but what I mean is that everything is a map, human projection, reference or not. The arational exists outside of reasoning etc.
Are you advocating cartesian dualism?
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.
You seem to have an understanding of what’s
trueis supposed to mean that you unquestioningly accept. A concept that you learned as a child and where you now get into trouble because it doesn’t matches the complex reality. The problem is the concept that you have in your head.The fact that the concepts inside your head doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean that other people can’t reason and don’t mean something useful when they speak of truth.
References is a different concept than identity and “is”. It’s a concept that you currently don’t seem to understand.
In computer programming it’s different to store a pointer than to store a variable that contains it’s own data. Can you follow the analogy in the realm of computers?
Sounds to me more like the Vedantic monism of self-is-all, to me.
Vedantic monism doesn’t have independence but ‘everything is connected’.
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.
I don’t know, but still is the neurons a map within the territory? With my claim that you are the territory, by direct experience of it yourself, (not objective, subjective).
True in relation to the arational. One small truth over the other is irrelvant to the larger picture, but within the picture they are. But it’s only subjective experience, by the nature of this investigation.
That’s a clarification, but regardless it is quite irrelevant to what we’re discussing I think (or what I want to discuss).
It’s relevant to the concept of what a reference happens to be. Of course if you are not interested in learning that or discussing it, than there’s no reason to talk about it.
In dualism the maps in my head and what I am on a physical level are independent. In the physicalist view of the world the maps in our heads are dependent on neuron wiring patterns. You seem to argue that the dualist view is true. Otherwise you don’t get your independence.
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
You speak of an reality that’s rationalist being independent from one that’s arational. If they are truly independent you have at least a dualist view (and possible more categories).
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 “you” existing, you have merged.
Of course it requires you to do the work, and it’s probably going to take a long time to give up the map of “you”, I haven’t done it myself.
You seem to be strongly attached to whether or not something exist and the binary classification of something either existing or not.
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 argument resolves around you yourself having a wrong map that you haven’t given up. As a practical matter it’s questionable whether you are even at the moment on a course that leads in a direction of giving it up, but that would be a debate about spiritual guidance.
No, I think it’s unlikely, however.
You aren’t enlightened are you? It’s unlikely that you aren’t in the trap of the ego otherwise.
Of course, I am becoming more aware of it. I do think that I am on the course of giving it up, one can give it up at any moment, but it might just happen randomly.
My argument also revolves around placing you and others on the path.
What makes you think you’re qualified to place others on specific paths?
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.
There are two aspects here. One is responsibility: if you do “place” people on a path, you assume some. You do, don’t you? The other one is knowing what you are talking about. You are a pseudonymous handle on the ’net. Is there a particular reason to believe you have a clue?
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 projection.
That is my assumption, and everything simply is. You are your environment, you do not exist independent and are able to filter out things which you do not like, that’s assuming control and holding onto the belief of the existence of you and all other beliefs.
I simply give my argument which can be refuted, argued or discussed for and against. After the discussion, you update your map regardless what you choose to do or not. I do, however, speculate that we are self-organizing and if it as if everything is already on the path, by looking back.
Whether you want to use the binary enlightened/unenlightened distinction is up to you. I’m not a fan of binary classifications.
I’m just saying that you are making assumptions about me that are not true. You likely don’t have preexisting categories for the state in which I happen to be when it comes to my relationship with the self.
Basically you are inspired by an idea and try to preach it to people who think differently and categorize other people on a path where they are less evolved than you are. In a Buddhist view, that would likely be seen as strong attachment to ego. From the way you are writting it appears like you don’t have self awareness of that fact. The people I know who had samadi experiences are not like that but are generally more self aware of drives like that. They also generally aren’t attached to binary classfication as much. It also seems that you don’t have awareness of how that issue affects you.
It gives the impression that you think you have read a book and the task is simply about implementing the concepts through work. And maybe through spreeding the gospel. That’s however not how it works. It’s a typical approach for New Agey people and those often don’t get very deep because they treat some knowledge as dogma with prevents letting go of concepts.
That said, I’m not seeking the end that the Buddhist seek. I’m also not saying that anybody should.
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.
That’s true, it’s only assumptions. I assume you have ego because I have it, because I think a lot have it and here as well. It seems to be such a norm. But I don’t know how to spot it outside of my own assumptions from experience. Maybe some MRI scans have seen this ‘self’-hallucination.
In a discussion, isn’t it possible when someone is making an assumption about you, that you reply it is not true? Is it the case you do not have an ego?
I might be dogmatic in thinking I am more aware of certain things, but that’s just the order of whatever. It’s a paradigm of the ego definitely, transcending it would be interesting.
It can also be the case it doesn’t seem like many can even phantom to understand what I am communicating, or even are able to see everything from their perspective.
You have to see it from the perspective of ego, an ego lies. By spotting which text is from the ego and thus removing it, I have tricked myself in the process and strengthened my ego. There isn’t a bad part of “I” “you” or anyone else, which is the ego, the whole thing is it. But I do become more aware of my unawareness, and tricking myself in the process. This is hard.
We go to those that are enlightened, they do not come to us. Nothing matters, everything is nothing. Binary classifications is such a non-issue. :)
I know.
That seems like a strawman.
Everything I have said is secular, but I think that you see the world through your own eyes.
Maybe it was because of the word “enlightened/unenlightened/enlightenment”?
The problem was that the issue we were talking wasn’t whether I have ego but whether I have a single concept of “I” or self identity. I actually don’t have an attachment to a single concept of self identity but I consciously use different one’s at different times.
That seems like a familar sentiment, but if that’s what you believe in what brought you here? Why do you think you took a journey to this place? Are you aware of the reasons that brought you here? If so, what do you think they are?
Is there anybody who you consider enlighened and whom you meet in person to learn from them and spent actual time learning from them?
It’s a general pattern to which some people fall victim. To what extend you fall victim to it might be more questionable.
It’s because of seeing the state of total detachment as the goal. I don’t see it as a desireable state to sit in a monastery in a state of compassion doing nothing. I see it as a more desirable state to be connected to the world. I like having a mind. It’s useful for dealing with the world.
I also consider the word enlightenment to be no secular word. It also mixes a few different notions. It mixes the state that a person has who can lead a good meditation. Then there’s the notion of ego-detachement. There’s letting go of karma and reaching a samadi experience.
While we are with the samadi experience, in hypnosis circles there a state that get’s described this way called Esdaile state. Esdaile was a doctor who did amputations without anesthetica. I’m not sure to what extend he succeeded putting patients in that state but it’s funny to think of the state of eternal bliss being used for the practical prupose of being able to to amputation surgeries.