reguru

Karma: −55

reguru Sep 12, 2016, 9:22 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

Are you advocating cartesian dualism?

No, non-dualism where the territory is what you are and all maps are simply human projections. But by direct experience, not by writing of it, you, actually investigating yourself.

You confuse ontology and epistology. It might not be possible for me to prove that I’m made up of neurons but that doesn’t mean that I’m not made up of neurons. You can’t go from one to the other easily.

I don’t know, but still is the neurons a map within the territory? With my claim that you are the territory, by direct experience of it 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).

reguru Sep 12, 2016, 6:57 PM
−1 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

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.

About the video? Okay, sorry.

reguru Sep 12, 2016, 4:15 PM
−2 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Open thread, Sep. 12 - Sep. 18, 2016

First, you should probably read the documents we refer to as the Sequences before you try to “correct” us.

There’s plenty of others who disagree with you, I think, based on my experience writing with others here.

We all know this.

Yet a lot don’t really know it, by that I mean actually experiencing. (no absolute truth I get it, but let’s not make maps without understanding that we are)

You seem to be referring to meditative states. A lot of us do this, for various reasons. It really has little to do with rationality or arationality. Quieting down and dissociating from one’s thoughts certainly helps with clear thinking.

The meditative state is always the case, of course, we may practice meditation more intensely. Not being attached to thoughts is baseline in my opinion, if it can be done for oneself.

Just because you’re in a meditative state of thoughtlessness doesn’t mean that you’re doing anything beyond engaging with yet another set of maps.

That’s not correct during the meditative state? The state can be constant.

Again, lots of us meditate, and we’re all about beauty. Not sure where you’re getting this perspective.

I’m sure that’s likely, but there can be a lot more to meditation we think, trying to understand who we truly are and what is actually more likely to be the truth?

I see buried in here a sales pitch for engaging in some kind of meditative or mindfulness practice. I admit that the foundational documents of Less Wrong don’t explicitly advocate for taking up meditation, but it’s a popular community topic.

It’s increasing awareness so we can less be attached to the map of our maps and so forth. It’s like a layer on top of it all in my opinion, while simply being as it is.

reguru Sep 12, 2016, 3:06 PM
−1 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Open thread, Sep. 12 - Sep. 18, 2016
I highly doubt so from my experience, although I can see why it should be. It’s so obvious that it is not obvious. Maybe.

reguru Sep 12, 2016, 2:23 PM
−1 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

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.

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.

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.

reguru Sep 12, 2016, 11:43 AM
−4 points
on: Open thread, Sep. 12 - Sep. 18, 2016
A lot of things have you confused the territory being the map.

For example, that you exist, is a map.

That there is a being there, creature of some kind, it’s a map.

That you have a brain.

Every. Single. Word. Is A Map.

What is the territory?

Become silent of all thoughts, without using thoughts to manipulate or lie, neither using thoughts not to manipulate or lie.

You think you are in control, thus the flow of life doesn’t flow effortlessly. :)

But it’s fine to let go, and be present in this moment, where there, you are, the territory, which is arational.

There will be no reason for reasoning or understanding, it is arational.

It is always the case, whether you think about it or not. I can welcome you in to see for yourself, there’s a lot of beauty to be had.

Please don’t be dogmatic. Try and see for yourself the possible truth which is right before your eyes, the possible truth that you do not exist, that you, and the possibility that everything else is a fiction. The fiction of the mind.

But you will still be to function, to be able to go to AI conferences and talk about the latest improvements, or talk decision theory or whatever else you have going on in your life. Because the belief that you will lose these things, by becoming more aware, is a trick of the ego. It’s highly improbable.

So go ahead, and see for yourself. Likely though you need to work on yourself, there’s nothing which is more important than the machine which does not come with an instruction manual. That is you. What you think is you. What I mean is the practical you.

reguru Sep 12, 2016, 11:32 AM
0 points
in reply to: MrMind’s comment on: Reality is arational.

1) if gravity is only a map, why it exists outside of our brain? Anyone can have their opinion about gravity, but that doesn’t mean that a different map it’s going to let you fly or have a different acceleration from the correct map;

Gravity is within arational reality, it’s our label whether it is classical or modern physics. Gravity is a human projection. Your brain is a human projection. These things are easy logical conclusions, so should they be easily seen as such?

2) why the brain, who is many, many orders of magnitude above the smallest constituents of reality, should be able to perceive the underlying territory with a simple and undefined things like “silent of all thoughts”?

I don’t really understand what your question is about. Is it about who is capable of understanding the insights provided?

Regardless if I misunderstand, what I said is probably one of the most difficult things to achieve but “silent of all thoughts” was simply an argument, a map, if you do become silent of all thoughts, reality does not disappear. All those thoughts were maps, the present moment is the way it is.

Then some thoughts will sneak in obviously because you can’t really silence all thoughts with thoughts. You just get more thoughts, because you believe you are in control. That is creating maps. You don’t flow with the stream of life, you are resisting.

The brain is a remarkable thing, you should be able to perceive underlying territory at any moment, since that is the way it is. That you understand that “YOU” is a logical conclusion, the same with gravity, anything :)

reguru Sep 11, 2016, 9:27 PM
−2 points
in reply to: fubarobfusco’s comment on: Open Thread, Sept 5. - Sept 11. 2016

If we lived in the kind of universe where learning didn’t help, where drawing more-correct conclusions and fitting your behavior better to the environment didn’t help, then evolution and indeed biological life wouldn’t work either. The kind of world where maps don’t have anything to do with territories is a dead world, one in which there are no maps because becoming a mapper is worthless.

It’s a question of truth, you can be truthful that these things are maps, and yet nothing really changes, except you are meta-aware and no longer ignorant, it takes a radical shift in open-mindedness to see this, and I don’t mean it at all in the way you might think. Because the you, and many others, are so attached to their maps, they are stuck in a lie, in a maximum-security prison forever, but only because they have beliefs and maps.

I do agree with you on these points, it’s obvious, right? I know, but just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean it is the territory, because it’s not, it’s not at all. They are concepts we have, and because of our ego we can’t really let go of it.

You can discover the world, which is not a map, and because you’ll see how obvious this is, there won’t be anything more perfect, not even 1000 x sunsets or 1000 x “aha”-moments can compare.

“Every communication is inaccurate” is inaccurate, but more-or-less true. “Every communication is equally inaccurate” is very much less accurate, to the point of being a flat lie. After all, if communication didn’t work (better than non-communication), then there wouldn’t be any. The existence of falsehoods implies the existence of (relatively accurate) truths, because if there wasn’t such a thing as a truth, then why would we bother making up lies? A lie only fools anyone because they believe it to be a truth.

It depends on what perspective, from the arational they are all the same, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But now I am writing as a map, from the arational. Not the arational itself, it exists beyond reasoning or understanding. Do you understand how different things matter in relation to what?

Communication can work just fine, but it’s still communication, you might believe that some communication is better than others, and it might be the case. But, it’s still what it is in relation to the arational. I don’t see any issue in some extreme rationalist having high expected value +, making excellent decisions, yet still being aware in relational to the arational it is all the same.

The existence of falsehoods implies the existence of (relatively accurate) truths, because if there wasn’t such a thing as a truth, then why would we bother making up lies? A lie only fools anyone because they believe it to be a truth.

Sure, this is obvious, but everything is still the way it is. We’re conditioned to say “THIS IS ME” “IM THIS” “IM SPECIAL” it screams “ego” “identity” and so forth. The universe IS, all of reality IS, and we’re IT.

reguru Sep 11, 2016, 3:57 PM
−2 points
in reply to: entirelyuseless’s comment on: Open Thread, Sept 5. - Sept 11. 2016
It’s because I don’t think the arguments made can be refuted, because of the inherent nature of the subject. It’s like denying subjective experience although that’s all you really have. (from an odd perspective)

I am convinced but I wonder how to properly argument for it, as no one wants to continue to argue. Maybe I want to teach others, but I am not sure if I am lying to myself.

reguru Sep 11, 2016, 12:26 AM
−3 points
on: Open Thread, Sept 5. - Sept 11. 2016
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nwu/reality_is_arational/

-8 Yet still no one being able to refute my arguments.

reguru Sep 10, 2016, 2:45 PM
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

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.

reguru 10 Sep 2016 14:24 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016
All types of communication are the same, it’s a subjective experience which can’t be communicated.

reguru 9 Sep 2016 21:15 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016
So it was a straw man?

reguru 9 Sep 2016 21:14 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: ImNotAsSmartAsIThinK’s comment on: Reality is arational.

“Reality is arational.” is an easily defensible position, though it would take some work to make an idea worth entertaining out of it.

That’s not even following the position, as you already created a map or look to create one.

“Everything you do is arational.” is flatly solipsistic and useless. You must agree that words have meaning, if only subjunctively, by your usage of them. ‘Rational’ means something, and it describes behavior. Behavior is goal-directed, and be judged by how well it achieves those goals. That is what bare rationalism is. If you disagree with this, you’ll need better justifications.

Indeed, if I can remove that I would, because it misses the point, or rather that could be worked on in more detail. But maybe from the context of the arational reality, everything is arational. If you, however, are inside it, some actions may seem superior over other actions.

You seem to be equating awareness with at least three different things, two if that was supposed to be a recursive definition. 1) awareness as total self-knowledge (“you will always lack awareness”) Since this is pure armchair speculation anyway, I’m sure the mere existence of quines makes “You will never reach total awareness” false as a theorectical proposition. 2) awareness as consciousness/the self (“separating thoughts from awareness”) 3) awareness as noticing something (“You can become aware of thoughts,”) 3) your own definition

Lack of awareness means in my opinion, a measurement of awareness, not a separate definition. I don’t think you or I cannot reach “Total awareness” while still thinking within the paradox of limited awareness. Because if I realize my awareness is limited, I become a little more aware, yet on top of that I missed my unawareness. Of course, there’s probably those who has done so and know.

Solipsistic and useless. Useless and solipsistic. Do I need to say it?

How is this refuting any of the arguments made? You either agree or you don’t, then you say why. Useful or uselessness factor is another discussion which I didn’t even bring up I think.

A tip: very little is gained by couching your ideas in this self-aggrandizing, condescending tone. Your over-reliance on second person is also an annoying tic, though some make it work. You don’t, however. You come off as very arrogant and immature, and very few people will bother wading through this. The few that will do it only in hopes of correcting you. If you’re at all interested in improving the quality of your writing, consider, at the very least, reading a few other top level, highly upvoted posts. They do not have these problems, and you’d be served by emulating them.

How is this relevant to any of the ideas made in the post?

I think this is false. Mathematics is interesting precisely because of its non-humanity. The joy of doing mathematics is incommensurate with an imagination of the joy of doing mathematics. The missing ingredient, of course, is the unknown, of discovering something outside yourself. To call it a human projection is to miss the entire point of preforming these actions in the first place, which is curiosity, exploring the unknown.

The argument is that it is a human projection, that reality is arational. I never made the argument that just because something is a human projection doesn’t mean it removes any positive connotations. You just are aware that it is a human projection, and that it is fine to be that way. (according to the argument)

I can’t see why it would be the case.

The “map/territory” dichotomy is just another map, as you yourself said. In reality, there is only atoms and the void. Self/other, subject/object are all a part of reality itself, and the delineation is only useful, never necessary.

Atom is a map. The void is a map. One can be invited to the void, yet speaking of it or finding it, was a map. Then one can notice one was there all along.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

You couldn’t find a counter-argument to my claim. Because by silencing thoughts you realize that reality does not cease to exist, even of patterns and such. A map of neural pathways is still a map, for example, because it is a thought.

It does not need a map, it simply exists as an experience, which is the point of my post. So maps are not the territory, literally.

you cannot

Of course, you can, by realizing everything is a map, except the territory which cannot have a map, be explained, communicated, in any way.

The arational has no perspective, because it is not the type of thing to have perspectives. Reality has no mind, no agency.

When mapping things, it might be relevant to have the arational in the equation as well (metaphorically speaking) as a means to have a wider perspective.

Reality is, however, patterned and models exploit this patterning.

Reality is arational. Patterns and models may project their view and believe that they are exploiting the arational, while they are actually fooling themselves without realizing it is a projection.

Suppose one person (call her Alice) choose to act as if there exists models better than other models, while another person (call him Bob) chooses to not do this. One may object to using words like ‘true’ or ‘accurate’ to describe their approaches, but there is a certain quality the former would have that the latter does not. The former may make a habit ingesting certain objects, or preforming pointless tasks for useless trinkets. The other would object that ‘hunger’ and ‘money’ are just models and no model is better than another. These approaches lead to certain outcomes. Again, one might not like describing one as ‘true’ and the other as ‘false’, but there is a certain pattern there to be found there.

Which is a projection, it cannot be anything other than a projection. It’s perfectly okay to discuss things while being meta-aware the discussions are projections, this is not the argument.

While I’m sure there are many people here who enjoy puzzles, obscurantism is frowned upon. The social contract of lesswrong is the opposite of your epigram: “What’s the point of this post?” You have to figure that out on your own. It’s not our job, but yours. I don’t doubt you have some insight here. I’m sure it could even be couched into a post fit for this community. But you have to do the job of filtering your thoughts, crafting your posts and hoping against hope you didn’t make an embarrassing mistake.

The insight can only be witnessed through empirical investigation. Because of the nature of this insight, it cannot be communicated. The last part was to invite you to see reality for what it is.

reguru 9 Sep 2016 18:03 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

I don’t know what that means.

The truth that the map is not reality, without adding another map, by direct, subjective experience. This is a map.

You don’t claim direct unmediated access to the underlying reality, do you?

Assumption or strawman?

reguru 9 Sep 2016 16:54 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

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”

Reality is arational.

reguru9 Sep 2016 16:08 UTC

−14 points

7 comments1 min readLW link

reguru 9 Sep 2016 15:38 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

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.

reguru 9 Sep 2016 15:22 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016
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.

reguru 9 Sep 2016 15:20 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016

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.

reguru

Real­ity is ara­tional.

Reality is arational.