I think that I'm sweeping out the detritus in the collective workshop to reveal the mosaic on the floor.
-
-
Replying to @S33light @CateTiernan
Collecting everything that could be true is only one half of the thought process. The other half is about throwing everything away that is not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
I think that is what I am doing - throwing away untrue assumptions linking sensation to 'minds' and 'self' because they don't survive Occam's Razor. I think Descartes didn't go far enough. Thinking does not prove "I am", but it does prove 'thought (sense-making sensation) "is"'.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @S33light @CateTiernan
Descartes makes incredible sense if his ideas are not read as ontological but phenomenological descriptions. Our mind does indeed represent res extensa (a physics engine full of moving stuff in an all-encompassing 3space) and res cogitans (other mental content) in different ways.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
I agree. In his terms, the split between Res Ext and Res Cog exists only in Res Cog. In my terms, the split exists in a deeper monism of 'Res Aesthetica'. The monism isnt truly 'neutral' IMO, because it is aesthetic (metaphenomenological), not physical or logical (anesthetic).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The crucial re-orientation I propose is seeing the appearance of dualism not as subjective/phenom or objective/ontological but as a reflection how local phenom experience is nested/diffracted within unbounded phenom experience. Extensa is a graphing of Holos as seen by Holos Jr.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @S33light @CateTiernan
It appears that you employ a mode of thought that is consistently overfitting. Are you possibly constructing patterns where there are not required by the observables, just because they are consistent with what you already hold to be true?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
I have different observables. From my perspective your sense of my overfitting is biased by what you (and most other highly intelligent but analytical thinkers) already think is true. I think that the universe is fundamentally based on overfitting.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @S33light @CateTiernan
I don’t think that we have different observables at all. I think I can see the logic by which you get to your interpretations, based on an associative model generation that is unreliable where it should be augmented with analytical proofs.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
I trust that you are aware my critique of that logic is impersonal. I have complete respect for you, and for analytic proofs as well.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Likewise, I argue from a position of full personal respect.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.