Yes, the latter is the identification with extrapersonal purposes, the former a tool to achieve convergence.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Extrapersonal is difficult to define when the only thing that separates us from the rest of the cosmos is a skin and the perception of individual consciousness.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RitaJKing
It turns out that our minds and our organisms don't exist on the same plane. We are not social primates, we just happen to run on the brain of one of them. We are only partially and sketchily identified with the organism itself and identify with/regulate many things outside of it
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
Not even really primates, more like canvases for bacteria and viruses.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RitaJKing
I don't buy the strong microbiome puppeteering hypothesis, if that is what you are alluding to. The microbiome is probably more like a coevolving bioreactor that we need to produce precursors of several of our neurotransmitters (among many other things).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
But purity and corruption are sometimes hard to distinguish when it comes to coevolution. Imagine where we'd be without mitochondria.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RitaJKing
They don't refer to an objective truth, and only appear relative to a suitable systemic decomposition. You can also say that you are the representative of the set of parasites that have convinced you that they are you.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
Does anything other than mathematics refer to an objective truth?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RitaJKing
I suspect that any universe that produces regular patterns must have a ground truth. Embedded observers cannot recognize whether their models match the groundtruth, but they may be able to map the (infinite) space of theories that can explain the observations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
The anthropologist's dilemma applies equally to the universe in which the observers serve as agents of the cosmos itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Fortunately a cosmos with agency is a figment of the imagination of its agents.
-
-
-
Replying to @RitaJKing
If we can in principle have no evidence then we must have no confidence. All actions and beliefs based on nonzero confidence in cosmic agency are therefore refering to a fantasy, regardless of the actual groundtruth.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 14 more replies
New conversation -
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.