In other words, even the most evolved adherents of mainstream Buddhism will not have agency over the contents of their beliefs (i.e. need to skip parts of what is roughly Kegan's stage 4)?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Stage 4, if I understand Kegan correctly, just means you have a system. Any system. It can be completely bogus. The Buddhist systems are completely bogus, imo.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Perhaps I don't understand Kegan correctly, but imho stage 4 marks the departure from externally assimilated beliefs to internally constructed ones, and that necessary involves the exploration of the criteria for valid beliefs? (Not that I want to discuss Kegan exegetics here.)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Oh, I see, interesting! Yes, I can see how you could interpret it that way. But my understanding is that generally the system you adopt at stage 4 is one that is publicly available.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Stage 4 does give you more control, because you do take beliefs and emotions as object, rather than subject. However, your self (subject) is structured by principles you take over from your culture; you can’t construct those from scratch.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Rationalism/empiricism is one possible stage 4 structure.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Could you somehow prove that there is no optimal learning theory, or do you derive your rejection of rationalism just from your difficulty to find it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
There can be no absolute proofs about anything in the macroscopic world. However, there are stronger and weaker arguments. And there are strong reasons to think there can be no optimal learning theory…
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
So let us make it narrower: given only a finite set of observations, each a finitely resolved bit vector, do you think someone is going to be able to prove that there can be no algorithm that has a higher likelihood to correctly predict the next observation than any other?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
As I said: there are no proofs outside of mathematics. If these are genuinely observations, we are outside the scope of mathematics. That said: if the “observations” are produced by an adversarial hypercomputational oracle, then probably yeah you can prove no algorithm wins.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Yes, we can show that there may be worlds that maliciously change the rules. Can we prove that the algorithm could not figure that possibility out? (I am ignoring worlds that sabotage your mental state because you cannot be rational if your mind breaks.)
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.