Conversation

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
been thinking in a similar direction recently, coming from dissatisfaction with object-oriented approaches to qualia - qualia are not objects, they lack critical properties of objects, e.g. permanence
1
1
Replying to and
object-oriented approaches are useful when dealing with consensus reality because they map neatly to symbols. Symbolic thought and language are natural tools for negotiating the contents of consensus reality. But they fail when it comes to the contents of minds
1
1
Replying to and
throwing out object-oriented ontology altogether seems unwise though, body-oriented ontology is bad at establishing consensus since people feel very differently, it's a right-tool-for-the-job situation
1
1
Replying to and
open questions: - what's the best interface between the different worlds - what does an egregore's ontology/reality look like, and should we humans care about how it interacts with consensus reality
1