In this case I think you’re actually wrong, it’s not a divergence, it’s a disagreement. I understand what your position is, I just don’t think it is correct 😀
And it’s not just you and me, there are 2 entire tribes divided by this question.
Conversation
Replying to
I mean specifically on this question of consciousness as 2nd order simulation. Other stuff, sure we diverge. I’m all for Divergentism.
Neurodiversity ftw and everybody doesn’t have to process things the same way. I think I understand, and am understood by, about 10% of minds,.
1
1
Replying to
That is not a bad quota for someone who thinks a lot. I suspect that you focus on being a publicist more than on being a philosopher?
1
Replying to
That was not my intention. I am not prescriptive, I am just trying to understand your motivation.
1
1
I noticed that I prize meaning over relevance. Relevance is backed up by the promise of an actual, material reward. Since I don't seem to see the value of actual rewards (why should I strive for them?), I appear to need a transcendental, terminal reward anticipation.
1
2
From my perspective, your thinking often appears to stop two steps before the actual summit, and then take off in a different direction. That does not mean that this is objectively true, but perhaps that I measure the height of the reward landscape differently.
1
3
Replying to
Oh, no! That was not an understanding of how you operate, only a characterization of the observation, which results from projecting your actions on my own surface. I don't yet see WHY you seem to stop and deviate, for which I possibly need a meta-perspective.
2
Replying to
I’m flattered and amused that anyone cares to deconstruct my thinking at all. That kind of attention is generally reserved for the Trumps, Petersons and Einsteins.
Now if I could get a dozen more people trying to figure out my 8d chess, things could get very interesting 🤔
1
1
Show replies

