Conversation

Replying to
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.
1
1
Replying to
That is hard to say for me! Many of the deep, insightful things you say and that appear to be working and useful for you don't seem to work in my own system. I probably need refutations from folks that use a demonstrably compatible ontology. You could try with a detailed message.
1
1
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 and
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
Replying to and
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
It is empirically accurate, modulo a sort of optical illusion that doesn’t matter, and a bit of projection, which is 10x better than most people ever understand anyone. You’d be able to predict my actions pretty well with that model. Probably only need a small shell script 😆
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