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,.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
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 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @vgr
That was not my intention. I am not prescriptive, I am just trying to understand your motivation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I’m fine with that perception of my behavior/thinking
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Plinz
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
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 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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 
-
-
Replying to @vgr
The reason for the lack of interest of the crowds in your mortal toil is that you don't do very interesting things. In your attempts at relevance you seem to limit yourself to what's permissible. Trump and Peterson operate outside of what's permitted (which makes success harder).
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
So the actual mystery here is why you’re trying to figure me out at all. There’s really not much to figure out, so my theory is it bothers you to see unexplained divergence. It doesn’t bother me because I think divergence is the default and convergence is what needs explaining
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 10 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.
