I was referring to the identification of the operating system with the internal dialogue that I see in the article. But you are making a further point.
Sorry if I gave that impression. I don’t equate operating system to internal dialogue, FWIW.
Yes, I must have gotten the wrong impression. Would you say it is fair of me to say that you are putting emphasis on the internal dialogue, as you refer to it, when you talk about ‘thinking about thinking’?
Maybe I can try to articulate better what gives me the impression of us talking from different perspectives. I feel that you are putting emphasis on thinking in a meta level when I consider even more important going out of thought itself to get an even better view of the human mind. That is not to say that thinking should stop or that meta thinking is not really useful. It is just my view that for people like me (us?), who are obsessed with rational analysis to the point of using it as a source of pleasure here in LW, taking long breaks from intellectual analysis is essential.
Resolve as a worldview, which is very Nietzschean in nature and focused on human determination and Actually Trying.
The sorts of paradigms used in meditation, where you’re focused on awareness of your bodily sensations and are trying to cultivate a general sense of “this is where I am” and other things I’m more unfamiliar with.
Now my claim is that none of the paradigms (i.e. “operating systems”) are incorrect, but rather, they can all be useful abstractions for thinking about how your mind works, and using each one as a basis for creating “rationality techniques” can source skills that look very different from one another.
Ok, I have to switch gears a bit. I will try to get into a mode of not arguing towards something but just telling you my thoughts as they are; as an experiment in communication. If you find this unhelpful feel free to ignore my comment!
I see what you are saying and I am wondering; what am I arguing about? Our exchange gives me a sense of being vague. As if we are not communicating properly and there isn’t a clear focus on what we are talking about. I think this might be because of the vagueness of my original criticism. After some reflection on my previous comments, and reading some of your links, I can express my disagreement as:
Articulating concepts is obviously useful. But this has been done by people for centuries. There are a few possibilities:
[1] No culture has in the past reach the level of understanding we have at the moment so this is the time to create new concepts that would allow us to understand humans. By us I mean me and you in this discussions.
[2] The material is out there and is constantly maintained by the people that have the knowledge.
It seems that in my belief system I have reached the conclusion that [2] is the case.
(If you are getting ‘evangelist’ alert I assure you this is not going to happen. Also to reiterate: I am not religious)
So, to sum up. It is my belief that you are trying to reinvent the wheel here. I am aware that stating something like that without offering solutions and material is kind of a shitty argument. But hey, now you know something about what I really think...
Ah, no worries! I agree that what I am doing has already been invented in some form or another (see NLP). I take it as a given that what I’m writing here may already be articulated by other people in a much more informative way.
My general goals here are to illustrate what I believe, and if people see connections to existing concepts, I’m happy if they point out “hey, lifelonglearner, this idea is already a thing in the form of concept X!”, because then I can read more on it.
My general goals here are to illustrate what I believe, and if people see connections to existing concepts, I’m happy if they point out “hey, lifelonglearner, this idea is already a thing in the form of concept X!”, because then I can read more on it.
I think that is a great use of humility! I am attempting to do the same :)
Sorry if I gave that impression. I don’t equate operating system to internal dialogue, FWIW.
Yes, I must have gotten the wrong impression. Would you say it is fair of me to say that you are putting emphasis on the internal dialogue, as you refer to it, when you talk about ‘thinking about thinking’?
Maybe I can try to articulate better what gives me the impression of us talking from different perspectives. I feel that you are putting emphasis on thinking in a meta level when I consider even more important going out of thought itself to get an even better view of the human mind. That is not to say that thinking should stop or that meta thinking is not really useful. It is just my view that for people like me (us?), who are obsessed with rational analysis to the point of using it as a source of pleasure here in LW, taking long breaks from intellectual analysis is essential.
Hmmm, I think that meta-level thinking = 1 form of an operating system.
I think that operating system = the sorts of mental concepts you believe are atomic, the things which make up your internal picture of your mind.
Other potential operating systems:
Your feelings as a data trove, where all your feelings form an important part of your worldvliew
Resolve as a worldview, which is very Nietzschean in nature and focused on human determination and Actually Trying.
The sorts of paradigms used in meditation, where you’re focused on awareness of your bodily sensations and are trying to cultivate a general sense of “this is where I am” and other things I’m more unfamiliar with.
Now my claim is that none of the paradigms (i.e. “operating systems”) are incorrect, but rather, they can all be useful abstractions for thinking about how your mind works, and using each one as a basis for creating “rationality techniques” can source skills that look very different from one another.
Ok, I have to switch gears a bit. I will try to get into a mode of not arguing towards something but just telling you my thoughts as they are; as an experiment in communication. If you find this unhelpful feel free to ignore my comment!
I see what you are saying and I am wondering; what am I arguing about? Our exchange gives me a sense of being vague. As if we are not communicating properly and there isn’t a clear focus on what we are talking about. I think this might be because of the vagueness of my original criticism. After some reflection on my previous comments, and reading some of your links, I can express my disagreement as:
Articulating concepts is obviously useful. But this has been done by people for centuries. There are a few possibilities:
[1] No culture has in the past reach the level of understanding we have at the moment so this is the time to create new concepts that would allow us to understand humans. By us I mean me and you in this discussions.
[2] The material is out there and is constantly maintained by the people that have the knowledge.
It seems that in my belief system I have reached the conclusion that [2] is the case.
(If you are getting ‘evangelist’ alert I assure you this is not going to happen. Also to reiterate: I am not religious)
So, to sum up. It is my belief that you are trying to reinvent the wheel here. I am aware that stating something like that without offering solutions and material is kind of a shitty argument. But hey, now you know something about what I really think...
Ah, no worries! I agree that what I am doing has already been invented in some form or another (see NLP). I take it as a given that what I’m writing here may already be articulated by other people in a much more informative way.
My general goals here are to illustrate what I believe, and if people see connections to existing concepts, I’m happy if they point out “hey, lifelonglearner, this idea is already a thing in the form of concept X!”, because then I can read more on it.
I think that is a great use of humility! I am attempting to do the same :)