… well, thank you for the offer, but that’s inconvenient for many reasons, and in any case don’t you think that it would benefit many people (certainly it would benefit me!) to have an explanation in text, publicly available? Surely whatever you’d say, you can write down, yes? I would greatly appreciate it!
I can’t write it down because the explaining is a deliberate pointing to a thing that is a wordless experience.
There’s a koan. A monk jumps in a river in the morning and the afternoon. Different monk, different river.
Part of “me explaining to you” include “me” and “you”. That means that the explanation that helps you “may” help other people. But you have repeatedly demonstrated your stubbornness to pick up a message that has been sent over and over and over. So the message that helps you is going to have to be tailored for your experience, understanding and present knowledge.
I’ve never used the same string of words to give the same explanation twice. And yet I’ve explained this thing to 20? 30? More people.
If you want to know, you have to start building your own definition. That means you may need to do your own research and build your own map. I can’t do the “build your own map” for you because that would be me building a map, and not you building a map.
You are watching a movie metaphorically in all everyday experiences. The jitters allows you to see the frame rate, pause the movie between frames and break from the version of reality that you are trapped in by watching a movie.
This relates to rationality because the movie lies sometimes and seeing the truth of reality is way easier when you stop seeing the movie as reality.
Cognitive jitters is demonstrated in that gif. When reality flickers. Brains are designed to deliver experiences of permanence like solid objects. We live in a world where everything is impermanent.
While I look at solid objects and see them as solid, other realisations about which fundamental understandings are solid and which are not solid, have changed in my mind.
I can’t write it down because the explaining is a deliberate pointing to a thing that is a wordless experience.
Forgive me for being dense, but what were you planning to do if I took you up on the offer to explain via voice? Weren’t you going to say words?
Part of “me explaining to you” include “me” and “you”. That means that the explanation that helps you “may” help other people. But you have repeatedly demonstrated your stubbornness to pick up a message that has been sent over and over and over. So the message that helps you is going to have to be tailored for your experience, understanding and present knowledge.
That’s fine! By all means, tailor it, if you feel that’s what will most effectively convey the information. Still, I do not fancy myself unique or inimitable, so I’ve no doubt that what will help me, will also help others. (And if it does not, well, we lose nothing by having the tailored message written down, and posted publicly, yes?)
If you want to know, you have to start building your own definition. That means you may need to do your own research and build your own map. I can’t do the “build your own map” for you because that would be me building a map, and not you building a map.
Again, forgive me, but this seems a strangely overwrought reply. Really, all that I asked was “what is cognitive jitter?”. Surely that question doesn’t require such an intensely individualized epistemology? (Does anything, really?)
I’m not aiming to achieve enlightenment, or what have you; I’d just like to know what you (and/or romeostevensit) mean by this odd phrase!
But must it be a conversation via voice? What would you do if I were deaf?!
(Actually, voice chat is, in fact, somewhat challenging for me, for reasons that you may feel free to round off to “hard of hearing” even though that’s not actually what it is. I could do it, but it’s strongly dispreferred, for that reason in addition to the usual time/schedule constraints, etc.)
What about text chat? Could you explain this via IRC?
If you were deaf, your whole perspective on reality would already be different. They conversation would be different because you would be different. But yes, having that conversation would be more difficult.
Could… you describe that thing in words…?
(Also, what is radical empathy? And… what does that animated GIF have to do with any of those three things?)
Pm me and I’m happy to explain via voice.
… well, thank you for the offer, but that’s inconvenient for many reasons, and in any case don’t you think that it would benefit many people (certainly it would benefit me!) to have an explanation in text, publicly available? Surely whatever you’d say, you can write down, yes? I would greatly appreciate it!
I can’t write it down because the explaining is a deliberate pointing to a thing that is a wordless experience.
There’s a koan. A monk jumps in a river in the morning and the afternoon. Different monk, different river.
Part of “me explaining to you” include “me” and “you”. That means that the explanation that helps you “may” help other people. But you have repeatedly demonstrated your stubbornness to pick up a message that has been sent over and over and over. So the message that helps you is going to have to be tailored for your experience, understanding and present knowledge.
I’ve never used the same string of words to give the same explanation twice. And yet I’ve explained this thing to 20? 30? More people.
If you want to know, you have to start building your own definition. That means you may need to do your own research and build your own map. I can’t do the “build your own map” for you because that would be me building a map, and not you building a map.
What words did you say to others to explain what cognitive jitter is?
You are watching a movie metaphorically in all everyday experiences. The jitters allows you to see the frame rate, pause the movie between frames and break from the version of reality that you are trapped in by watching a movie.
This relates to rationality because the movie lies sometimes and seeing the truth of reality is way easier when you stop seeing the movie as reality.
Trusting your eyes blinds you to the invisible, that doesn’t sound particularly hard to explain.
Enlightenment seems to be a change to the way you look at what you already know that doesn’t change any predictions. A brain refactoring.
How does someone who has become enlightened know that he has? Does a particular kind of thought come more easily afterwards?
Cognitive jitters is demonstrated in that gif. When reality flickers. Brains are designed to deliver experiences of permanence like solid objects. We live in a world where everything is impermanent.
While I look at solid objects and see them as solid, other realisations about which fundamental understandings are solid and which are not solid, have changed in my mind.
I second this question!
Forgive me for being dense, but what were you planning to do if I took you up on the offer to explain via voice? Weren’t you going to say words?
That’s fine! By all means, tailor it, if you feel that’s what will most effectively convey the information. Still, I do not fancy myself unique or inimitable, so I’ve no doubt that what will help me, will also help others. (And if it does not, well, we lose nothing by having the tailored message written down, and posted publicly, yes?)
Again, forgive me, but this seems a strangely overwrought reply. Really, all that I asked was “what is cognitive jitter?”. Surely that question doesn’t require such an intensely individualized epistemology? (Does anything, really?)
I’m not aiming to achieve enlightenment, or what have you; I’d just like to know what you (and/or romeostevensit) mean by this odd phrase!
Tailoring requires a conversation. You declined.
But must it be a conversation via voice? What would you do if I were deaf?!
(Actually, voice chat is, in fact, somewhat challenging for me, for reasons that you may feel free to round off to “hard of hearing” even though that’s not actually what it is. I could do it, but it’s strongly dispreferred, for that reason in addition to the usual time/schedule constraints, etc.)
What about text chat? Could you explain this via IRC?
If you were deaf, your whole perspective on reality would already be different. They conversation would be different because you would be different. But yes, having that conversation would be more difficult.
Sure, we can text chat.
Would you be willing to agree to the logs of the chat being made public afterwards?
Sure.
Do you agree to approach this conversation with healthy scientific skepticism and also curiosity and willingness to explore the unknown?
Within reason, yes, absolutely.
Did the logs ever get produced?
The conversation did not take place, so there are no logs to produce.
I initiated, saidA did not reply.
Sorry, what? We agreed on a scheduled time, and I never received any communication from you…