Okay, this is quite interesting. I’ll try to parse this by mentioning a potential instantiation of this and maybe you could let me know if I got it wrong or right/somewhere in between?
The scenario is that I’m trying to figure out what I should do when I wake up in the morning and I’m on a walk. What do I is that I then listen to the world in some way, I try to figure out some good way to take actions. One way to do this is somato sensory experiencing, I listen into my sub-parts. Yet a problem with this is that there’s a egree o fpassivity here. Yes my stomach is saying go away and hide and my shoulders are saying that I’m carrying weight whilst maybe my face is smiling and is curious. This listening has some sort of lack of integration within it? I now know this but that doesn’t mean that my sub-parts have had a good conversation.
We can extend this even further for why is the best basis something like emotions? Why can’t we sense things like a degree of extended cognition within our social circles and with different things that we do?
The practice is then somehow figure out how to listen and do good bargaining and to come up with good solutions for the combined agency that you have, whatever that might be? And the more extended and open you can make that cognition, the better it is?
Yet, you shouldn’t fully identify with your social network or the world, neither should you identify with nothing, you should identify with something in between (non-duality from buddhism?). You should try to find the most (causally?) relevant actor to identify with and this is situation dependent and an art?
So that is the process to engage in and the answer is different for each person? (Let me know if I’m off the mark or if this is kind of what you mean)
I’m not sure, are there any practices nonduality doesn’t touch? I haven’t thought about it. For me nonduality seems to coimply embedded agency or the need to budget one’s cognition in any way, which I guess would be related with extended cognition (the reliance on other peoples’ cognitive products), well, I guess it depends what we mean by dualism. Dualism as far as I ever had it was, conceiving the mind as an idealised decision theory agent, a type of thing which wouldn’t work at all without infinite compute, though I never believed literally that, so idk. Oh no. Is believing in pi in FDT (the policy metaphysically shared by all FDT agents) dualistic. Well. If so maybe there’s a kind of dualism I’d stand for! :<. And the dualism of spiritualists often seems to presume some form of hypercomputation.
Generally I couldn’t say I disagree with any of that. So maybe yes.
the more extended and open you can make that cognition, the better it is?
I didn’t mean to make it about that specifically. But maybe you’re onto something, maybe it really is about that. We should be doing more extended cognition than we used to, given the existence of the internet. I get the sense that my type tends to care more about discourse health, perhaps because we identify more with broader discursive systems, we enjoy believing things that we read online, so we are bothered when the online has production issues.
Okay, this is quite interesting. I’ll try to parse this by mentioning a potential instantiation of this and maybe you could let me know if I got it wrong or right/somewhere in between?
The scenario is that I’m trying to figure out what I should do when I wake up in the morning and I’m on a walk. What do I is that I then listen to the world in some way, I try to figure out some good way to take actions. One way to do this is somato sensory experiencing, I listen into my sub-parts. Yet a problem with this is that there’s a egree o fpassivity here. Yes my stomach is saying go away and hide and my shoulders are saying that I’m carrying weight whilst maybe my face is smiling and is curious. This listening has some sort of lack of integration within it? I now know this but that doesn’t mean that my sub-parts have had a good conversation.
We can extend this even further for why is the best basis something like emotions? Why can’t we sense things like a degree of extended cognition within our social circles and with different things that we do?
The practice is then somehow figure out how to listen and do good bargaining and to come up with good solutions for the combined agency that you have, whatever that might be? And the more extended and open you can make that cognition, the better it is?
Yet, you shouldn’t fully identify with your social network or the world, neither should you identify with nothing, you should identify with something in between (non-duality from buddhism?). You should try to find the most (causally?) relevant actor to identify with and this is situation dependent and an art?
So that is the process to engage in and the answer is different for each person? (Let me know if I’m off the mark or if this is kind of what you mean)
I’m not sure, are there any practices nonduality doesn’t touch? I haven’t thought about it. For me nonduality seems to coimply embedded agency or the need to budget one’s cognition in any way, which I guess would be related with extended cognition (the reliance on other peoples’ cognitive products), well, I guess it depends what we mean by dualism. Dualism as far as I ever had it was, conceiving the mind as an idealised decision theory agent, a type of thing which wouldn’t work at all without infinite compute, though I never believed literally that, so idk. Oh no. Is believing in pi in FDT (the policy metaphysically shared by all FDT agents) dualistic. Well. If so maybe there’s a kind of dualism I’d stand for! :<. And the dualism of spiritualists often seems to presume some form of hypercomputation.
Generally I couldn’t say I disagree with any of that. So maybe yes.
I didn’t mean to make it about that specifically. But maybe you’re onto something, maybe it really is about that. We should be doing more extended cognition than we used to, given the existence of the internet. I get the sense that my type tends to care more about discourse health, perhaps because we identify more with broader discursive systems, we enjoy believing things that we read online, so we are bothered when the online has production issues.