Greetings all. My first visit, not sure where to put this Gen. Info. So will start here, and take guidance from participants, if there is a better thread.
I stumbled on this site after a friend suggested I research “Roko’s”. An interesting thought experiment, I enjoyed it but nothing worth loosing sleep over. Would be happy to discuss.
I am about 1 year into a manuscript (200 pages so far), dealing with all aspects of cognitive problem solving, via psychological self awareness, and how to debate, discuss issues with the understanding of our (humans) “default” mental and emotional “settings”. Which prevent enlightenment.
The 2 most common being
We are all predisposed to think in Binary terms; either/or, black & white, good or bad, etc. This is counter productive to accurate conclusions/assessments. A more accurate truth is: other than very few “Base Principles”, almost nothing in this 4 dimensional existence is truly binary. Almost everything is on a gradient. The problem with the auto-binary approach is it suggests “absolutes” where none exist. It takes intentional, mental effort to avoid this conceptual trap.
We are all predisposed to think in linear term, (beginning, middle, end), when in truth, the overwhelming majority of things in this 4 dimensional existence are cyclical, not linear.
*** What this means to the avg. Joe living his life, the majority of problems, situations, questions, you will ever have are most likely non-binary. If you attempt to solve a non-binary question, with a Binary state of mind, or a Binary answer, you will NOT be “LESS Wrong”. Square peg, round hole.
Same with attempts to solve a cyclical Q, with a linear mind set, or a linear answer, it simply can not be done accurately.
There are plenty of accurate statements of “absolute”, those are easy (with sentence modifiers). Then there are some statements that seem absolute, which aren’t, untill you add modifiers. IE: The speed of light is a constant.
While this is true, it is NOT the accurate truth, therefore NOT a constant. It needs a modifier to reach that level. IE: The speed of light, in the vacuum of space, is aconstant. NOW, you have “A truth” “A constant” a “solid base” from which further analysis either will or will not be supported.
*** For those who are of the opinion that there are NO absolutes, please understand, in order for you to affirm that, you would have to use a statement of absolute, thereby nullifying the very point you are trying to make.
The trick.… the really difficult (and fun thing for me) is to ID statements of absolute with zero modifiers...… that’s the challenge 😀.
That’s about. .1% of the subject matter I am writing about.
I am also quite comfortable discussing political or U.S constitutional issues. I am not emotionally invested in them, therefore a logical discussion is in my wheelhouse. (Frredom of speech, 2nd amendment, abortion rights, whatever.)
a friend suggested I research “Roko’s”. [...] Would be happy to discuss.
Contrary to what Wikipedia suggests, the people who enjoy discussing this topic on Less Wrong are mostly the newcomers who arrived here after reading Wikipedia. But we have a wiki page on the topic.
We are all predisposed to think in Binary terms; either/or, black & white, good or bad, etc. [...] Almost everything is on a gradient.
Another danger is that people who want to go behind the binary, often fall into one of the following traps:
Unary—“everything is unknowable”, “everything is relative”, etc.
Greetings all. My first visit, not sure where to put this Gen. Info. So will start here, and take guidance from participants, if there is a better thread.
I stumbled on this site after a friend suggested I research “Roko’s”. An interesting thought experiment, I enjoyed it but nothing worth loosing sleep over. Would be happy to discuss.
I am about 1 year into a manuscript (200 pages so far), dealing with all aspects of cognitive problem solving, via psychological self awareness, and how to debate, discuss issues with the understanding of our (humans) “default” mental and emotional “settings”. Which prevent enlightenment.
The 2 most common being
We are all predisposed to think in Binary terms; either/or, black & white, good or bad, etc. This is counter productive to accurate conclusions/assessments. A more accurate truth is: other than very few “Base Principles”, almost nothing in this 4 dimensional existence is truly binary. Almost everything is on a gradient. The problem with the auto-binary approach is it suggests “absolutes” where none exist. It takes intentional, mental effort to avoid this conceptual trap.
We are all predisposed to think in linear term, (beginning, middle, end), when in truth, the overwhelming majority of things in this 4 dimensional existence are cyclical, not linear.
*** What this means to the avg. Joe living his life, the majority of problems, situations, questions, you will ever have are most likely non-binary. If you attempt to solve a non-binary question, with a Binary state of mind, or a Binary answer, you will NOT be “LESS Wrong”. Square peg, round hole.
Same with attempts to solve a cyclical Q, with a linear mind set, or a linear answer, it simply can not be done accurately.
There are plenty of accurate statements of “absolute”, those are easy (with sentence modifiers). Then there are some statements that seem absolute, which aren’t, untill you add modifiers. IE: The speed of light is a constant.
While this is true, it is NOT the accurate truth, therefore NOT a constant. It needs a modifier to reach that level. IE: The speed of light, in the vacuum of space, is aconstant. NOW, you have “A truth” “A constant” a “solid base” from which further analysis either will or will not be supported.
*** For those who are of the opinion that there are NO absolutes, please understand, in order for you to affirm that, you would have to use a statement of absolute, thereby nullifying the very point you are trying to make.
The trick.… the really difficult (and fun thing for me) is to ID statements of absolute with zero modifiers...… that’s the challenge 😀.
That’s about. .1% of the subject matter I am writing about.
I am also quite comfortable discussing political or U.S constitutional issues. I am not emotionally invested in them, therefore a logical discussion is in my wheelhouse. (Frredom of speech, 2nd amendment, abortion rights, whatever.)
Fair winds to all, ---Tapske...
Contrary to what Wikipedia suggests, the people who enjoy discussing this topic on Less Wrong are mostly the newcomers who arrived here after reading Wikipedia. But we have a wiki page on the topic.
Another danger is that people who want to go behind the binary, often fall into one of the following traps:
Unary—“everything is unknowable”, “everything is relative”, etc.
Ternary—there are three values: “yes”, “no”, and “maybe”, but all the “maybe” values are the same
That is not a frequent topic here, for reasons. Maybe ACX is a better place for that.