Abd

Karma: 17

Abd Nov 13, 2012, 3:22 PM
0 points
in reply to: Friendly-HI’s comment on: 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey
Interesting, Friendly-HI. I was pointing to something distinct from both. In the Wikipedia article, “crystallized intelligence” is not about “knowledge,” per se, but is something integrated. What has shifted for me is “fast,” when it comes to a series of new analyses of my sensory input. I’m not that kind of fast any more. However, “depth” appears to have increased.

To me, it’s important that I distinguish my accumulated experience from “truth.” It’s just my accumulated experience, my past. The present and future remain open, as long as I’m alive.

Abd Nov 12, 2012, 6:25 PM
2 points
in reply to: Normal_Anomaly’s comment on: Rationality Quotes November 2012
What I’ve observed in myself about reports of “God” doing something I’ll describe as “insufficient curiosity.” I have frequently not asked how the person identified the source as “God.”

White beard, what? No, I’ve assumed, way too easily, that their actual experience doesn’t matter.

And this could also be quite interesting if the person is a mathematician. Depends on what is more important to us, solving the unsolved math problem, and perhaps understanding heuristics, or coming up with evidence that something unexpected is going on. Can’t explain it? Goddidit. Q.E.D.

Abd Nov 12, 2012, 4:08 PM
1 point
in reply to: woodside’s comment on: Digging the Bull’s Horn
The key is confirmed experimental results that are other than predicted by established theory. When theory is very well established, there is a tendency to out-of-hand dismiss contradictory results as probable errors. Sometimes that “theory of error” is accepted without the errors ever being identified. This especially can happen if there is mixed success in confirmation, which can happen when a phenomenon is not understood and is difficult to set up.

Nuclear physics is such a field, where quantum mechanics is incredibly successful at making accurate predictions when the environment is simple, i.e., in a plasma.

However, in the solid state, to apply quantum mechanics, to predict fusion probabilities, notably, requires simplifying assumptions.

Seeking to test the accuracy of these assumptions, Pons and Fleischmann, starting in about 1984, found a heat anomaly. The effect was difficult to set up, it required loading of deuterium into palladium at a ratio higher than was normally considered possible, and most palladium samples didn’t work.

They were not ready to announce the work, but the University of Utah forced them, for intellectual property reasons, to hold a press conference. All hell broke loose, it is said that for a few months the bulk of the U.S. discretionary research budget was spent trying to reproduce their results.

Most of these efforts were based on inadequate information about the original research, most failed (for reasons that are now understood), and a cascade developed that there was nothing but incompetence behind the finding.

However, some researchers persisted, and eventually there were many independent confirmations, and the heat effect was found, by a dozen research groups, to be correlated with the production of helium, at the ratio expected for deuterium fusion to helium, within experimental error. Helium was not expected to be a normal product of deuterium fusion (it’s a rare branch), and when normal (hot) fusion does result in helium, there is always a gamma ray, required by conservation of momentum. No gamma rays.

The mechanism is not known. What I’ve written here is what you will find if you look for recent reviews of the field in mainstream journals. (See especially Storms, “Status of cold fusion (2010),” Naturwissenschaften.)

But the opinion is still extremely common that the whole thing is “pathological science,” or worse.

Until the mechanism is known, this might be a laboratory curiosity, or it could open up a whole new territory, with vast implications. More research is needed.

Abd Nov 12, 2012, 3:33 PM
7 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Rationality Quotes November 2012
I suggest the downvoting was due to quibbling about the word “moral” when:

The usage was peripheral, the more active phrase there was “technological progress.” But “moral progress” does have a referent, morality is merely as perceived, it’s subjective, that’s all. Konkvistador, “moral progress” is something made up by Earth monkeys, and only applies to Earth monkeys dealing with Earth monkeys.

It may have no meaning for one who is not an Earth monkey.

The conclusion, the point of the quote, was ignored. That conclusion is, at least, interesting (to this Earth monkey!).

Yes. Even the point of the quote is subjective. “Should” could imply morality, i.e., we “should” take it personally, maybe we are “bad” if we don’t.

However, it can be interpreted to mean something objective. I.e., we “should take it personally” means that we have been affected personally.

We have a choice, reading, to derive value and meaning, or to criticize and find fault. We may also see both, i.e., value and error, and both of these depend on the interpretive choices we make. The statement is just a pile of letters, without the meanings Earth monkeys supply to their arrangement.

It is highly likely that every down-voter was an Earth monkey.

Abd Nov 11, 2012, 9:53 PM
2 points
on: Firewalling the Optimal from the Rational
In comments on this thread, the issue of diet and “consensus” came up. Why I consider this topic important here, quite in line with what EY asserted in his post, is shown in this New York Times column by John Tierney.

The issue is not this or that alleged fact. (“Saturated Fat is Harmful,” or “Saturated Fat is Good” or even “We don’t know”) The issue is how we know what we know, and what we don’t know, and how individual and social fallacies lead to possible error.

Tierney writes about cascades, social phenomena that can afflict scientists, whom we might imagine would know better, creating the appearance of a “scientific consensus” that is not rooted in science and the scientific method.

Usually, most scientists get it right most of the time, but I’ve seen several such cascades create a false “scientific consensus” that is almost invulnerable, and it can take generations for that false consensus to unravel, so strong are the social mechanisms that maintain it. A few who are willing to risk their careers in pursuit of real science eventually prevail—the scientific method is ultimately powerful --, but the cost can be enormous to all of us in terms of poor decisions and delayed benefits.

We might consider creating some case studies. Unless we reach back to old controversies, these will be, by nature, controversial-in-the-present. The goal would not be an answer about “the truth.” The value would be in examining the reasoning, the sources and processes of what people (including experts) believe or trust.

Many people readily fix on conclusions, and politics (“importance”) easily leads to belief that anyone with a contrary conclusion—or even who only presents contrary evidence—is a positive danger, a menace to health or science, to be condemned and sanctioned.

Abd Nov 11, 2012, 7:48 PM
2 points
in reply to: Abd’s comment on: Firewalling the Optimal from the Rational
For some of the other side, see a review of Taube’s latest book, “Why We Get Fat”.

The author is Harriet Hall, supposedly a skeptic, but what I can see in the review is a set of assumptions that are, for her, unchallenged. Small example: salt. A few people with high blood pressure may benefit from salt reduction. Most people don’t. Some people may be harmed.

Taubes again in the New York Times, Salt, We Misjudged You.

The summary:

This attitude that studies that go against prevailing beliefs should be ignored on the basis that, well, they go against prevailing beliefs, has been the norm for the anti-salt campaign for decades. Maybe now the prevailing beliefs should be changed. The British scientist and educator Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin’s bulldog for his advocacy of evolution, may have put it best back in 1860. “My business,” he wrote, “is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations.”

What Taubes encounters:

Gary Taubes is a Blowhard

Center for Science in the Public Interest

These critics have in common that they misrepresent Taubes. He’s raising possibilities, not claiming proof.

However, what Taubes points to is the possibility that what they have been advocating for decades might be harming people. This is unthinkable.

He must be wrong, so they will find every flaw, real or imagined, ignoring the central problem, that sound research has never done more than imply possible harm, and that at best reduced salt, for normal people, may have a tiny effect on longevity, and, in the other direction, may have serious consequences, increasing mortality.

People whose entire livelihoods, long-term, depend on the “consensus” that they created and pushed, often against the evidence, often against strong scientific opposition, with retaliation against those with contrary opinions, then imply that Taubes is making it up to make money.

When an old pot calls the new kettle black, we may need to stand back and develop some perspective.

Abd Nov 11, 2012, 3:30 AM
5 points
in reply to: aceofspades’s comment on: Firewalling the Optimal from the Rational
Okay, read Taubes’ article in the New York Times, “What if it’s all been a big fat lie?”. That’s ten years old, there has been research published since then, but nothing to change the basic conclusions.

I suggest reading it before the rest here!

The organizations are not “scientific.” They are largely political creatures, and how they are funded can be an issue. If cholesterol is not the problem, what happens to the statin drug market? But I don’t know that recommendations are driven by funding.

Taubes is a thorough science writer, a skeptic, and it is indeed science that he’s interested in. He is not selling a diet.

Taubes covers the history of diet recommendations in the U.S. It’s shocking.

Something brief: In 1957, the American Heart Association opposed Ansel Keys (the author of the epidemiological study that got the whole fat=bad thing going), with a 15-page report, saying there was no evidence for the fat/heart disease hypothesis. Less than four years later, a 2-page report from the AHA totally reversed that, and, according to Taubes, that report included a half-page of “recent scientific references on dietary fat and atherosclerosis,” many of which contradicted the conclusions of the report, which recommended reducing the risk of heart disease by reducing dietary fat..

What happened? Did the science change that quickly? Read Taubes! (i.e, read the book, “Good Calories, Bad Calories.” Taubes also has a recent book, less technical, more popular, I think, but I haven’t read it.)

I could point to studies; the Atkins diet in particular has been studied independently, and it improves cardiac risk factors, it does not make them worse. Yet it’s a high-fat diet. So what is the risk?

Yes. I’m arguing against a commonly-recommended diet. I’m suggesting that relying on these agencies and their recommendations, without understanding the science, is very dangerous.

Taube had written a book about salt, and when he was doing the research, he noticed nutritional “expert” after “expert” who had no clue how science works, who used extremely poor reasoning, conclusion-driven. And he noticed the same when he started working on fat.

When I started reading in the field, out of personal necessity, I could see it myself, really poor “science” being commonly asserted as if it were simple fact.

Such as “a calorie is a calorie.” I.e., it’s said there is no difference between fat calories and carb calories, and the claim of Atkins that fat had a “metabolic advantage” was allegedly preposterous, this would supposedly violate the laws of thermodynamics.

However:
1. various foods take different amounts of energy to metabolize, and some calories are excreted.
2. food calories are not thermodynamic calories, and this is not merely the “kilocalorie” thing, they are modified according to metabolic factors estimated from studies that were done about a century ago, and that may not be accurate under various dietary conditions.
3. carb metabolism (burning glucose) runs the body in a different way, and has behavioral effects, compared to fat metabolism. Appetite shifts (fat suppresses appetite, generally).
There never was good evidence that saturated fats increased cardiovascular risk, that was speculation from the highly flawed Keys study. It was thought “well, to really know will take very expensive trials, we can’t do that, so why not reduce fat? It can’t hurt!”

But it could and probably did hurt. Lower fat in the diet, you almost certainly raise carbs, and quite possibly increase obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and there is an effect on cancer, apparently.

Bottom line, the officially-recommended diets have very little science behind them.

This really is not the place to debate the issue. Read the literature! Taubes is an excellent door into it, the book GCBC is about a fourth footnotes.

Or look at the Wikipedia article Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy, (Do not trust Wikipedia articles to be neutral. They frequently are not. Use them to find other sources.)

It’s tempting to sit back and trust the official organizations. It’s a lot of work to actually read the evidence. However, is this important?

I thought it was, like, my life depends on it.

The AHA is a $600 million/year organization. If fat/heart disease hypothesis is as wrong as it appears to be, they may have cost Americans, in damage to health, a great deal more than that. Now, consider what we know about human organizations. When they get it spectacularly wrong, but before there is absolute proof, do they back up easily?

No. Their business is to be the experts, remember that $600 million per year.

Abd Nov 9, 2012, 3:48 AM
2 points
in reply to: aceofspades’s comment on: Firewalling the Optimal from the Rational
There is a lot of really bad “science” out there on diet, there was a political decision made in the 1970s to promote low-fat diets, in spite of what most scientists thought. For a detailed story on this, and on what is known about fat and carbohydrates in diet, I suggest Gary Taubes’ Good Calories, Bad Calories.

While little about diet is certain, the bulk of the scientific evidence is that “high saturated fat intake,” in the context of a low-carbohydrate diet, does not increase real cardiac risk. On the contrary, high-fat low-carb diets, like the Atkins diet, lower cardiac risk factors.

The “scientific consensus” described above isn’t.

This isn’t about “paleo diet,” as such, except that paleo diets do tend to be high-fat and low-carb. We did not evolve eating grain, and then the grain may be highly processed to remove most fiber, creating rapid absorption of glucose into the bloodstream, requiring, then, fast insulin release to avoid toxic levels.

We can eat carbohydrrates, but they were a small part of our diet, generally mixed with fiber, which slows digestion. Fat also does this. It’s being claimed with substantial evidence that the “diseases of civilization,” i.e., heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, are largely caused by diets with high carb content, especially highly processed carbs. High natural fat content does not seem to be a problem, the opposite.

I did the research and am bettiing my life on this. And I wish we knew more than we do. Taubes has started a Nutrition Science Initiative.

Abd Nov 9, 2012, 1:22 AM
4 points
in reply to: johnlawrenceaspden’s comment on: 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey
The URL is incorrect, the comma at the end should be removed. Here is the page

Abd Nov 8, 2012, 8:59 PM
0 points
in reply to: johnlawrenceaspden’s comment on: 2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey
Well, when I went back and looked at a couple of problems, I was able to solve them, so far. It was definitely, then, an issue of time. (When I find the solution, I expect, it is completely clear and the missing frame is fully specified, and it’s reasonably simple. I.e., “obvious in retrospect,” as you wrote.)

I do know, independently, that my “multiprocessing” abilities have declined, and that these would be likely be important to any algorithm for solving these problems. I’m sure I could improve my time with practice.

Thanks for your kind thoughts and for the link. I’ll check it out.

Abd Nov 8, 2012, 3:07 AM
−6 points
in reply to: MixedNuts’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality

Nature doesn’t have laws

Well obviously, once you accept that everything else follows. What I’m asking is why you think that

when I wrote that Nature does not have “laws,” I did not mean what I did not write. I did not write that Nature was arbitrary, for example. What we call “laws,” however, are interpretations, heuristics, models. Nature has no problems to solve, needs no predictions. We have problems, and an AI will have problems.

It is obvious that Nature is commonly predictable. However, “commonly” is not enough. Can Nature disobey, for example, her own “laws”? It looks like she can, because what we have come to is an understanding of probability. If a situation can resolve as A or B, with some probability for each, we can develop laws that predict probability, but that does not predict any particular behavior in an individual instance. We have developed a probability. Nature doesn’t handle itself that way.

However, you can believe that Nature does follow laws if you like. And you can attempt to determine those laws. And that is highly useful, even necessary. However, if you believe what you have created, as if Nature were bound by the :”laws” you have inferred—and, hopefully, tested—you will become less able to see the exceptions. If by any chance, you notice one (the cards are stacked against it), you will dismiss it as some error.

, give that it looks very lawful: objects fall down, energy is conserved, if a prediction is true on Monday it stays true on Tuesday, every exception to known rules turns out to obey deeper rules with practical consequences we can exploit. Why can’t we just say “The thing has looked absolutely lawful for millenia, case closed”?

someone who believes Nature does have this construct called “laws” is not reductionist

?!?!??

When I read Yudkowsky, I interpret him as I interpret the Qur’an. That is, I assume that he’s right. It’s just a temporary assumption that facilitates understanding. So I have interpreted “reductionism” in a way that makes it—to me—right. It’s consistent with what I’ve read, so far. However, applying this, Yudkowsky is not always fully reductionist. Essentially, he’s human. So far, anyway. Seems to me that he acknowledges this.

I could write more, but I’m in awe.

Abd Nov 8, 2012, 1:21 AM
−2 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality
Give it time.

Abd Nov 8, 2012, 12:55 AM
−2 points
in reply to: fubarobfusco’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality
This “general understanding” might be so for some (most?) in the LW community, but my prior on that is, like, highly unlikely that a single individual in a few words has “adequately dealt” with centuries of human experience and thought and inquiry. What is quite possible is that EY has addressed certain outlines of the subject;.Generally I’m in agreement with him, but also see certain unexplored points. I’m continuing to read, and as I read more, I find both more agreement and more of what I usually call “edges.”

I wouldn’t dream of “creating a TLP on ‘virtues of Islam.’ Wrong place, for sure. I’m far more interested in rationality and the stated goals of this blog.

However, there was a whole school of Islam, dominant for a time, called the “rationalists,” and science was considered compatible with Islam for centuries. That’s an Islam that, I assume, most LWians haven’t contacted. So there may be some room for this, that’s all.

I’m quite aware that atheism is the standard belief here. However, is that a rational necessity? (And if it is, I’m still interested in the question of what atheism is. I do not think of it as being “wrong.”)

What is “obvious” to me is not what is being inferred by some from what I’ve written, nor would I expect it would be obvious to others who don’t share the necessary referents. I simply offered to respond if asked.

Fubarobfusco, thanks for the link. I’ll check that out. I do not imagine that LWers are monolithic, though some may imagine that their own opinions are the opinions of the group. Maybe. More likely, not, though they might dominate.

edit: I’d already read that, and TheSimpleTruth. I’ve been looking for a while, and I haven’t seen an examination of “faith and religion,” but only of certain naive ideas about them. I’m pretty sure that a higher degree of sophistication exists here. But I can’t yet prove it. Where should I look?

Abd Nov 8, 2012, 12:37 AM
0 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality
Thanks, shminux. Yes, you understood me. I do get the sense, though, that MixedNuts is getting it. We’ll see.

Abd Nov 8, 2012, 12:25 AM
−2 points
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality
Yes. If accurate, unambiguous communication is the purpose, that’s true, though for that purpose, even in English, terms must be specifically defined for context. Jargon. Seems to me that this happens around here.

If a different form of communication is the purpose, such as with poetry, Arabic might even be optimal.

However, the Qur’an does explain why it’s in Arabic. It’s because Muhammad was Arab. And so was his community.

Did you notice the place where I mentioned that each of the seven “dialects” (sets of meanings for words) and the seven “interpretations” was confirmed by the Prophet as being legitimate? I assume, for some purpose.

The Leader Astray is one of the names of God, for example. The Qur’an is not a science textbook, in spite of some rather naive and enthusiastic claims by some Muslims.

Abd Nov 7, 2012, 10:54 PM
−2 points
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality

Is this specific to the Arabic language, or is it just the mismatch there will be between any two languages?

It’s not specific to Arabic, but Arabic is particularly amenable to such wide interpretation.

I note that Christians take a completely different view of their sacred text: it must be provided to everyone in their own language, the better for them to understand it.

Well, what Christians? Some Christians do insist on studying the “relatively original” texts.

And the problem Christians face is different. To some extent, they don’t have the original text. They only have translations (at best) and rumors (in the other direction.)

Much Christian opinion (as with much Muslim opinion) is preposterous. In order to revere the Bible, as “the Word of God,” and especially what they will hold up and thump or whatever they do, they have to create a whole doctrine of “inspired translation.” They have to assume, as well, that there is a message that can be translated, one size fits all, equivalent. No wonder the standard Christian story is so … dumb.

(I hasten to add that there are lots of Christians who understand it differently, and, in my experience, they more that they actually know about their religion, the broader their view. The naive fundamentalist view is largely ignorant of Christian tradition, not only of other possibilities.)

What happens with a text like the Qur’an, or the Torah, or the Gospels, is that they are interpreted, and that the interpretations come to be considered the original message, so much so that the original message practically disappears—even if the text is being read in the original language.

I read what’s reported of Jesus in the Gospels, and don’t notice that he claims to be God. He said some other things that are so interpreted, even though there are alternate interpretations that, in some cases, are extremely simple and consistent with the context. I’ve gone over these passages with Christians, on occasion. It is as if they can’t hear the alternate meanings, they keep saying, “But he said …!”

However, they don’t know what he said. He didn’t speak Greek, for starters, as far as we can tell. The only actual words of Jesus purportedly preserved were the words on the cross, kept in Aramaic, the language of the people of the time. (Aramaic and Arabic are very similar.)

Now as to Qur’anic exegesis, I’d be happy to look at any particular passage, indeed,it’s an obligation (it’s that “Muslim” thing, though it’s also broader, I do feel an obligation to respond on topics where I have unusual knowledge) . I can’t create top level posts, though my karma has been coming back up from the initial big whack. But I can respond to them.

What is it a reminder of?

It doesn’t say. I can only say what’s obvious to me, from my own experience of it. It’s a reminder of life, of our relationship with Reality, and we all, if we study and carefully consider ourselves, already know what it would remind us of. But there still is a language problem.

Or it’s not for you. The Qur’an does not, as some might assume, condemn “non-Muslims.” It warns against the consequences of denial, though. Yup. Be careful, eh? (And the Book says that it is for those who seek to be careful, it just doesn’t create a Careful Club, with badges that will ward off Hellfire, just say the magic words.

Rumi made the point.

He describes the situation of the castle of a King, defended by dogs. Someone coming, unwelcome, to the castle, telling the dogs, “I take refuge in the King from your viciousness,” will be torn to pieces by them. No, only if the visitor is actually clinging to the “hem of the King” will they be safe. Rumi was asserting that the most common ritual phrase in Islam, repeated with every prayer session, was useless unless it represented a reality.

An actual refuge being taken in Reality, an actual trust in Reality, I’ve been saying.

My reading of it reminds me only of …

There is a good chance that you understood none of it. That’s okay. It’s not in your language, and was not explained to you consistently with your existing accepted concepts (i.e., creating a bridge).. You expected something different from a book. This is no ordinary book, even if we simply look at it from a point of view of history.

Abd Nov 7, 2012, 9:57 PM
−2 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality
I don’t know that we diverge. We have not discussed this. Do remember, above, that I said that the difference between a theist and atheist was only a thin space. It might not even be an important space. However, that could depend on what he means by “atheist” and what I mean by “Muslim,” which has been the whole point of this discussion, coming as commentary on EY’s “Uncritical Supercriticality.”

His post seems to me to be about this problem we have of making assumptions about people and positions from affliiations, and what amount to political responses to real or imagined difference. “The affective death spiral.” Thanks, shminux, for the questions you ask, which, in my experience, bring insight.

Abd Nov 7, 2012, 9:43 PM
0 points
in reply to: MixedNuts’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality

So, your deity-like thing is distributed among human brains, and synchronizes by communication between humans?

Okay, this is a “deity-like thing.” It’s not a deity. It’s a thing. I gave examples showing the arising of something more than individual intelligence, and by that I mean immediate intelligence, not something built up (like the collection of experimental reports—which is another kind of intelligence).

Once when attending Mass a a child, I felt like I was connected to some unfathomable entity, and connected through it to the other people in the church. Is that anything like what you’re referring to? (The other people were actually bored out of their skulls and discreetly making fun of the prayers. Probably a bad example.)

I assume that your experience was real. What you were experiencing, and what you might make it mean, are distinct. I’m referring, though, to something more demonstrable, that might have been present for you in that moment as a beginning, a taste. Not as the full monte.

Someone else might have a similar experience with scientific insight. Suppose that the “unfathomable entity” was simply Reality, and everyone there was in some kind of relationship with Reality. Some might be bored, contemptuous, but some might be in awe as well. Frankly, I think Reality is awesome.

So, yeah, if groups of appropriately behaving people can and do act as morally better and smarter than individuals, that’s awesome and possibly worship-worthy. (Possibly because I worship anything that looks at me the right way, but still.)

You are still defining all this as if your personal judgment of “better” is real, but, yes. It’s not that your personal judgment is “wrong,” that would be just as much of a story.

And your comment about your response to what “looks at you the right way” is an accurate description of what most of us do, most of the time, even if we think we are “rational.”

But I was under the impression that Islam involved a deity that created the universe, and had more power over it than a group of well-coordinated humans.

The concept behind the impression is one that separates the “deity” from the “universe,” one object that controls another. Reality allows us to imagine that we have power over it, but that’s a product of how we think about it.

For survival, we have found that results are usually correlated with our actions, in certain ways. If our actions are not founded in an acceptance of reality-as-it-is, however, they are likely to be ineffective, so the more effective actions likely involve “acceptance.” Islam is the Arabic word for this.

(If we have developed an inaccurate model, that perhaps worked under some circumstance but not others, what happens when we encounter the “deviations” depends on whether we believe the model or not. I.e., believe that the model is real, that it is not merely a model.

If we believe the model, our strong human tendency is to reject observations of difference, violations, if we even notice them.

If we don’t believe the model, but simply use it—or, in the case of many models, weallow it to function without explicit consciousness that it is a model, but without formalizing it as a belief—we have the possibility of improving the model, or even of discarding it in favor of something else, or nothing at all.) We, in this case, place Reality as superior to any model.

The power of Reality, though, is without effort. (Qur’an.) There is no separation between the intention and the realization.

The asshole who decided on malaria had less intelligence than a mosquito. Apparently, intelligence is over-rated.

Okay, malaria exists. We are developing the power to choose otherwise, and that power already applies over much of the Earth. The same power is also bringing new risks. I propose that we are responsible. This is not merely happening to us, we are creating it.

Abd Nov 7, 2012, 8:00 PM
0 points
in reply to: MixedNuts’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality

Where did you get this “disembodied” from?

Dichotomy. Either it’s embodied, and I want to know where and why it can be called “reality’s intelligence” rather than “several billion entirely unrelated intelligences”, or it’s not and I want to know how that works.

Aristotelian logic, right? Look at the assumption:

“entirely unrelated.” Where did that come from? If they are intelligent, and if the Reality that they encounter is connected, they are not unrelated.

Something is missing here. There is an intelligence that transcends human intelligence, and it is possible for any of us to experience it. Landmark routinely accomplishes this, failure is rare. It’s called the Self in Landmark, sometimes they capitalize the whole word, SELF.

My theory or understanding is that the Self is what arises or is experienced when two (or more) human brains are entrained, when their thinking is coherent and free. It’s not mere “social reality,” where people agree on memes. The intelligence of the Self. compared to that of an individual human, could be like the intelligence of an ant colony compared to that of an individual ant. To me, faced with this experience, the Self seems to be unlimited. However, I do assume that it is limited, in fact, it’s simply operating in another realm, a realm not accessible to me as an individual.

By the way, in Landmark, this distinction is communicated in the Advanced Course. The Forum brings people into contact with it, but not explicitly.

I tested this. I told a story to people who had taken the Advanced Course (and that requires the Forum as a prerequisite).

“The Forum is about becoming free of the limitations of our past—they nod—the Advanced Course is about this.”

Everyone who has taken the AC, when I’ve said that, has lit up. It’s palpable, I’m sure it could be measured psychometrically. (And I just met a neurologist, a scientist, just completing the same training I completed, who is working on that). People who haven’t, mostly, ask “About what?”

And if I try to explain it, well, I may be reacting from within my own world of survival, looking good, being right, blah blah. I’m not being there. And for that test to work as a test, I have to be there, with that very person.

While people who have experienced this, in any of various approaches—Landmark certainly doesn’t own this—can talk about it with each other, I’ve never seen it successfully explained to anyone who hadn’t experienced it. And I didn’t experience anything like this, myself, until my mid-thirties. I was way too caught in my own head.

In other words, “multiple intelligences” may not be independent at all. In the example I gave from Landmark, there is a high-bandwidth connection. It’s not just words, which are very low-bandwidth. It’s the small muscle movements, the eyes, tone of voice, the presence of the person, that allows this connection. To experience that presence, we have to have dropped, or be able to drop, the “chatter” that normally dominates most brain activity, and attend to what is actually present. Reality, right here, right now.

I.e., the collective intelligence of a group might be far higher than that of any individual, so much higher that the individual may not be able to perceive on understand it, but can only notice it, by certain marks, and accept it.

The mark that I would point to first is clarity, but there are also other marks like love, joy, compassion, courage, that are not about individual survival. Landmark is not just about this experience, however, because it’s understood that this can be merely something pleasant (or transiently ecstatic), so it’s tested, against real-world measures, that show the operation of higher intelligence. Long story.

Abd Nov 7, 2012, 7:28 PM
0 points
in reply to: MixedNuts’s comment on: Uncritical Supercriticality

Just an idea: you create the meaning. You see what you choose to see, when it comes to seeing “meaning.”

Huh, interesting. Why is the Qur’an then superior to the Bible, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Tintin, or a blank piece of paper?

Well, “superior” has a lost, unspecified standard. I’ve never encountered anything else like the Qur’an. It claims that it is not the first “message”, and I can see traces elsewhere. However, the best alternative mentioned above is the “blank piece of paper.” If you can receive the message in a blank piece of paper, you would receive the message in all the rest.

I could justify this statement from the Qur’an itself.

Also, how do you know that you accept the Qur’an, rather than just projecting on it what you already believe? Or is there no difference?

Setting aside issues with “believe,” there is no difference. You could say that the Qur’an is a mirror which shows me, if I pay attention, what I know, or think I know.

Yes, there is a danger. However, if the basic message is accepted, if I stick with the blank piece of paper, and don’t believe anything that is not on it, I won’t actually create persistent error.