3 ms·

> It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation. This reminds me somewhat of this homeless senior

> It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation. This reminds me somewhat of this homeless senior I know that hangs out at the 7/11 by my house - he too "is" "getting attention", in that I bought him a coffee last week. > As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day. Indeed. There's a surprising amount of complexity in reality (although it tends to not seem that way). > That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind. Why only tweak? Do you support the general notion of society having a serious(!), mainstream conversation (substantial MSM coverage) about the merits of a complete rewrite? >>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds). >>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways. > I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth,"... Is "one can really know the mind of anyone" not necessarily intertwined with truth: that which is(!) the state of a person's mind? (Assuming we care about it of course.) > which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes. I said Truth cannot be achieved, not that it is irrelevant. Although for the vast majority of instances of mind, I would agree that what is true does not matter (at the perceptual level) - but there are exceptions here and there (me, for instance). > As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless. By what means have you come to possess comprehensive knowledge about what "is" "useless"? Useless for what? To what end? > For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless. Vagueness erases meaning? Perhaps in your mind, but this is definitely not how my mind works. >>> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. >> Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way. > In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning. Can you explain why the "well defined" "meaning" of counterfactual causation is somehow incompatible with what I've said? > I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad... The theory of relativity and many other things are also word salad to those who lack the necessary background knowledge to understand it. (And if you have the urge to point out that because this is true, it does not prove that what I've said is also true, then don't bother, I well realize this.) > ...that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie? Herein lies complexity that would take essay length writing to even begin to address it with any precision. I think there's more than enough here already to measure the quantity of curiosity you can muster and sustain, taking into consideration the ~"utterly shit" communication medium (platform, language, etc) we are using. >> This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist. > That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view. I propose that reality (and communication about) is highly contextual, and that humanity's current norm is ~"good enough". When writing this, did you consider the distinction (that exists somewhere) between haven't supported in my model and haven't supported in this conversation? I do realize you explicitly specified which one (in this conversation), but my question is whether you had the other one in working memory when composing the above. > What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system. Indeed - we best have on our thinking caps! (continued...)

mistermann 5y ago
> That makes it really difficult to take you seriously. Agreed - this does indeed seem to be the nature of the default mind, as it has been trained (mainly in the AI sense of the word, but also in the ~propaganda/culture sense). But to your credit, you are exerting substantially higher than average effort to discuss and understand - credit where credit is due and all that (gosh....have I committed a cultural faux pas here? If so, sincere apologies, but limited). > I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but in this particular case, I'm not doing any of the things you list here. Not at all? If you had, would you necessarily know? > As such, I have to ask why this is relevant, unless you're describing your own actions. Roughly: https://www.vedanet.com/the-meaning-of-maya-the-illusion-of-the-world/ https://www.vedanet.com/the-meaning-of-maya-the-illusion-of-... > I don't insist that you "think better." I don't know what "group" (well, other than human -- and so am I. I guess we're in the same group huh?) to which you might belong, so I have no basis to class you (other than I noted parenthetically above) in any in/out group. A basis to (subconsciously) classify someone is not necessary, much of that is performed for us automatically (thanks evolution!). > And I haven't engaged in any of the other things you mention. So I ask again: Why is that relevant here? In return I ask: what is it you are talking about here? Reality? > Or are you making the (unfounded) assumption that I understand you and what's in your mind (impossible, as we've already discussed) and am just baiting you. I assure you (the best I can do in this forum) that I am not. Very approximately, I would say what you are doing here is "humaning". > Rather, whether it's due to ignorance/stupidity on my part or poor communication on yours, you have not made yourself clear here at all. See "theory of relativity" above. > That's what I'm asking for. Communicate clearly and provide detail as to what supports the ideas you're presenting. You have done neither. That's not intended to be an insult or reprobation, rather it's the minimum that's required to have a reasoned, fruitful discussion. Which portion of the infinitely large, logically inconsistent/paradoxical/illusory/ virtual idea space would you like to discuss? And in what way? With English text on a forum? Houston, we have a problem. > You go on at some length after this, but the low information density of your comments makes it difficult to discuss this stuff. You've layered vague ideas about governance on top of assertions that those ideas don't support. You're not wrong! You know what? I am starting to get the feeling that you may not have a proper understanding of the complexity of the problem space you are working in, it's composition and behavior, and so forth and so on. Nor do I, of course, but then understanding is not a binary. > I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you're talking about. Perhaps the complexity is beyond the capability of our tools. It seems to me that science has similar problems in a wide variety of ways...I wonder what they did to deal with this problem such that they could advance their field. > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to me being a native English speaker. As am I, although I am "on the spectrum" (to put it nicely and imprecisely), so I think a common language is only a small slice of the problems we are experiencing. > Should you choose to provide specific, relevant and supportable ideas, I will happily continue to engage. 99% of the general population is focused on object level details, or some bastardized illusion of that, my interest is in where that comes from. > I hope you have a good day. Thanks, you as well. I realize that the way I write is hard to understand (and not only because of the subject matter), but be that as it may, I propose to you that despite this, "something" does indeed exist here, and that it is worth understanding (or at least trying to understand), assuming that you ~truly care about the things you seem to care about (generally: the well being of the people within overall humanity - now, and in the future). PS: for some extra fun: what do you think I am "up to" "here" (and elsewhere)? I will give you a hint: I propose to you that there is a "level" of sorts that ~exists, that this level can be ~seen, and that you currently do not have the means to see it. How's that for provocative (and hyper-confident, plausibly bordering on sheer delusion) rhetoric!!?? But then at the same time: what if it's ~true? Or maybe even more interesting: what if it scales? https://genius.com/Dr-seuss-oh-the-places-youll-go-excerpt-annotated https://genius.com/Dr-seuss-oh-the-places-youll-go-excerpt-a... (It's an interesting site, this genius.com - I wonder if there may be some unrealized and unharvested value there. I sometimes wonder if the same is true of the one we are on.)

mistermann 5y ago

> That makes it really difficult to take you seriously. Agreed - this does indeed seem to be the nature of the default mind, as it has been trained (mainly in the AI sense of the word, but also in the ~propaganda/culture sense). But to your credit, you are exerting substantially higher than average effort to discuss and understand - credit where credit is due and all that (gosh....have I committed a cultural faux pas here? If so, sincere apologies, but limited). > I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but in this particular case, I'm not doing any of the things you list here. Not at all? If you had, would you necessarily know? > As such, I have to ask why this is relevant, unless you're describing your own actions. Roughly: https://www.vedanet.com/the-meaning-of-maya-the-illusion-of-the-world/ https://www.vedanet.com/the-meaning-of-maya-the-illusion-of-... > I don't insist that you "think better." I don't know what "group" (well, other than human -- and so am I. I guess we're in the same group huh?) to which you might belong, so I have no basis to class you (other than I noted parenthetically above) in any in/out group. A basis to (subconsciously) classify someone is not necessary, much of that is performed for us automatically (thanks evolution!). > And I haven't engaged in any of the other things you mention. So I ask again: Why is that relevant here? In return I ask: what is it you are talking about here? Reality? > Or are you making the (unfounded) assumption that I understand you and what's in your mind (impossible, as we've already discussed) and am just baiting you. I assure you (the best I can do in this forum) that I am not. Very approximately, I would say what you are doing here is "humaning". > Rather, whether it's due to ignorance/stupidity on my part or poor communication on yours, you have not made yourself clear here at all. See "theory of relativity" above. > That's what I'm asking for. Communicate clearly and provide detail as to what supports the ideas you're presenting. You have done neither. That's not intended to be an insult or reprobation, rather it's the minimum that's required to have a reasoned, fruitful discussion. Which portion of the infinitely large, logically inconsistent/paradoxical/illusory/ virtual idea space would you like to discuss? And in what way? With English text on a forum? Houston, we have a problem. > You go on at some length after this, but the low information density of your comments makes it difficult to discuss this stuff. You've layered vague ideas about governance on top of assertions that those ideas don't support. You're not wrong! You know what? I am starting to get the feeling that you may not have a proper understanding of the complexity of the problem space you are working in, it's composition and behavior, and so forth and so on. Nor do I, of course, but then understanding is not a binary. > I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you're talking about. Perhaps the complexity is beyond the capability of our tools. It seems to me that science has similar problems in a wide variety of ways...I wonder what they did to deal with this problem such that they could advance their field. > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to me being a native English speaker. As am I, although I am "on the spectrum" (to put it nicely and imprecisely), so I think a common language is only a small slice of the problems we are experiencing. > Should you choose to provide specific, relevant and supportable ideas, I will happily continue to engage. 99% of the general population is focused on object level details, or some bastardized illusion of that, my interest is in where that comes from. > I hope you have a good day. Thanks, you as well. I realize that the way I write is hard to understand (and not only because of the subject matter), but be that as it may, I propose to you that despite this, "something" does indeed exist here, and that it is worth understanding (or at least trying to understand), assuming that you ~truly care about the things you seem to care about (generally: the well being of the people within overall humanity - now, and in the future). PS: for some extra fun: what do you think I am "up to" "here" (and elsewhere)? I will give you a hint: I propose to you that there is a "level" of sorts that ~exists, that this level can be ~seen, and that you currently do not have the means to see it. How's that for provocative (and hyper-confident, plausibly bordering on sheer delusion) rhetoric!!?? But then at the same time: what if it's ~true? Or maybe even more interesting: what if it scales? https://genius.com/Dr-seuss-oh-the-places-youll-go-excerpt-annotated https://genius.com/Dr-seuss-oh-the-places-youll-go-excerpt-a... (It's an interesting site, this genius.com - I wonder if there may be some unrealized and unharvested value there. I sometimes wonder if the same is true of the one we are on.)