Re: More on the Kingdom of the Blind
"meticulously-crafted" and "consciousness singularity". Come on, you can get it, I promise! Just start from the end and go forward. Then do the same thing reversing itself in reverse. You'll get it ;-) On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Stephen Lin wrote: > Sorry, it was too easy at first so I had to make it harder. > > Anyway, just think about the "consciousness singularity" and enjoy my > meticulously-crafted twitter feed ;-) > > You'll get it EVENTUALLY. James Joyce might be a good place to start. Or > maybe Carl Gustav Jung. Or maybe Godel, Escher, and Bach ;-) > > Does anyone else here enjoy salvia? I just lied, I never use the stuff: it > destroys your brain. Just stay high on life ;-) > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Stephen Lin wrote: > >> https://twitter.com/#!/HoenikkerLin > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: More on the Kingdom of the Blind
Sorry, it was too easy at first so I had to make it harder. Anyway, just think about the "consciousness singularity" and enjoy my meticulously-crafted twitter feed ;-) You'll get it EVENTUALLY. James Joyce might be a good place to start. Or maybe Carl Gustav Jung. Or maybe Godel, Escher, and Bach ;-) Does anyone else here enjoy salvia? I just lied, I never use the stuff: it destroys your brain. Just stay high on life ;-) On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Stephen Lin wrote: > https://twitter.com/#!/HoenikkerLin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
More on the Kingdom of the Blind
https://twitter.com/#!/HoenikkerLin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
I found the Kingdom of the Blind
In reference to my previous post. Just google for "hoenikker straight dope"! Maybe "hoenikker reddit" too! Sorry guys, it'll be better next time. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Kingdom of the blind
I made a discussion thread about this on another forum by the way. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Kim Jones wrote: > > On 08/12/2011, at 4:10 PM, Stephen Lin wrote: > > > A thought: > > > > What if you were the blind man in the kingdom of the sighted? > Alternatively, what if you were the sighted man in the kingdom of the > blind? How would you tell the difference? Obviously, you can't. > > > > Now take it a step further: aren't these two states mutually orthogonal > but indistinguishable states of the universe? (at least, until you learn > the truth in retrospect). Isn't this similar to considering whether you > are Schrodinger's cat in the state of dead or alive? (please think somewhat > metaphorically for that...) > > > > Now, I don't know about you, but I would be rather embarrassed (possibly > infinitely so) if I turned out to be the blind man in the kingdom of the > sighted, basically Truman on the Truman show. But I would be feel the > weight of an awful lot of responsibility (possibly infinitely so) if the > opposite was the case and I was Neo in the Matrix. So I'd rather not think > that either possibility is true. I'm going to bet neither case is, unless > I'm somehow God and hid the knowledge from myself. > > > > However, think about this: you might not be Truman in Truman show, or > Neo in the Matrix, but you are almost certainly in the linear combination > of those two states. Basically, there must be conscious entities out there > wiser than you, and you must be wiser than other conscious entities. How > many times in your life have you felt embarrassed in retrospect about > something you didn't understand? Alternatively, how many times in your life > have you felt smarter than everyone else around you and responsible for > teaching them how to do the right thing? Probably lots, right? > > > > Now let's examine the situation further. How many times were you in one > of these states or the other, and then things happened to show you you were > wrong and actually in the exact opposite state? Doesn't that make > everything much much worse? How do you avoid situations like that? I'll > tell you how: you have to make your algorithm for life a continuously > differentiable linear operator with regard to the Truman-anti-Truman axis > of symmetry. Basically, you should try your best to act completely and > totally indifferent between the two extreme possibilities, and you'll never > have to experience infinite regret (hopefully). This is the essence of > enlightenment: unbiased thinking in the most extreme way possible. At > least, you might think so, if you thought this far and agree with my > reasoning. > > > Superb. Otherwise called "suspension of judgement". Don't think you know > what is going on until you know what is going on. Humans are pathetic at > getting that right. We are too used to interpreting the rustle in the grass > as a sabre-toothed cat. It might have been a rabbit we could have caught > and eaten. > > > > > > If you do though, you've got a problem: once you get this far, you're > the anti-Truman again, because you've just concluded that you're wiser than > everyone else around you. So what do you do? Why don't you try to teach > other people this concept, but make sure you do it in the most Truman-ish > way possible: why don't you stop answering questions and just start asking > them, and make them the best questions you can think of. This is the > essence of a religion known as Zen Buddhism (or at least, I think so). I > mean, seriously, what's the sound of one hand clapping? ;-) Zen koans like > this are basically big jokes to test how deeply one is amused at the > symmetry between points of view. > > > It's also the basis of some aspects of Lateral Thinking technique. > Challenge everything. Everything can be doubted in some way, says Bruno. > Therefore doubt everything in the creative sense of seeking to improve upon > it. The way something is right now is not necessarily its optimum state. > Anything can be improved - even perfection. Perfection might turn out to be > the wrong colour or smell, so we might like to change that. > > > > > > Alternatively, you can answer questions, but make sure you never get > caught with your pants down, and try your best to help everyone else avoid > the same. > > > Accuracy of information is important, yes. We must not transmit bad or > wrong information because as soon as it appears on someone's computer > screen they will take it for real and tran
Re: Kingdom of the blind
> > > How do you do that? Make everything a very flexible metaphor. So why > don't we come up with stories about people who save the world in outlandish > ways, thereby resolving all others of the responsibility to do the same. > And make sure you tell everyone that, as long as you truly believe this > happened, you'll never have to experience infinite regret (again, > hopefully). > > > Stories about creative risk in other words. Creativity usually involves > risk. There is no guarantee that a creative idea will succeed but if you > don't suck it and see…if you are going to save the world seriously, you > probably will be putting yourself at enormous risk, especially because of > what you say at the beginning. You might be wrong in your assessment. You > have to be able to act on limited knowledge at all times. I mean, how often > do we ever have complete knowledge of a situation in which we have a role > to play? It's actually impossible when you think about it. The universe is > changing at every pico-second. > > > > > > This, I think, is the essence of a religion that most people in the > Western world are quite familiar with: Scientology! Actually, that was a > big joke, since it's obviously the big C that I was talking about. > > > Thanks. I nearly had a heart attack then. > > > > > > (Or at least, you're probably pretty sure of that. Just ask yourself > one question though: why are so many successful movie stars Scientologists? > Why do they swear by it despite how illogical it sounds to everyone else? > What was that space opera story they keep telling each other about again, > and why is it such a big secret?) > > > Ain't no secret, buddy. It's about aliens and hydrogen bombs. Didn't > Travolta star in some risible b-grade cinema version? > > Great, you're skeptical! Because Scientology is very non-linear with respect to our existing religious traditions, and that's the smart thing to do (as long as you don't kill anyone over it, or something like that.) But think about it this way: "an alien God" used "hydrogen bombs" and "volcanoes" to introduce "psychological trauma" into the "human race" via "operating thetans". (Probably got some of that wrong, but who cares) Crazy right? But let's say you want to save the human race by making sure "the one" shows up. This is pretty hard to do deterministically, possibly impossible, because of "free will" (well, whatever, we can skip the compatiblism debate here for now) But let's usage an analogy: human beings are uncomfortable molecules in a liquid, waiting to boil up into a gaseous heaven where they're free to do whatever they want. How to do boil liquids? You have to introduce imperfections, or nucleation points. Back to "The Matrix" now. What the hell was the Architect talking about again? The whole Matrix this is a cyclic game between humans and machines where the implicit goal is to find the "one" that starts the game over? They tried making human life "perfect" in earlier versions of the game but that wasn't that efficient, so they ended up mimicking 20th-21st century human civilization? Wasn't Neo a nucleation point that boiled away one version of humanity to a new version? Didn't he start the rapture? Now here's the parts I don't know at all, so please don't think me crazy (just asking questions here :D). How many Scientologists worked on the Matrix sequels? When is the (next) singularity coming? Is the next singularity the work of the second coming of Jesus Christ, born approximately 2000 years after the first Jesus Christ? How dangerous would this knowledge be if made public and misunderstood? How much money do you have and how much would you be willing to pay Tom Cruise for this knowledge, if he has it? Also, why does Tom Cruise have so much fun, and are you jealous of him? Are you going to regret that jealousy later? This really can go on forever :D Trust me, I have NO clue whether any of this is an accurate model for the current world we live in (even if that concept makes sense, given MWI). I just like asking good questions, and I've become very good at doing so over time ;-) Best wishes, Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Kingdom of the blind
On 08/12/2011, at 4:10 PM, Stephen Lin wrote: > A thought: > > What if you were the blind man in the kingdom of the sighted? Alternatively, > what if you were the sighted man in the kingdom of the blind? How would you > tell the difference? Obviously, you can't. > > Now take it a step further: aren't these two states mutually orthogonal but > indistinguishable states of the universe? (at least, until you learn the > truth in retrospect). Isn't this similar to considering whether you are > Schrodinger's cat in the state of dead or alive? (please think somewhat > metaphorically for that...) > > Now, I don't know about you, but I would be rather embarrassed (possibly > infinitely so) if I turned out to be the blind man in the kingdom of the > sighted, basically Truman on the Truman show. But I would be feel the weight > of an awful lot of responsibility (possibly infinitely so) if the opposite > was the case and I was Neo in the Matrix. So I'd rather not think that either > possibility is true. I'm going to bet neither case is, unless I'm somehow > God and hid the knowledge from myself. > > However, think about this: you might not be Truman in Truman show, or Neo in > the Matrix, but you are almost certainly in the linear combination of those > two states. Basically, there must be conscious entities out there wiser than > you, and you must be wiser than other conscious entities. How many times in > your life have you felt embarrassed in retrospect about something you didn't > understand? Alternatively, how many times in your life have you felt smarter > than everyone else around you and responsible for teaching them how to do the > right thing? Probably lots, right? > > Now let's examine the situation further. How many times were you in one of > these states or the other, and then things happened to show you you were > wrong and actually in the exact opposite state? Doesn't that make everything > much much worse? How do you avoid situations like that? I'll tell you how: > you have to make your algorithm for life a continuously differentiable linear > operator with regard to the Truman-anti-Truman axis of symmetry. Basically, > you should try your best to act completely and totally indifferent between > the two extreme possibilities, and you'll never have to experience infinite > regret (hopefully). This is the essence of enlightenment: unbiased thinking > in the most extreme way possible. At least, you might think so, if you > thought this far and agree with my reasoning. Superb. Otherwise called "suspension of judgement". Don't think you know what is going on until you know what is going on. Humans are pathetic at getting that right. We are too used to interpreting the rustle in the grass as a sabre-toothed cat. It might have been a rabbit we could have caught and eaten. > > If you do though, you've got a problem: once you get this far, you're the > anti-Truman again, because you've just concluded that you're wiser than > everyone else around you. So what do you do? Why don't you try to teach other > people this concept, but make sure you do it in the most Truman-ish way > possible: why don't you stop answering questions and just start asking them, > and make them the best questions you can think of. This is the essence of a > religion known as Zen Buddhism (or at least, I think so). I mean, seriously, > what's the sound of one hand clapping? ;-) Zen koans like this are basically > big jokes to test how deeply one is amused at the symmetry between points of > view. It's also the basis of some aspects of Lateral Thinking technique. Challenge everything. Everything can be doubted in some way, says Bruno. Therefore doubt everything in the creative sense of seeking to improve upon it. The way something is right now is not necessarily its optimum state. Anything can be improved - even perfection. Perfection might turn out to be the wrong colour or smell, so we might like to change that. > > Alternatively, you can answer questions, but make sure you never get caught > with your pants down, and try your best to help everyone else avoid the same. Accuracy of information is important, yes. We must not transmit bad or wrong information because as soon as it appears on someone's computer screen they will take it for real and transmit it to somebody else (usually via FB or YT). This is because if something comes to you from the internet these days an overwhelming majority of people believe it. There are of course other scenarios as well. > How do you do that? Make everything a very flexible metaphor. So why don't > we come up with stories about
Kingdom of the blind
A thought: What if you were the blind man in the kingdom of the sighted? Alternatively, what if you were the sighted man in the kingdom of the blind? How would you tell the difference? Obviously, you can't. Now take it a step further: aren't these two states mutually orthogonal but indistinguishable states of the universe? (at least, until you learn the truth in retrospect). Isn't this similar to considering whether you are Schrodinger's cat in the state of dead or alive? (please think somewhat metaphorically for that...) Now, I don't know about you, but I would be rather embarrassed (possibly infinitely so) if I turned out to be the blind man in the kingdom of the sighted, basically Truman on the Truman show. But I would be feel the weight of an awful lot of responsibility (possibly infinitely so) if the opposite was the case and I was Neo in the Matrix. So I'd rather not think that either possibility is true. I'm going to bet neither case is, unless I'm somehow God and hid the knowledge from myself. However, think about this: you might not be Truman in Truman show, or Neo in the Matrix, but you are almost certainly in the linear combination of those two states. Basically, there must be conscious entities out there wiser than you, and you must be wiser than other conscious entities. How many times in your life have you felt embarrassed in retrospect about something you didn't understand? Alternatively, how many times in your life have you felt smarter than everyone else around you and responsible for teaching them how to do the right thing? Probably lots, right? Now let's examine the situation further. How many times were you in one of these states or the other, and then things happened to show you you were wrong and actually in the exact opposite state? Doesn't that make everything much much worse? How do you avoid situations like that? I'll tell you how: you have to make your algorithm for life a continuously differentiable linear operator with regard to the Truman-anti-Truman axis of symmetry. Basically, you should try your best to act completely and totally indifferent between the two extreme possibilities, and you'll never have to experience infinite regret (hopefully). This is the essence of enlightenment: unbiased thinking in the most extreme way possible. At least, you might think so, if you thought this far and agree with my reasoning. If you do though, you've got a problem: once you get this far, you're the anti-Truman again, because you've just concluded that you're wiser than everyone else around you. So what do you do? Why don't you try to teach other people this concept, but make sure you do it in the most Truman-ish way possible: why don't you stop answering questions and just start asking them, and make them the best questions you can think of. This is the essence of a religion known as Zen Buddhism (or at least, I think so). I mean, seriously, what's the sound of one hand clapping? ;-) Zen koans like this are basically big jokes to test how deeply one is amused at the symmetry between points of view. Alternatively, you can answer questions, but make sure you never get caught with your pants down, and try your best to help everyone else avoid the same. How do you do that? Make everything a very flexible metaphor. So why don't we come up with stories about people who save the world in outlandish ways, thereby resolving all others of the responsibility to do the same. And make sure you tell everyone that, as long as you truly believe this happened, you'll never have to experience infinite regret (again, hopefully). This, I think, is the essence of a religion that most people in the Western world are quite familiar with: Scientology! Actually, that was a big joke, since it's obviously the big C that I was talking about. (Or at least, you're probably pretty sure of that. Just ask yourself one question though: why are so many successful movie stars Scientologists? Why do they swear by it despite how illogical it sounds to everyone else? What was that space opera story they keep telling each other about again, and why is it such a big secret?) So I hope you're following me this far, because I'd like to ask an even bigger question now: why do mental illnesses like schizophrenia exist? Aren't the chemicals in our brain implementation substrates for our personal algorithms for life? We already established that the correct one needs to be linear, but who decided if you're linear or non-linear? Is someone ill because their function along the Truman-anti-Truman axis is more linear than yours or less linear? How could you ever tell the difference? Interestingly though, mental illnesses (or at least those involving psychosis) all tend to cluster around similar symptoms, like thinking one is Jesus Christ, seeing conspiracy theories, seeing messag
