lorry

Again, for anyone interested. It is something like: leptons are not fundamental, but we don't know what they are made of, but whatever it is, it can wave.

Figured it out. JP conflates consciousness with non-consciousness. "Ideas have people". So for ideas to flow, people have to flow. Frog Twitter having a pop already. Interesting.

Gotchya covered fam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A

A (((liberal))) economist can pretend to be a conservative economist, the reverse is not true.

For anyone interested, Schrodinger's issue was with the interpretation of quantum mechanics, not with quantum mechanics as such. The cat, whom you put in a box with a poison gas which is released through atomic decay, is intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the interpretation that a particle both is and is not in a particular state at the same time. Suppose the particle state is binary, 1 or 0, then the gas is released when the particle is in state 1, not 0, then the cat dies when the particle is in state 1 because the gas is released. But if the particle is metaphysically in both states at the same time, both 1 and 0, then the gas is both released and not released and the cat is both alive and dead. The cat is not both alive and dead, because the gas is not both released and not released because the particle is not in both states at the same time. Therefore, the interpretation is wrong (the interpretation that the particle can be in 2 states at the same time, which is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics). edit: Because the cat can not be both alive and dead at the same time, that is the obvious contradiction of the law of identity. Life and death being mutually exclusive states. This contradiction then back-chains. Philosophically, the Copenhagen interpretation contradicts the law of identity (which is what Schrodinger's cat demonstrates). The Copenhagen interpretation is the "generally" accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics. So, the generally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics contradicts the law of identity at the level of the foundations of reality. Yup, seriously. Now you know why (some quantum) physics has turned into a shit show. But better yet, now you know why mystics bring up quantum mechanics, because they want to exempt something from the law of identity. Muh quantum X --> X is exempt from the law of identity. Muh quantum consciousness --> consciousness is exempt from the law of identity.

Pretty sure this is just an optimization to maximize the information content per message. English is not an optimized language in this sense because each successive character in a word (message) decreases in uncertainty. For example: if I start a word (message) with the character "Q" you can be pretty certain what the next character is going to be. And because you can be pretty certain the next character is going to be "U", the "U" does not contain as much information (because information is the resolution of uncertainty).

Why do we need values?

EconoPhysics, my dude.

I knew I got this somewhere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OscD3RYo6o JP: No Goal, No Positive Emotion.

Cheers. Embarrassingly, it turns out I remember this podcast for a different reason (EconoPhysics). Sorry about that. That said, talking about the problem on infinite interpretation of meaning really goes on between 1:00:00 and about 1:40:00-ish. Specifically, the postmodern problem on "infinite interpretation of meaning" is between 1:22:00 and about 1:30:00. You will find Peterson discussing the concept of "infinite interpretation of meaning" and that "very few interpretations of meaning actually work" (paraphrasing). What isn't in that video is the " the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time". But I've picked that up somewhere, I think perhaps the one of the podcasts with Sam Harris, or perhaps is a biblical lecture defining the correct interpretation of biblical stories. I don't think I will be able to find it (in a reasonable amount of time). It should, if you watch JP content, pop up at some point in your viewing (presumably maps of meaning contains a definition of meaning, perhaps I got it there). Sorry I can't be more precise.

Well, they perceive you as you (existing) and conceptualize you (incorrectly) as dispassionate. Because there is no judgement in perception and "dispassionate" is a judgement, right? To try and get at it from a different angle, I don't think ignoring them is an accurate way to think of emotions because I don't think emotions, as such, can be ignored in the experiencing. Emotions are feelings, and feelings can't be ignored in the feeling. I mean in the experiential sense, you can not choose to not feel a feeling, and I would call choosing not to feel a feeling: ignoring. But you can totally choose to not act on a feeling, but that isn't ignoring it. So you can't choose to not experience an emotion, but you can choose not to act upon it (you can't ignore the emotion but you can ignore the consequences). Let me put it this way. What is the difference between someone taking something you really care for, and something taking something you don't care for, in your feeling and in your valuation of the object? Greater value, greater feeling of loss. Right? So how to reduce the feeling of loss? Reduce the value. Right? So how to you make it so someone has dampened down emotions? Reduce their value of everything, no?

JP is working to save the social sciences. I'm working to destroy them

Hey, I'm English so I can't refuse such a polite request. I'm working atm, but I'll dig through the podcast tonight and I'll provide the exact time and quote it here. It'll be good for me too because I should probably outline an essay or something on the subject. I'll have it up late tonight (GMT).

No thanks, barns. I just wondered if it clicked with anyone else because then maybe someone links to to something else, maybe not. Take it easy. G.

Well, I don't think you turn off your feelings as such, but they can absolutely be dampened. Just take a look at someone who is nihilistic. Or rather, listen to a call in show when someone is discussing an issue of meaningless or lack of purpose and ask "Does this person seem to me to be emotionally muted?". Conversely, have you ever witnessed someone in pursuit of well defined goals, who is also emotionally blunt?

Hey, barn. 0. Well, sort of. Because what I chose is a function of both available choice, and my values. If my values are corrupted, say I have been indoctrinated with altruism, I would chose something which would be, objectively, not in my interest. But I would (incorrectly) think that it is. Ethically, I make no distinction between force, and lies. They are both characterized by someone benefiting by me being worse off, and acting to make it so. That is the essential characteristic. 1+. Not looking for an answer, as such. I am trying to figure out the chain of causality (but I think the correct identification will make a difference to what I choose to do in life). Thank you for the response, helped a lot.

No doubt, and that you for the book reference. I don't have this issue myself, though I did (high ACE). I was wondering more specifically how it is done. How do you turn off feelings and how do you turn them back on? Or, if you will, how is it that my feelings were damped down, how did I turn them back up (all the way up to 11), and what is generally turn about it? So in my context, my feelings were damped down by casting down that which I valued (what I sought to gain and keep). You might call this the development of Me+. (In my case, Me+ was sports) They were turned back up by the rediscovery of my values (not sports to say the least). So, I might generalize that emotions follow values. Then, in the context or the on goings in society, the issue of societal apathy in the face of demographic collapse is a function of the values held by society. So I think to work on the societal situation, one needs to work on the values of society (people). And do you do that with arguments, or do you do that with art?

See, I don't think you can alter an emotion according to choice. I think they are outside of your control. If I feel cold, because it is very cold outside, I can't choose to not feel cold. If you value something, and it is taken or destroyed, you can't choose to not to feel lose. Well, unless you re-evaluated the thing that is lost. Say.... I lost something I really care about. I experience an emotion. I re-evaluate the thing I lost such that I don't care about it. I do not experience the same emotion. But I haven't chosen to feel differently, not directly, I have re-framed the context of the lose. I now have different value hierarchy and feel what I feel in accordance with this new hierarchy. I was thinking more about how it is done. I think I should define values, it might make more sense. By values I mean: that which one seeks to gain or keep. I want to keep living, thus my life is a value (to me). So the emotional blunting of people follows from destroying what it is that they value, destroying ones values as such (or replacing them). So I guess the relationship that would exist in ones life is that emotional blunting goes with the negation of values, and the (re)discovery of values goes with emotional (i don't know the right word, i want to say something like) flourishing? Two sides of the same coin?

Nonsensical.... for you (do the voice). Perhaps read my third post? Meh, to precise time stamps. If you have watched the source material from post 2 and didn't catch it, it is probably because you don't have a correct concept of information. If you don't have a correct concept of information you don't need time stamp sources, you need a book or kahn academy. If you are not interested in the concept of information, like, if your first response wasn't "What do I think the definition of information is, and is it true", then we can have a chat about whatever your first response was, if you like.

Do you want to take my bants on the chin and read my second post? Or is that your final answer?

Say your punished for expressing emotions. So you adapt by damping down your emotions. How do you do this? Emotions are outside of our immediate volitional control. They are experienced as primary, as arising from nowhere, eh? But they arise as a function of environment information filtered through our values. You see a wolf (or an abuser), you experience fear as a function of the information: this thing is a danger. A danger to what? To my life (that which I value). So you dampen down your emotions..... by working on your values? So as to not experience emotions, say because you are punished for it, as the emotional response is outside of your immediate volition, you work on your values? Negate or invert them? Like, if you are punished for exhibiting fear when seeing an abuser, you can't stop the fear (outside of volition), but you can corrupt, invert, and destroy your values (that through which your environmental information is filtered to produce emotion). Ex: I see an abuser, who is a danger to my life, so I experience fear (and other appropiate emotions) because I value my life. So if I work on my values, so that I do not value my life, then when I see an abuser, irregardless of the fact that the abuser is still a danger to my life, I will not experience fear because I no longer value my life. Does that make sense to anyone else? I think that is why therapy can, supposedly, be replaced with a supreme moral effort (Jung). Or that therapy mainly involves mainly involves the identification of an objective ethic (Peterson). If this has all been said before, which it probably has, drop me the podcast number pls.

Read my second post. p.s. MUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRDDDDD! (that is my impression of you).

@barn No worries. Give me a shout if there is anything I can do to help you grok information. JP has a great track record, and JP doing objectively good things. And, by virtue of my previous consumption of content, this must be true in my context too. None of this is lost on me. I wouldn't assume that my characterization is necessarily harmful to me though. I think my characterization is a function of something (I think) I have identified. Predicated upon the truth of my identification I think my characterization is a way on burning this into my values. Then, with this new information burned into my values, I should (unconsciously) react differently to JP. That is a bit floatey. Basically, I think I have identified something, which, if true, would entail that I should treat everything JP says with a lot more caution than I previously did. So as to effect this caution, I characterize JP in a certain light (as something somewhat more harmful, thus more dangerous), recasting him in my hierarchy of values. As my emotions and motivations are outside of my immediate volitional control (being that I think my emotions are an automated response to my environment, filtered through my values), by characterizing JP as such I change my values, and thereby change my emotional and motivation state in response to JP.

Sorry my dude, I was not concentrating when I read OP. My mistake.

Both lecture series, appearance 1 on FDR (not 2 about DaMore), Sam Harris 1 and 2, Joe Rogan + Rogan and Weinstein, some interviews with some guys (I don't recall anything interesting about them). Enough, I think. I didn't have a negative emotional response to JP until I read up on epistemology, now I have pretty strong emotional responses. O yeah, interview with Camilia Pagiea. Using information flow across boundary to entail flow of people? Latest video with J. Haidt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA&t=2128s Somewhere between 20:00 and 35:00. I don't recall when exactly. Introduces the literal concept of maximum information without even understanding he just used the concept of maximum information? Appearance with Bret Weinstein on the Joe Rogan podcast. I don't recall where in the timeline. But the definition occurs wherein they discuss the correct interpretation of a story as, and I paraphrase, "the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI The definition of 1 bit of information? You can just wiki this, or YouTube information theory. Information is the reduction of uncertainty. 1 bit of information is the amount required to correctly choose between two equally likely outcomes. How does that relate to above? The correct interpretation of stories, and thus the solution to the post modern "crisis of infinite interpretation" being "the interpretation which maximizes your ability to make the correct decision now, and across time" is, literally, the interpretation that maximizes information. So, JP doesn't know what information is, whilst using the concept of information to rationalize some boomer-tier horse shit about information flow across boundary entailing people flowing across borders. Silo-ed (intellectual silo) boomer (the era to which the horse shit belongs, I mean FFS! we need a flow of people across boarders for information flow...... BEING SAID ON THE INTERNET!) intellectualism (in the pejorative sense). I really mean a post-hoc rationalization (see below) of boomer liberalism. This isn't to say he isn't fantastic in other contexts or that his content isn't of tremendous value in other contexts. But, I'm an exceptionally disagreeable person (so, for me, into the underworld he goes).