Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[WillCameron]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

@WillCameron You still believe you're a human. That's your sticky point. You're paradigm locked in the human frame. It's actually one of the hardest to break, but be open that if you continue in the path it will eventually happen, you'll breakthrough all humanity and enter into God-Modd.

That's certainly possible. 

I want to be clear that I am not under the illusion that this conversation will bring me closer to Truth, more that I'm trying to understand the bounds within which our current conceptions of the Truth are causing us to disagree as we are.

I think the difference between us currently is that we're operating with different ontologies.

My ontology is one in which the holarchy is not coupled back into the whole. I want to be careful here to speak with precision. I understand participatory to mean something different than coupled. I am participating with reality right now in that I am participating with this laptop and with you, and so my cognition is intimately bound with the particulars of the worldspace that are affording my communication, thoughts, feelings, etc. Even as I am a mini-holarchy emerging from and in participation with other mini-holarchies of varying degrees of integrated depth, my participation is still mediated through and so limited by the holarchical depth of the human brain. As such, however high the degrees of consciousness I can attain, which might be conceived as increasing depths of holarchical integration possible in this brain, it is still occurring through a human brain. In that sense, I am not capable of "coupling" into the Infinite Mind that is the entire holarchy that includes and is beyond all the mini-holarchies and the collective holarchical field. In other words, there is a limit to the degrees of consciousness I am able to attain, and thus, the degrees of Truth I am able to experience.

Where your ontology differs is in that coupling. It appears that you believe that there is no limit to the degrees of consciousness you're capable of attaining other than time and commitment to practice. Given infinite time, you believe that you could attain infinitely high levels of consciousness that are uncapped by brain that appears to generate the consciousness you're experiencing at this moment.

So to try to clarify, I think there is an asymptotic relationship with some limit that I can infinitely edge toward yet never exceed, whereas you believe there is no limit whatsoever.

Do you think that's fair?

Edit - just in case you haven't read this I thought of a way that may better put the distinction I'm trying to find. I believe that the extent to which I am able to experience Infinite Mind is dependent on having a brain that is capable of increasing degrees of holarchical integration. For example, studies that show how the brain becomes more interconnected while on psilocybin. As such, my experience of Truth is dependent on how integrated the brain could physically be. A brain that is capable of higher degrees of integration would be capable of experiencing higher degrees of consciousness, and thus Truth. However much I may deconstruct my experience of myself as a human being, that is dependent on the brain and its capacity for increasing depths of integration.

Edited 6 hours ago by WillCameron

[Joseph Maynor]

I still feel like morality is being brought in thru the back door with the fox is guarding the hen-house idea.  Why not openly admit moral realism?

[Leo Gura]

48 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Why not openly admit moral realism?

If you do that you will miss Love.

Fox guarding the hen-house is not a moral judgment. It is a statement of fact. A felon rapist occupies the highest office and will pardon and protect other criminals. This is happening as we speak. Watch how many criminal friends he pardons.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you do that you will miss Love.

Fox guarding the hen-house is not a moral judgment. It is a statement of fact. A felon rapist occupies the highest office and will pardon and protect other criminals. This is happening as we speak. Watch how many criminal friends he pardons.

Yes.  But you're assuming that is wrong, no?

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Yes.  But you're assuming that is wrong, no?

It is relatively wrong IF you care about a healthy society.

[Joseph Maynor]

I'm kinda over hiding morality.  This is ridiculous.  

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Why not openly admit moral realism?

I gave you some of those reasons in my previous posts (in the other thread). But I can give more if needed.

But I would love to see what is the response to those objections and I would love to see whats the argument for realism.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I gave you some of those reasons in my previous posts (in the other thread). But I can give more if needed.

But I would love to see what is the response to those objections and I would love to see whats the argument for realism.

Can you summarize your position and I will respond.  

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm kinda over hiding morality.  This is ridiculous.  

And I'm over humans inventing morality and acting like they didn't.

It's like dealing with spoiled children who stuck their fingers in their ears.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[aurum]

6 hours ago, WillCameron said:

I believe that the extent to which I am able to experience Infinite Mind is dependent on having a brain that is capable of increasing degrees of holarchical integration. For example, studies that show how the brain becomes more interconnected while on psilocybin. As such, my experience of Truth is dependent on how integrated the brain could physically be. A brain that is capable of higher degrees of integration would be capable of experiencing higher degrees of consciousness, and thus Truth. However much I may deconstruct my experience of myself as a human being, that is dependent on the brain and its capacity for increasing depths of integration.

Brain paradigm only gets you so far.

Consciousness cannot be understood at deep levels through the paradigm of having a brain.

[Joseph Maynor]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And I'm over humans inventing morality and acting like they didn't.

It's like dealing with spoiled children who stuck their fingers in their ears.

Have you invented morality in your communications?

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Can you summarize your position and I will respond.  

Shortly on the non-pragmatic side, I havent seen any good argument that establish why moral realism is true.

On the pragmatic side - I dont think that pragmatically you gain anything by affirming moral realism (doesnt matter what type of moral realism you go with). And I think you can explain all facts about the world under antirealism. So from my pov, you just needlessly inflate your ontology (just like how you would needlessly inflate it , if you just randomly affirmed that unicorns exist for no particular reason).

 

Depending on which type of moral realism you want to go with:

There are versions of moral realism where moral claims can be reduced down to descriptive claims (like certain descriptive facts about the world) - I just take it that :

- Those kinds of views are miselading, because I personally wouldn't even categorize them as moral views.

- Since they can be reduced down to descriptive claims, they essentially lack action-guiding.

 

There are other types of moral realist views where those normative claims are irreducible . There the issue that I have is that those views are mostly unintelligible to me and those views just lack persuasion.

Like why would you ever care about a random irreducible moral claim just based on the fact that it is objectively true? Like imagine there would be an objectively true irreducible moral claim  "You ought to walk backwards when you go to work" - like why would you ever abide by that?

and if those objectively true irreducible moral claims are such that are already aligned with your subjective preferences, then sure you will abide by them, but not because they are objectively true, but because they are aligned with things you subjectively care about.

[Joseph Maynor]

23 minutes ago, zurew said:

Shortly on the non-pragmatic side, I havent seen any good argument that establish why moral realism is true.

On the pragmatic side - I dont think that pragmatically you gain anything by affirming moral realism (doesnt matter what type of moral realism you go with). And I think you can explain all facts about the world under antirealism. So from my pov, you just needlessly inflate your ontology (just like how you would needlessly inflate it , if you just randomly affirmed that unicorns exist for no particular reason).

 

Depending on which type of moral realism you want to go with:

There are versions of moral realism where moral claims can be reduced down to descriptive claims (like certain descriptive facts about the world) - I just take it that :

- Those kinds of views are miselading, because I personally wouldn't even categorize them as moral views.

- Since they can be reduced down to descriptive claims, they essentially lack action-guiding.

 

There are other types of moral realist views where those normative claims are irreducible . There the issue that I have is that those views are mostly unintelligible to me and those views just lack persuasion.

Like why would you ever care about a random irreducible moral claim just based on the fact that it is objectively true? Like imagine there would be an objectively true irreducible moral claim  "You ought to walk backwards when you go to work" - like why would you ever abide by that?

and if those objectively true irreducible moral claims are such that are already aligned with your subjective preferences, then sure you will abide by them, but not because they are objectively true, but because they are aligned with things you subjectively care about.

This is making it way too complicated.  All you have to do is observe that someone is making ought statements assumed to be universally epistemologically valid.

[zurew]

13 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

All you have to do is observe that someone is making ought statements assumed to be universally epistemologically valid.

That would only establish at best that that particular person believes that moral realism is true, but it wouldn't establish it is actually true.

But I think the mistake that you make is when you interpret all ought statements as if all of them were moral realist claims - but I dont think thats true. In the other thread, I gave you alternative ways how you can cash out  and interpret 'ought' statements under antirealism.

 

So just because someone utters an ought statement, from that doesnt necessarily follow that they are talking about objective moral facts, those utterances are compatible with their subjective stance on the matter and what they personally desire about how other people should behave (given their subjective values).

Edited 15 minutes ago by zurew

[Leo Gura]

All human ought statements assume being human.