We are in some sense never reasoned into anything

[Carl-Richard]

You know the saying "you cannot be reasoned out of something you weren't reasoned into". I think this applies on some level all the time for all people; that you are never really reasoned into anything, which is simply in line with how survival and limited attentional resources produce bias.

This is why I feel that when I listen to people who I think are being sincere, even if a part of me scoffs at them and thinks they are silly, there is always another part that wants to listen to their perspective, because I know deep down that I could be mistaken and it could have been me speaking from their position. I don't feel ultimately responsible for my beliefs. I inherited them through my biases, not necessarily from someone else (but that also), but simply from being limited.

Now, that doesn't stop me from trying to follow what I think is right. But it's just an underlying sense of openness. You can hold both.

Now, while I have had this feeling for a long time, I started particularly thinking about this while watching the Chris Langan interview by Michael Knowles. I share very little with these guys politically (they both support Trump), but both of them, even Knowles, speak decently coherently, I can understand what they are saying, and I even appreciate some of their ideas on e.g. metaphysics and religion.

I would like to know if you have watched the interview and what your reaction to it was. Do you feel like you were able to hold multiple things at the same time? Did they not simply seem like the devil through all they were saying, despite how profoundly you disconnected with them on some issue? And if so, why did you feel that way? Let me hear about it.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

"Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore." -- Martin Luther

Edited November 20, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You know the saying "you cannot be reasoned out of something you weren't reasoned into". I think this applies on some level all the time for all people; that you are never really reasoned into anything, which is simply in line with how survival and limited attentional resources produce bias.

This is why I feel that when I listen to people who I think are being sincere, even if a part of me scoffs at them and thinks they are silly, there is always another part that wants to listen to their perspective, because I know deep down that I could be mistaken and it could have been me speaking from their position. I don't feel ultimately responsible for my beliefs. I inherited them through my biases, not necessarily from someone else (but that also), but simply from being limited.

Now, that doesn't stop me from trying to follow what I think is right. But it's just an underlying sense of openness. You can hold both.

Now, while I have had this feeling for a long time, I started particularly thinking about this while watching the Chris Langan interview by Michael Knowles. I share very little with these guys politically (they both support Trump), but both of them, even Knowles, speak decently coherently, I can understand what they are saying, and I even appreciate some of their ideas on e.g. metaphysics and religion.

I would like to know if you have watched the interview and what your reaction to it was. Do you feel like you were able to hold multiple things at the same time? Did they not simply seem like the devil through all they were saying, despite how profoundly you disconnected with them on some issue? And if so, why did you feel that way? Let me hear about it.

There's a certain beauty in studying other people's reasoning imo. Reasoning is an art. Just appreciate it without becoming defensive about your own position. That openess to look and appreciate different reasonings people come up with is an auspicious quality and a sign of intelligence. 

Yea I watched that interview. It's dope. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Salvijus

[AION]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

"Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore." -- Martin Luther

Never make a whore your wife I guess. Just accept her true nature and enjoy her.

Wisdom is actually feminine. That is why they called in Sophia in Greek philosophy.

 

[Leo Gura]

Sophia is wisdon, not reason.

[LoneWonderer]

@Carl-Richard

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You know the saying "you cannot be reasoned out of something you weren't reasoned into". I think this applies on some level all the time for all people; that you are never really reasoned into anything, which is simply in line with how survival and limited attentional resources produce bias.

This is why I feel that when I listen to people who I think are being sincere, even if a part of me scoffs at them and thinks they are silly, there is always another part that wants to listen to their perspective, because I know deep down that I could be mistaken and it could have been me speaking from their position. I don't feel ultimately responsible for my beliefs. I inherited them through my biases, not necessarily from someone else (but that also), but simply from being limited.

Now, that doesn't stop me from trying to follow what I think is right. But it's just an underlying sense of openness. You can hold both.

Now, while I have had this feeling for a long time, I started particularly thinking about this while watching the Chris Langan interview by Michael Knowles. I share very little with these guys politically (they both support Trump), but both of them, even Knowles, speak decently coherently, I can understand what they are saying, and I even appreciate some of their ideas on e.g. metaphysics and religion.

I would like to know if you have watched the interview and what your reaction to it was. Do you feel like you were able to hold multiple things at the same time? Did they not simply seem like the devil through all they were saying, despite how profoundly you disconnected with them on some issue? And if so, why did you feel that way? Let me hear about it.

I saw the interview and took what I found intresting and just moved passed what was in my opinion not a correct representation of reality. I wanted to ask you if you knew of any books to help better understand this concept of reasoning to ourselves. I know what you mean but wondered if there are any books out there on the matter of self deception.

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, LoneWonderer said:

@Carl-Richard

I saw the interview and took what I found intresting and just moved passed what was in my opinion not a correct representation of reality. I wanted to ask you if you knew of any books to help better understand this concept of reasoning to ourselves. I know what you mean but wondered if there are any books out there on the matter of self deception.

Other than the standard curriculum on cognitive science (perceptual mechanisms, heuristics, schemas, biases, etc.), I don't. But these things are generally less about reading a specific source or a book and more about lived experience.

[zurew]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You know the saying "you cannot be reasoned out of something you weren't reasoned into". I think this applies on some level all the time for all people; that you are never really reasoned into anything, which is simply in line with how survival and limited attentional resources produce bias.

If you are trying to appeal to  foundational values, then I agree (1. you probably wont be debated out of your most foundational values , those things are just a given and I dont think you can consciously change those) , but If you are not talking about that, then I  disagree.

 

[Razard86]

Bias is metaphysical, you literally have to change the structure of your consciousness to overcome bias. Some biases are merely intellectual, while others are literally biological. You can release attachment to all biases psychologically and give your mind freedom to experience Reality as it actually is, but good luck looking for it to be comfortable. You will literally have biological reactions the moment you expose yourself to biological biases in an attempt to unattach yourself psychologically.

[Reciprocality]

When you listen in on a podcast or video don't you find that the remembered item in conversation is highly correlated with the intonation and rhetorical efforts of the agent? That there rarely is any memory there unless it serves the purpose that this intonation and rhetorics implies? What is the implication if not that the memory that couples with a given subject is that about the lived experience of the agent which conforms to its motivation? How could an agent change their perspective if the very mechanism which allows them to remember something is that perspective, how would they be able to change perspective without a corresponding memory? 

 

If we could be reasoned into something that negates fundamental values or beliefs it would suggest that fundamental values were secondary to reason.

If on the other hand reason were dependent on the clarity or distinctness of the identity of concepts and these concepts would need to leave their invisible dwelling place in the mind where all its associations or known use cases also lies then unless all those associations were brought along then surely pointing out an inconsistency here and a fallacy there would not suffice to decouple those associations.

[Reciprocality]

It may turn out that the damage is already done, that unless one preserves the independency of every identity by not associating it to any other, even those it correlates with in time and space, then motivation instead of insight will guide its application so that the mind has no reason to change direction.

The efficiency of good insight and awareness of the world is inversely proportionate to the tendency of association between distinct things, thus if a desire is remembered upon the sound of a word (such as the desire for political victory when hearing the word "liberal" or "conservative" then the mind is already cognitively impaired in relation to that topic.

edit: The more immense the association the more impaired the concept, the self is apt for association thus the more immense the self the less distinct your thoughts. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Reciprocality

[Hojo]

The host has no idea what Langan is talking about and is just listening to it because Langan believes in God, and he has similar conspiracy beliefs to the right wing. If the host saw God the way Langan sees God he would shit his pants.

Langan cant explain his theory with his memory and cant explain it to a normal person.

Whenever Langan has an interview its like, 'Explain this part of your model.', 'Okay the CTU IML atribbiters connect to he LFR hyper persona hard drive.", and everyone is like "I understand.". No one is taking this seriously.

I never let the beliefs of people let me not watch something relating to a topic I like simulation theory but alot of this interview is just beliefs not the CTMU, and just because someone is a conspiracy theorist dosent mean they don't hold valuable information.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Hojo