Square One and Meta-rationality

[Happy Lizard]

I’ve picked up Square One from Leo’s book list after seeing that he placed it at the top of the updated list. I started reading it after Meta-Rationality (I’ve finished the first three parts). I have to say, I feel a bit confused. Leo mentioned that the book is foundational, but I think it contradicts Deconstructing Rationality series as well as the paradox video.

Now, I haven’t watched the three-part series on deconstructing rationality yet, and I don’t engage in heavyweight philosophy, as it’s not my domain, but I feel like the two books have opposite messages.

Basically, what the first part of Meta-Rationality is about is that you can’t precisely arrive at a perfect reference of a thing or pin it down as a separate object, since reality includes nebulosity. He gives the example that you can’t pin down the edge of a cloud. However, depending on your purpose, you can define an edge for the cloud that corresponds to what you want to do with it. This all makes sense to me.

it continues in the first part to show how the rational project fails, since there is no universal way to reference or pin down a world of nebulous things, neither in language nor in any referential system.

What Square One is arguing seems fundamentally against this nebulosity. The book says that as long as you are capable of referencing a thing to begin with, you can make a statement about its state, which you can then reason about. This is what makes logic seem like such a fundamental tool that cannot be limited.
As a novice in reasoning about these topics, I can’t tell which argument is stronger, but I lean more toward meta-rationality. It seems like Square One is just saying that language is the problem, and that if you solve the problem with better language, the nebulosity disappears. But this is exactly the kind of argument that meta-rationality specifically attacks.
 

[Leo Gura]

Square One is about realizing that truth exists. Nebulosity still applies overtop of that basic point.

[gengar]

I think nebulosity is false, it only appears to be that way due to our human limitations, but in reality there is no such thing. God's total understanding is both formal and informal as they converge in his infinite intelligence and cognition. Nebulosity in cognition as a concept is only real for limited beings and thus an illusion in the end.

Edited 3 hours ago by gengar

[Nivsch]

14 minutes ago, gengar said:

Nebulosity in cognition as a concept is only real for limited beings and thus an illusion in the end.

Cognition is reflected by neurology's complexity, and since it is close to infinite, no language can close this gap.

Edited 3 hours ago by Nivsch

[Happy Lizard]

@Leo Gura His main point is that logic is what makes discovering truth possible and its the foundation of all knowledge, but doesn't self-reference limit logic’s ability to explain everything? 
 

I also think he does not believe the world can be nebulous and it’s fundamentally a problem of language. 
 

Like I said this is not my main domain, so it is not immediately obvious to me how this book fits with paradox and meta-rationality.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Happy Lizard said:

I also think he does not believe the world can be nebulous and it’s fundamentally a problem of language. 

You should not take him too seriously on that.

His fundamental view of Reality is wrong. However, his insights about truth existing is correct.

He does not understand the limits of rationality and thinking.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[gengar]

4 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Brain's neurology is infinitely complex with trillions of different combinations and ever changing, reflecting the complexity of cognition leaving no chance for language to reach its resolution except for pointing it out quite loosely.

Not sure what you mean

 

Quote

I also think he does not believe the world can be nebulous and it’s fundamentally a problem of language. 

How can a world ever be nebulous? Nebulosity is only an appearance just like randomness. You might roll the dice and judge it to be random, but in reality no randomness exists. I think nebulosity works the same way - real in the practical domain but not absolute - while logic is absolute.

[Nivsch]

5 minutes ago, gengar said:

Not sure what you mean

I edited it. You are right it was a bit blurred.

It was to explain why I think improving the langauage can't solve nebulosity.

Edited 3 hours ago by Nivsch

[Happy Lizard]

1 minute ago, gengar said:

 

How can a world ever be nebulous? Nebulosity is only an appearance just like randomness. You might roll the dice and judge it to be random, but in reality no randomness exists. I think nebulosity works the same way - real in the practical domain but not absolute - while logic is absolute.

The argument form meta-rationality is that cloud exits, yet you can’t find or accurately define its edge, where it ends.

The human body is the same thing yet it’s not as obvious as a cloud, and so is the world. There is no reason why the world needs to be rock solid. 
 

also randomness depends on what you mean, similar to how a cross can be a sacred object to a christian or two sticks stuck together for an uncontacted tribal people. You are the one who is deciding what to call a thing random or not

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, Happy Lizard said:

This is what makes logic seem like such a fundamental tool that cannot be limited.

Fear of monsters is irrational, but exists for rational reasons. Investigating it is already post-rational.