Point Out My Bias

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I am really disappointed by some of the replies.

No worries. You can always make more replies.

[integral]

@Natasha Tori Maru Hold on, but I don't think Leo expects any of us to be able to point out his epistemic holes all that well.

Most people are out of their depth and we're Shooting a bow with a blindfold on.

Edited 16 hours ago by integral

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, integral said:

@Natasha Tori Maru Hold on, but I don't think Leo expects any of us to be able to point out his epistemic holes all that well.

Most people are out of their depth and we're Shooting a bow would a blindfold on.

It is a me problem.

[integral]

Leo has thick epistemic skin like an alligator.  No need to worry

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I am really disappointed by some of the replies.

I do not see that you have replied yourself to Leo's question.  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

13 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I do not see that you have replied yourself to Leo's question.  

Really

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Really

Yes.  I reviewed the thread and I do not see that you have answered the question.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Yes.  I reviewed the thread and I do not see that you have answered the question.

Then that's on your interpretation.

[PolyPeter]

Coming from someone who knows consciousness is the absolute, fundamental reality:

I think to some degree, "survival" and "illusion" work as explanation-stoppers for you.

Materialists say "just atoms bouncing around" and think they've explained the world.
They haven't.

But "it's just survival" or "it's all God imagining form from infinity and pure love" stops in the same place.
It tells me what everything is, not why it's this way and not another.

The mechanism, I think, is that you jump between levels without marking it.

There's what something is (ontology)
how we know it (epistemology),
how it appears (phenomenology),
and
how this particular form came to be and keeps going (its genealogy: evolution, family, history).

"It's all imagined" is true at the first level. the ontological. 
But, the mistake is to use it to answer questions that belong to the last one, where it doesn't answer anything.

Example: from your video Reproduction Is An Illusion.

The core point is that needing to reproduce isn't true, it's survival.
But that skips the interesting questions:
why is reality built so that forms persist by copying themselves at all?
Why that regularity and not another?

Calling it survival puts a name to it, but it doesn't immediately tell you something about the cosmic value of reproduction.
Hell, if there weren’t such a thing as reproduction, you wouldn't be here making posts or reading this.
Like, think about the conditions of possibility for your own existence.
There is a certain and very specific cosmic structure allowing for matter to exist right here and now, which then allows for other kinds of form, such as galaxies, planets, animals, humans. 

When you know Consciousness is Truth, the "hard problem of consciousness" isn't consciousness (duh).
It's regularity.

I've heard you say something like this: "God imagines reality through infinite love, with infinite imagination"
It is a powerful description, but it lacks "body" to be a fully exhaustive explanation.

[PolyPeter]

8 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

The mechanism, I think, is that you jump between levels without marking it.

To make the level jump more concrete, from the same video:

Right after "don't get me wrong, if you wanna have children, have children," you call it a myth that something important gets lost if you don't reproduce.

From the absolute, sure, nothing is lost.
But at the level of form, something is: a lineage that took billions of years of very specific conditions ends right there.

Then your example is infertile people, especially stage blue, spending decades feeling they failed their lineage. Sure, that guilt is an illusion.
But "it's survival" gets used as if that ranks it low, as if it were the same kind of thing as someone stealing ten bucks to buy bread. It isn't.

Reproduction is survival so deep and so far back in the chain of material existence that without it there would be no form here to talk about.

"That guilt is an illusion" and "reproduction is one of the deepest regularities in reality" can both be true.

 

[Salvijus]

I don't know how you feel about conspiracy theories these days but you used to be, if I remember correctly, very fast to dismiss all conspiracy theories as nonsense without giving it a full and honest look. I think it's even against the forum guidelines to discuss them. That smells like a bias. But maybe you've changed since then. 

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

some people are confused regarding bias

I don't think they are actually, it's such a wide term even if you want to be rigorous about it. That it becomes even more wide colloquially is just a symptom of that. I think the way you described your idea of bias (involving judgment, which seems to imply "thinking" rather than more implicit mechanisms) is strictly limited to "cognitive bias", but feel free to expand on that.

 

By the way, just a general PSA, I've noticed when you ask AI to compare two things (like a person has done in this thread) and it makes a chart where it compares similar and different traits in the two things, it tends to produce something you'll likely interpret through false dichotomies (it will say "usually/generally" but the table format conflicts with this).

That's actually an example of cognitive bias: when things are presented in firm dichotomizing formats like tables, it will promote a dichotomizing understanding of the things. Since AI has trouble understanding context, it will often put things that require nuance in dichotomizing formats leading to a misleading picture.

Edited 6 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Hayato]

Another bias is regarding health. I perceive that Leo thinks that you eventualy lose your health and can't do anything about it. There are tools that work when applied diligently and produce results.

[Asayake]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's actually an example of cognitive bias: when things are presented in firm dichotomizing formats like tables, it will promote a dichotomizing understanding of the things. Since AI has trouble understanding context, it will often put things that require nuance in dichotomizing formats leading to a misleading picture.

Interesting observation, That's also incredibly alluring to the human mind since the fundamental split between the conscious mind & the unconscious is dichotomizing by nature, in a sense the AIs tendency in this regard might be a reflection of the way humans are categorizing reality rather than an inherent trait of AI itself. We want to know what's good & bad, what's true & false. If we don't know what's good or true or false we don't know what to do anymore, we lose a sense of clarity and have to dwell in ambiguity, nuance & confusion, is the thing we're striving for even good in the first place? But the idea that not having the answer is bad is in itself yet another bias. Because there are inherent values to not knowing what's good or bad, not knowing the truth etc. For example confusion & feeling lost might just be the other side of the coin of honesty. Who are we fooling really when we think that reality can be contained within an excel table? My point being that clear distinctions offer a sense of clarity & understanding, but is it understanding, really?

[Heaven]

@Natasha Tori Maru You’re a very empathetic person and I admire that. Leo is wise and knows himself well enough to take the comments here seriously or not.

Edited 5 hours ago by Heaven

[Emull]

AI bias due to quirkiness

Spoiler

Accusing someone to use AI without any proof is biased.
For example, I'm using a Collins English Dictionary 14th Edition.
(which helps me to look up words that are similar)
I've this quirk where I do 10 words per each sentence.
I claim that it is an unfair accusation to make against someone without any proof.
I could do a behind-the-scenes how I do my distinctions 
to refute any unfair accusations. Only because something is quirky doesn't make it AI.
'Belief' is an accusation while 'truth' requires further investigation into the matter.

 

[Ulax]

Bias against what counts as bias

[YIDIRYIDIR]

One i notice a lot is your bias against business and marketing. you shit a lot on marketers and business men to a point where sometimes it becomes a generalization. 

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, YIDIRYIDIR said:

One i notice a lot is your bias against business and marketing. you shit a lot on marketers and business men to a point where sometimes it becomes a generalization. 

Yes I do. Because I need to point out its corruption.

I am not just shitting on stuff, I am pointing out its untruthfulness and how to avoid those traps.

The purpose is not moral judgment but trap avoidance to reach higher consciousness.

You need to clearly see that marketing is corruption. There is no pretty way to say this.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

You’re biased toward intellectual uniqueness I think. Maybe.