Carl-Richard

Form is created.

When Langan says "physical reality", he means the spatio-temporal aspect of reality. It's what a set of observers would roughly agree is present, for example a chair in a room. He is not a physicalist. He does not place spatio-temporal entities (e.g. atoms or quantum interactions) at the bottom of reality. What's inside of reality? Is math real?

Honestly, just reading some bullet points on tips for academic writing could be sufficient. Our professor gave us this amazing list. I would have to fire it into Google Translate through.

Yeh. Speaking of clarifying, I just severely clarified the monstrosity of a post from earlier. I decided to conclude that Wilber's Four Quadrants probably could stretch down into the micro level (e.g. atoms), which made mapping it on to the tripartite structure much more straightforward. After all, the Interior-Individual quadrant clearly stretches down to individual perceptions and sensations, so why not the other quadrants as well?

You dared standing up to Jordan Peterson interviewing himself on his own podcast? 😯 Jking. I understand it's strictly speaking a tangent to the topic (whatever can be said for a topic consisting of a one-sentence question with an obvious answer), but.. the guy literally talked about structure vs. content 🤔 But sure, I can create another topic if I get the urge to dump more paragraphs. However, imagine somebody posting the topic "does Peter Ralston watch Leo?" and watch it devolve into a discussion on solipsism 😆

That's pretty funny. I don't know. I'm just finding different words for the same thing. It's great though. I'm taught to write very conservatively in terms of using one word for each concept throughout a text, but I think I'm more made for this. It's JP's style of thinking. When verbal abilities or right-brain dominates and overpowers the purely logical or left-brain. And I haven't even begun practicing Image Streaming yet What's a currently existing metapsychological paradigm? "Nietzschean" reminds me of "Nisse" in my language. It's a sort of gnome 🧑‍🎄

I think John puts it perfectly here. He said it's not about the "what" but the "how" (the 4P model). And I think that makes sense, non-trivially: Again, I would have to review it more, but indeed it seems to deal with how cognitive agents relate to things in the world, i.e. relationships between things, parts; the "how". The tricky thing of course is that the 4P's are in themselves "whats", the parts in the relationships being described are themselves "whats". Nevertheless, the focus is on the "how". Or in John's language: it's what's relevant 😜

I can't remember exactly how it goes. I'll review it and see how it fits.

I take omniscience to mean God knowing everything in the universe, which is identical with being everything in the universe. If the knowing is identical to the being, then the knowing is simply a "what" ("it is what it is").

It's pretty impenetrable. Too many model words, being trigger-happy with semi-colons. But I think trying to reduce it down too much kinda goes against the purpose of the post, which is to draw many connections between different ways of saying essentially the same thing. If I had just wanted to communicate the crux of the issue, I would have just said "content, structure, and their physical manifestations".

I can't stop myself, but the three O's (omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence) also seem to reflect the metaphysical tripartite structure (I'll name it the "MTS"). Omniscience is the knowing (of all) of being; the contents, the "what". Omnipotence is the shaping (of all) of reality; the structure, the "how". Omnipresence is the spatio-temporal manifestation (of all) of reality; the physical correlates, the "where". And here is more: ontology is concerned with the "what" ("what is reality?"). Science is concerned with the "how" ("how does reality act or behave?"); causal relationships, correlative relationships, relationships between parts, structure. Applied sciences like technology and engineering is more concerned with the "where" (how does science get implemented in the physical world?). Now, there are of course overlaps: a lot of science is deeply concerned with physical processes, and proponents of science might even place these processes as the ontological primitive (physicalism). However, idealistically, or most fundamentally, these splits lean more to one of the sides than the others. You might also feel Wilber's Four Quadrants sneaking up as an alternative. Now, the way it's usually used, it seems more like a meta-theory for existing human knowledge than a metaphysical model. It's very concerned about the macro level (e.g. describing human worldviews, cultures and systems). But we could assume that it extends down to the micro level as well (e.g. atoms, atom-atom relationships). If we assume that, then the "what" and the "how" could be argued to fall under Interior (mind), as they are contrasted to "where" which definitely falls under Exterior (physical). Of course, materialists won't be happy with that, but at the same time, even they would probably have the intuition that something like math ("how") or Redness ("what") is not merely physical. Also, the "what" and the "how" could fall under Individual and Collective respectively (but not both). A "what" necessarily describes one thing (Individual), and a "how" necessarily describes relationships between two or more things (Collective). Maybe it would be interesting to make a Four Quadrants -esque meta-theory specifically for metaphysical models (which might have been done already by people like David Chalmers; "meta-metaphysics").

Every hormone in the body has many metabolic pathways, signalling pathways and target organs that vary depending on the individual. For example, you could be converting more of the testosterone to DHT or other metabolites than normal. You could have stronger signalling through some pathways than normal. And your target organs could have a higher sensitivity to testosterone than normal. All in all, one measure like the serum concentration of one hormone gives a very limited picture. Besides, he said his testosterone was 295 (presumably ng/dL). That's 5-33 times the normal range for women. Even if you're on the low side of the normal range for men, you're still on the normal range for men. The differences within the normal range are not that significant, especially when accounting for other factors. And of course, there are factors that contribute to masculinity other than hormones. Your overall brain structure is determined by various genes and environmental factors other than those responsible for hormones. And that's not going into the psychological side of things.

🥴

Ask it about the prefrontal cortex and other cortical structures.

Dividing the brain into parts is useful for some things, but not so much in this case imo. Rather, the whole brain is implicated. Also, "rapidly aging" is rather specific. I would simply say increased chronic stress, where rapid aging may be a byproduct. But it's indeed the case that hyper-salient stimuli like social media, TikTok and internet porn; hyper-palatable foods like fast foods, candies and sodas; environmental toxins, noise pollution and toxic foods; and lack of natural stimuli like natural landscapes; it's not what we evolved for, and it comes with certain challenges.

Hmm... "cognitive" 🤔... "universe"🤔🤔... "Cognitive universe" 🤔🤔🤔...

What does "CTMU" stand for? 🤔🧐🤔

David Marr. It sounds weird because it uses the language of computer science (computational neuroscience), but really, the split is metaphysical. It's the what, the how and the where. Here is Chomsky summing it up in 20 seconds: 5:18-5:43 What task does the computation solve? How is the task solved? What are the physical correlates? (and "where" are they: in a brain? In a CPU?) But yes, it's generally more clear to use more common words like structure vs content. The point was just to the draw connections and point out the many different areas you can find the same fundamental idea.

Masculinity is not really equal to testosterone. I bet if I measured my testosterone, it would be relatively high, but I'm way less dominant, assertive and combative than Destiny.

It's very cathartic to see him absolutely shit on the lunacy that is happening on the Right. If you deny the results of elections, think the media is the enemy of the people, and spread conspiracy theories like immigrants eating dogs or hurricanes being controlled by the government, you're absolutely poisoned.

It's worse. It's language. Chose your reductionist poison.

Just a quick wild connection I made: Destiny and Alex O'Connor discussed how in the vice president debates, Tim Walz not answering the question about something innocuous like exaggerating a story about being in Tiananmen Square got compared to J. D. Vance not answering whether he believed in the results of the last election. That's valuing structure (algorithm) over content (computation). Same when Destiny said "when you lost on the substance and fight on the logic". It seems like computation, or values, or facts, is where virtue and wisdom lies, while algorithm or logic is easily corrupted. For example, sophism gives the appearance or emulates the structure of wisdom (fluency, confidence, charisma), but of course, the substance isn't really there, or it's bullshit. Same with when he commented on how Biden speaks vs how Trump speaks. Biden might speak slower and struggle to get a sentence out, but he is actually saying something of substance, which is hard and takes brain power. Trump speaks more fluently, but he speaks 3rd grade level ideas and just gibberish. Who is really the cognitively weaker person?

I just recently decided to start trying "image streaming", literally right now. It practices verbal fluidity and vividness of visual imagery: https://winwenger.com/resources/cps-techniques/image-streaming/

There are many tripartite theories I refused to name because they didn't fit, and one of them came from Freud. Many of them are similar but not quite analogous to Marr's Three Levels.

Systems theory describes systems. A system is necessarily a set of relationships between parts and thus "logos", structure, Shiva. The relationships can either be chaotic, complicated or complex. That is what the Cynefin framework describes. Shakti is usually associated with "chaos", or energy, which dances upon structure (Shiva) to create manifestation (physicality, the world of sensations). Brahman is what "is"; being, or the core of all existence. Each part of existence, at its core, even Shiva and Shakti, can be said to be Brahman, and therefore Brahman represents all parts, all units. Every concept is fundamentally Brahman.