Tag: philosophy

Timothy Williamson on Knowledge: What is Knowledge?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

FIML works with the shared knowledge of two people; knowledge that both partners agree on.

FIML works with small bits of knowledge to avoid jumping mistakenly into false belief, justification, or truth as these words are used in the video above.

In this way, FIML is working with both primary subjective and primary objective knowledge, turning them into agreed upon better subjective and objective knowledge (since both agree).

Doing FIML frequently, clears up mistaken beliefs, justifications, and truths by clearing up basic subjective and objective knowledge mistakes.

I have only just heard of Williamson, but the messy knowledge basis of interpersonal relations has been clear to me for many decades.

When partners compare their subjective knowledge of self and each other, they correct their false knowledge and replace it with much better knowledge.

Basic FIML works with bits of language and semiotics that are small enough for both partners to distinctly remember in real-time and agree on what they are.

A huge advantage of working with small bits of knowledge is self-correction is fairly easy. And also its effects on meso and macro kinds of knowledge happen through autocatalytic expansion into those regions.

Everything changes when lots of little bits of knowledge are cleared up and made better. The insights expand throughout the mind.

FIML does not tell you what to think. It is a method for working with what you know or can know or thought you knew but maybe were wrong or right.

FIML’s truths, once realized, are psychological, existential, philosophical and spiritual. ABN

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The basic Buddhist take on sexual misconduct is you shouldn’t harm anyone or let yourself be harmed by sexual behavior. Less basic is sexual thought and behavior should not be excessive. ‘Identifying’ your ‘self’ with your ‘sexuality’ is almost anti-Buddhist because Buddhism is all about overcoming the self, which is an illusion, a delusion. Additionally, sexuality is not the most important part of humans. For these reasons seducing children (or adults) into delusive identities based on sexuality is not right conduct. It is sexual and psychological misconduct. It is foisting your own delusions on others, leading others to make the same mistakes you have. ABN

Libertarians’ Jewish Dilemma Fuels Genocide and Nuclear War

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

OpenAI Text Summary

The article discusses the historical and contemporary roles of three prominent Jewish libertarians—Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Ludwig von Mises—in shaping libertarian thought and their connections to the ruling elite. Friedman and Rand are noted for their strong Jewish identities and Zionist beliefs, while Mises, although rooted in his Jewish heritage, emphasized individual freedom over ethnic concerns. The piece delves into the broader libertarian critique of the state, which is portrayed as an oppressive force driven by an exploitative ruling elite that privatizes gains while socializing losses. This elite is accused of manipulating public perception to support its policies, leading to perpetual conflict and the looming threat of nuclear warfare.

The author argues that exposing the ruling elite’s machinations is essential for reducing state power and preventing war. However, libertarian scholars often shy away from this analysis due to fears of being labeled as conspiratorial or politically incorrect. The article highlights Murray Rothbard as a notable exception, who actively critiqued the ruling elite’s influence and sought to understand its dynamics without succumbing to mainstream taboos. Rothbard’s contributions are framed as an essential framework for analyzing the intersection of economic interests and political power, emphasizing that elite actors engage in purposeful, self-interested behavior rather than acting randomly.

Rothbard identified three ethnic power blocs within the ruling elite: the WASP elite, the Jewish elite, and the Rockefeller dynasty. Each bloc is characterized by its distinct cultural and economic foundations, contributing to a complex interplay of competition and collaboration among these groups. The article elaborates on how these power blocs have historically influenced U.S. foreign policy and domestic governance, particularly during the World Wars, where their conflicting interests dictated the alignment of the U.S. in global conflicts. Rothbard’s analysis suggests that while these factions often cooperated for mutual benefit, their internal rivalries also shaped the course of American history.

The discussion shifts to the role of the Jewish elite in shaping state behavior, particularly in the context of the modern geopolitical landscape. The article posits that the Jewish elite has historically leveraged their position to navigate power dynamics while maintaining a distinct identity. The rise of neoconservative influence within the Republican Party is highlighted as a significant shift, with Rothbard noting the increasing prominence of Jewish interests in shaping U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and broader Middle Eastern engagements. The conclusion emphasizes the current geopolitical tensions and the need for libertarians to critically engage with the ruling elite’s influence, especially as conflicts in Gaza and elsewhere escalate, posing risks of genocide and nuclear war. The author calls for a more open discourse within libertarian circles regarding the Jewish elite’s role, arguing that self-censorship could lead to dire consequences for global peace and individual freedoms.

link

Why we use the term semiotics

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The reason we use the term semiotics on this site is when FIML partners do a FIML query, the data in their minds at the moment(s) in question is best described as raw semiotics.

That is, it is the raw material that makes up the composite of consciousness at the moment(s) in question.

This material, or data, can be sharply focused, vague, irrelevant to the subject at hand, emotional, associative, organized, disorganized, and so on.

When partners get good at observing this data accurately and describing it to each other, they will find that much of it, if not all of it, is connected to a psycho-semiotic network that underlies awareness, or intermingles with it, and gives rise to its states.

Understanding this network is extremely valuable and will provide partners with great insights into how and why they feel, think, and behave as they do.

It is very difficult (and I think impossible) to understand this network through solitary pursuits only.

The reason for this is a solitary mind will fool itself.

In contrast, two minds working together will be able to observe this network with much greater accuracy.

Language, semiotics, and emotion are fundamentally interpersonal operations, so it is reasonable to expect that deep comprehension of these operations will be best achieved through interpersonal activity. ABN

The basic argument for what is probably the only corrective to Western and USA total demise

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The US system is based on ‘enlightened self-interest’, not bald ‘self-interest’. A system like ours demands a fundamentally moral population that largely agrees with basic Rawlsian morality — don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you. Our system works best within that framework, as that is what allows individual freedom and creativity to flourish. Almost all of that has been lost, inundated with too many migrants who have have no idea and corroded by too many groups who are entirely selfish. ABN

Most brains, when confronted with seemingly ambiguous data, will seek subconsciously to arrange it in a pattern that is familiar

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

The title above states precisely what people do with interpersonal speech and semiotics: When confronted with seemingly ambiguous data, they seek subconsciously to arrange it in a pattern that is familiar. People do this all the time. Throughout history people have been doing this. It is a major source of suffering, violence, idiocy, madness, cruelty, and lost opportunity. Isn’t it obvious? When we talk or communicate in any way our message is frequently misunderstood, sometimes very seriously misunderstood. This causes all of us to live in a massively reduced world because the only way we typically deal with this interpersonally is by seeking subconsciously for a pattern that is familiar. So far, no one has suggested a cure for this horrible human malady, until FIML came along. FIML fixes precisely this problem: It’s not hard: You just have to change the way you think (and listen and talk). ABN

If his name is a sign ‘then Pope Leo XIV is planning to follow in the footsteps of Pope Leo XIII’ — E. Michael Jones

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

_________

What is Thomism?

Thomism is the system of philosophy developed by Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic scholar. Aquinas harmonized the philosophy of Aristotle with Christian theology, creating a system that became among the most influential in history. Aquinas’ philosophy was popular during his lifetime. After his death, a small minority of Catholic leaders condemned his teachings as heresy. Their efforts reduced the popularity of his work, but only temporarily.

In response to the Reformation, the Catholic Church heavily endorsed the work of Aquinas, including Thomism, elevating it to a status second only to the Bible itself. Other philosophical systems today disagree with Thomism on many points, but Thomism remains a dominant philosophical worldview.

Thomism is strongly grounded in reason, specifically in opposition to “blind faith.” It holds the laws of non-contradiction and causality as the fundamental principles of reality. According to Thomism, most of nature and theology can be apprehended through observation and reason. That which can be known by reason, accordingly, should be used to judge what is known only by faith. Thomism recognizes, however, that certain truths are only knowable by special revelation.

Thomism is also empiricist, meaning it teaches that observations and experiences are necessary for knowledge. It claims that we cannot argue for God’s existence on the basis of direct experience; we can only argue for God by interpreting what we see, feel, and understand. This philosophy rejects the Rationalist claim that pure logic or reasoning—without any observations or empirical data—can be used to draw reliable conclusions.

link

‘The Jews are the only people especially beloved by God’

~ ABN ~ 1 Comment

link

The Abrahamics cause so much suffering based on the sole fact that they all believe their scriptures absolutely tell them what God wants, yet few of the sects and divisions agree with each other. Buddhism at its core recognizes the indeterminacy of all speech and our interpretations of all of it. Clinging to speech as an absolute is a recipe for moral, intellectual, and spiritual failure. When speech is deemed absolute, the mind and spirit are blocked from full realization. This is why Buddhism often suggests rather than states and why the Buddha himself refused to answer questions on subjects that lead to clinging to absolutist ideas. From a Buddhist POV, to say the Jews are the only people especially beloved by God is ridiculous. I was raised as a Christian and do my best to remain respectful of Christianity and strongly believe a good Christian is better than a bad Buddhist. Given that background, I think it’s proper for me to speak this way about Christianity. Whatever spirituality people get from it is good, very good. Clinging to the absoluteness of the words is the mistake. ABN

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

Punishment must fit the crime. In like manner, law must be applied to fit the situation. This is the pragmatic, real basis of all American law. Judges who violate these basic principles are either ignorant of the law or activist frauds. They should be impeached and removed from the bench, if not jailed for treason. ABN

Consciousness reveals there’s no single objective world — Christian List

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Science as we know it won’t explain consciousness

…Over time, humans went from an anthropocentric to a geocentric to a heliocentric and eventually to a more universal view of the world, and each step constituted scientific progress.

Yet the crux is that there is at least one important phenomenon that resists such objectivization or “de-perspectivization,” and that is consciousness itself. If we accept that the core of consciousness is subjective experience, then consciousness is the ultimately subjective phenomenon. The core of my consciousness lies in the fact that I find myself in a world in which there are first-personal facts. I am conscious, I have certain experiences, I am in a particular perceptual state, and so on. First-personal facts are irreducibly subjective. They are “centred” around my perspective as an experiencing subject, and unlike objective facts, they are not invariant under shifts in perspective.

Crucially, each of us is inextricably tied to our own conscious perspective. I can reflect about your experiences and empathize with you; I can hypothetically try to place myself in your shoes; I can try to simulate in my mind what things must be like for you. But I cannot literally leave my own conscious perspective. It is an essential fact about me that I experience the world from my perspective and not from anyone else’s. To be conscious, one might say, is to have a subjective perspective around which some first-personal facts are centred.

…The lesson, I think, is that the attempt to “objectivize” consciousness – to represent it as an ordinary property that can be found in the objective world, like gravity and electromagnetism – fails to do justice to the irreducibly subjective nature of the phenomenon. Physicalist theories of consciousness are not alone in running into that problem; standard versions of dualism face the same problem too. We will better understand consciousness only if our scientific and philosophical theories fully come to terms with the existence of first-personal facts and recognize that reality may not be captured by a single objective book of the world, but only by a library of subjective ones.

link

This is a good essay. It provides an overview of consciousness studies to frame the worthy assertion that: ‘We will better understand consciousness only if our scientific and philosophical theories fully come to terms with the existence of first-personal facts’. This kind of thinking fits well with Buddhism, and especially well with the Buddhist emphasis on samadhi states, which are deeply subjective. A Buddhist might say samadhi is describable and sharable with someone else who knows it. Or a Buddhist might not say that. The full essay is 2,578 words long and worth reading because the point is well made and the overview fits it very well. It’s quality information briefly stated. ABN

A theory of FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

[I hope all readers of this website will take the time to read this post and think about it as deeply as you can. There is nothing like FIML in world history or modern psychology, as far as I can tell. FIML is a unique psycholinguistic dynamic. Once you see what it is, it is fairly easy to do. Sadly, the most difficult part of doing FIML is finding a suitable partner, ideally your spouse, mate, BFF, or a friend you see often. FIML builds on itself, making communication between partners both profound and beautifully idiosyncratic. I believe it would be an excellent practice for a monastic community as it would deepen your understanding of everything. ABN]

FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice  is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.

The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:

  • Greatly improve communication between participating partners
  • Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
  • Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
  • Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality

These results are achieved because:

  • FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
  • FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
  • FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
  • FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
  • This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed

FIML practice will also:

  • Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
  • Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)

FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.

Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.

The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.

FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.

Wolfram’s ‘computational irreducibility’ explains FIML perfectly

[In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.

Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.]

FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 45:34 in this video. Here is the full quote:

One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.

45:34 in this video

This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.

In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.

When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.

By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.

I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN

A theory of FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice  is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.

The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:

  • Greatly improve communication between participating partners
  • Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
  • Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
  • Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality

These results are achieved because:

  • FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
  • FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
  • FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
  • FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
  • This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed

FIML practice will also:

  • Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
  • Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)

FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.

Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.

The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.

FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.

Wolfram’s ‘computational irreducibility’ explains FIML perfectly

[In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.

Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.]

FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 45:34 in this video. Here is the full quote:

One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.

45:34 in this video

This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.

In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.

When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.

By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.

I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN