(attempting) to tie some ideas together.

[Cainad (dec.)]

I was referencing the Rat/LMNO divide about how each of us see the BIP.


We've pretty reached a standoff, but if you want to jump in, feel free.

Wait, we have to pick a side?

[LMNO]

YES.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Kimchee on one side, sauerkraut on the other.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And it's only a prison in that it is inescapable.  But there is so much territory within the prison, that it is an incarceration that offers up a fuck-ton of freedom of movement.  

Prisons aren't the only things that you can't (or shouldn't) escape from , though.

If I want to experience the awesome ride of a rollercoaster, I will be in an inescapable car, with a heavy bar pressing down on me, locking me in place. Is that a prison, or simply the necessary interface required to experience the ride?

If I want to experiencing flying, I could go up in an airplane, no escape, no control... but a safe ride over a long distance, is it a prison, or a tool? If that's too constraining, perhaps I'll go hang gliding, still a constraint, still inescapable (if you want to survive), but with more control and more freedom, but less capabilities (like flying cross country). Or, if I really want to fly, maybe I'll get into one of those cool new gliding suits with the wings under the armpits. I'm still trapped in the suit, if you want to think of it as a trap. I'm still not able to escape the confines of everything and truly be free to fly...

but, I, personally, wouldn't consider it a Prison.

We have only our neurological system with which to experience Reality. Its a shoddy patchwork of neurons and nerves, with an often confused computer trying to justify beliefs and rationalize what it sees with what it thinks it should see. That might be a prison, it certianly can become a prison for many people, and perhaps everyone has that prison, for at least part of their life. However, the alternative to this experience of Reality through a imperfect and limiting interface is, as far as I know, no experiencing at all.

In contrast, I personally, wouldn't consider it a Prison.

[P3nT4gR4m]

And it's only a prison in that it is inescapable.  But there is so much territory within the prison, that it is an incarceration that offers up a fuck-ton of freedom of movement. 

Prisons aren't the only things that you can't (or shouldn't) escape from , though.

If I want to experience the awesome ride of a rollercoaster, I will be in an inescapable car, with a heavy bar pressing down on me, locking me in place. Is that a prison, or simply the necessary interface required to experience the ride?

If I want to experiencing flying, I could go up in an airplane, no escape, no control... but a safe ride over a long distance, is it a prison, or a tool? If that's too constraining, perhaps I'll go hang gliding, still a constraint, still inescapable (if you want to survive), but with more control and more freedom, but less capabilities (like flying cross country). Or, if I really want to fly, maybe I'll get into one of those cool new gliding suits with the wings under the armpits. I'm still trapped in the suit, if you want to think of it as a trap. I'm still not able to escape the confines of everything and truly be free to fly...

but, I, personally, wouldn't consider it a Prison.

We have only our neurological system with which to experience Reality. Its a shoddy patchwork of neurons and nerves, with an often confused computer trying to justify beliefs and rationalize what it sees with what it thinks it should see. That might be a prison, it certianly can become a prison for many people, and perhaps everyone has that prison, for at least part of their life. However, the alternative to this experience of Reality through a imperfect and limiting interface is, as far as I know, no experiencing at all.

In contrast, I personally, wouldn't consider it a Prison.

Agree! The metaphor works up to a point - the average joe is trapped by it and thus will experience a prison. However, once you realise what's going on you are still bound by the constraints but it's somehow not a prison anymore.

[Triple Zero]

Don't let the Perfect get in the way of the Good.

Metaphors are inherently wrong, in that they are maps of maps.  Many things are left out, many possibilities cut off.

But that doesn't mean it can't convey the beginning of an idea.

well either the shrapnel model is so obvious to me it doesn't strike me as anything special, but honestly, i really miss the bit where this model becomes an Impossible Tangled Mess, like Rev Asshat said, where the math is going to fail.

i've explained this to a number of people recently. it's why i love computerprogramming so much. you can build a computer program of a model, which describes a process that you completely understand (else you can't turn it into code), but when you actually let it run, it can display behaviour that is way past and beyond your understanding (basic idea is, you can easily model a boolean network with 50 nodes, but the theoretical amount of interactions between these nodes is 50! = 3.04140932×10⁶⁴, a number pretty much beyond any mortal brain).
this is why, if we ever build a reasonable model of the human brain, we will still have no fucking clue as to how our mind works.

the point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Agreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

Nah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

Maybe there is no territory. Maybe it's just maps all the way down 

Frightening isn't it? Like standing on the edge of a precipice.

I'd say more 'liberating'

ZOMG eXistenZ WALLHAX!

[AFK]

Agreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

But he didn't say they did.  The point isn't that EVERY map will be useful.  The point is that it is better to have more than one.  Use the historical maps of Earth as an analogy.  Clearly the old maps that guessed at what the New World looked like would be useless today.  But those maps did have some utility, at least, for the European continent.  More maps can provide more information, but that doesn't mean some of them will be useless.  That's why you make sure you have more than one cartographer available to interpret the information. 

Nah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

What the hell does that even mean?  That there are maps all the way down?  That humans have existed for as long as they have, is that just out of sheer dumb luck?  Clearly we don't have all of the answerd.  Indeed, we may only really have a clear understanding of a tiny fraction of this universe and Reality, we exist within.  But I've gotta think there are some certainties that we can point to.  That doesn't mean they won't change.  Just as territory on Earth has shifted and moved, so will the territory of human existence.   

[Triple Zero]

Agreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

But he didn't say they did.  The point isn't that EVERY map will be useful.  The point is that it is better to have more than one.  Use the historical maps of Earth as an analogy.  Clearly the old maps that guessed at what the New World looked like would be useless today.  But those maps did have some utility, at least, for the European continent.  More maps can provide more information, but that doesn't mean some of them will be useless.  That's why you make sure you have more than one cartographer available to interpret the information. 

well if that's what Rat meant, okay. i yet have to see him call any map useless, though

Nah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

What the hell does that even mean?  That there are maps all the way down?  That humans have existed for as long as they have, is that just out of sheer dumb luck?  Clearly we don't have all of the answerd.  Indeed, we may only really have a clear understanding of a tiny fraction of this universe and Reality, we exist within.  But I've gotta think there are some certainties that we can point to.  That doesn't mean they won't change.  Just as territory on Earth has shifted and moved, so will the territory of human existence.[/quote]

basically, it's the question of whether there is any One Objective Reality. if not, it must be maps all the way down. i have no knowledge to say either one of the options is true or false.

see, our brains are evolved for Fitness, not for Truth. this means it's not even certain the maps we base our existence on are slightly in the right direction of what's really going on.

on the other hand, i like your idea of the shifting territory as well. the "territory of human existence", kind of sounds to me like the Consensus Reality, not necessarily the One Objective one, but it's pretty good as it gets, and because it's based on consensus, it's also highly useful. just one problem: this territory, solid as it may be, is entirely built .. out of maps.

[LMNO]

the point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Well, I suppose it wasn't to map the complexity of a human's life.

I suppose it was to capture another idea of randomness: Rather than think of your life as a linear, straightforward narrative, random ideas (shrapnel) send you in random directions (pool ball collisions) that lead you to encounter new memes (bumps, dips), which send you off in new random directions.

Or something.  Or maybe I just like the image.

Incidentally, don't you think that if you had a table with random bumps, and pool balls flying around randomly, that a single cue ball rolled across the table would have an extremely complex and unpredictable path?

[Adios]

Don't let the Perfect get in the way of the Good.

Metaphors are inherently wrong, in that they are maps of maps.  Many things are left out, many possibilities cut off.

But that doesn't mean it can't convey the beginning of an idea.

well either the shrapnel model is so obvious to me it doesn't strike me as anything special, but honestly, i really miss the bit where this model becomes an Impossible Tangled Mess, like Rev Asshat said, where the math is going to fail.

i've explained this to a number of people recently. it's why i love computerprogramming so much. you can build a computer program of a model, which describes a process that you completely understand (else you can't turn it into code), but when you actually let it run, it can display behaviour that is way past and beyond your understanding (basic idea is, you can easily model a boolean network with 50 nodes, but the theoretical amount of interactions between these nodes is 50! = 3.04140932×10⁶⁴, a number pretty much beyond any mortal brain).
this is why, if we ever build a reasonable model of the human brain, we will still have no fucking clue as to how our mind works.

the point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Agreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

Nah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

Maybe there is no territory. Maybe it's just maps all the way down 

Frightening isn't it? Like standing on the edge of a precipice.

I'd say more 'liberating'

ZOMG eXistenZ WALLHAX!

Can you generate the computer program without a baseline of reference? The Impossible Tangled Mess works for me because it completely reflects the randomness of human nature. I like it.

[AFK]

Agreed, and the more maps, the better...

disagree. not every new map sheds more light on a subject.

also, some maps add more information to a subject from the way they're structured in themselves than from the angle they allow you to look at a subject.

But he didn't say they did.  The point isn't that EVERY map will be useful.  The point is that it is better to have more than one.  Use the historical maps of Earth as an analogy.  Clearly the old maps that guessed at what the New World looked like would be useless today.  But those maps did have some utility, at least, for the European continent.  More maps can provide more information, but that doesn't mean some of them will be useless.  That's why you make sure you have more than one cartographer available to interpret the information. 

well if that's what Rat meant, okay. i yet have to see him call any map useless, though

I suppose I should amend that.  That's how I would interpret it.  He'll have to clarify what he actually meant.  

Nah, the territory is there.

how do you know? it could just as well be maps all the way down, for all I know. is this just an assumption or do you have reasoning to back it up?

What the hell does that even mean?  That there are maps all the way down?  That humans have existed for as long as they have, is that just out of sheer dumb luck?  Clearly we don't have all of the answerd.  Indeed, we may only really have a clear understanding of a tiny fraction of this universe and Reality, we exist within.  But I've gotta think there are some certainties that we can point to.  That doesn't mean they won't change.  Just as territory on Earth has shifted and moved, so will the territory of human existence.

basically, it's the question of whether there is any One Objective Reality. if not, it must be maps all the way down. i have no knowledge to say either one of the options is true or false.

see, our brains are evolved for Fitness, not for Truth. this means it's not even certain the maps we base our existence on are slightly in the right direction of what's really going on.

on the other hand, i like your idea of the shifting territory as well. the "territory of human existence", kind of sounds to me like the Consensus Reality, not necessarily the One Objective one, but it's pretty good as it gets, and because it's based on consensus, it's also highly useful. just one problem: this territory, solid as it may be, is entirely built .. out of maps.
[/quote][/quote]

I guess the way I see it is, no there is no One Objective Reality.  However, if we overlay our individual Reality Grids, to borrow from the PD, there is probably enough overlapping that we can safely say there is some actual territory that we are observing.  Again, clearly, not ALL of the territory.  Maybe not even a significant portion compared to the whole (whatever that may mean).  But there seems like there is some tangibility we can get our hands on.  Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic and idealistic.  

[Triple Zero]

the point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Well, I suppose it wasn't to map the complexity of a human's life.

I suppose it was to capture another idea of randomness: Rather than think of your life as a linear, straightforward narrative, random ideas (shrapnel) send you in random directions (pool ball collisions) that lead you to encounter new memes (bumps, dips), which send you off in new random directions.

well, yeah, but isn't that obvious to everybody? is it new? or does it just sound like old hat because i've been actively observing my own thoughts for so long now?

Incidentally, don't you think that if you had a table with random bumps, and pool balls flying around randomly, that a single cue ball rolled across the table would have an extremely complex and unpredictable path?

complex, yeah kinda, but not enough

what it lacks is a self-feedback effect.

basically, you can make the table arbitrarily bumpy or add an arbitrary amount of pool balls going off everywhere, and the cue ball's trajectory will become more and more complex, but it will not even begin to approach the chaotic complexity of feedback systems. and that just irks me.

Can you generate the computer program without a baseline of reference?

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean?

I guess the way I see it is, no there is no One Objective Reality.  However, if we overlay our individual Reality Grids, to borrow from the PD, there is probably enough overlapping that we can safely say there is some actual territory that we are observing.  Again, clearly, not ALL of the territory.  Maybe not even a significant portion compared to the whole (whatever that may mean).  But there seems like there is some tangibility we can get our hands on.  Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic and idealistic.  

my point was, we might as well all be completely entirely wrong about the bit where our Grids overlap, or what i call theConsensus Reality, only one thing we can be certain about, is that this Consensus Reality is something that, for a long time, has worked Really Well.

[Cramulus]

I guess the way I see it is, no there is no One Objective Reality.  However, if we overlay our individual Reality Grids, to borrow from the PD, there is probably enough overlapping that we can safely say there is some actual territory that we are observing.  Again, clearly, not ALL of the territory.  Maybe not even a significant portion compared to the whole (whatever that may mean).  But there seems like there is some tangibility we can get our hands on.  Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic and idealistic.  

my point was, we might as well all be completely entirely wrong about the bit where our Grids overlap, or what i call theConsensus Reality, only one thing we can be certain about, is that this Consensus Reality is something that, for a long time, has worked Really Well.

Warning: Approaching Barstool Danger Zone

[Adios]

i've explained this to a number of people recently. it's why i love computerprogramming so much. you can build a computer program of a model, which describes a process that you completely understand (else you can't turn it into code), but when you actually let it run, it can display behaviour that is way past and beyond your understanding (basic idea is, you can easily model a boolean network with 50 nodes, but the theoretical amount of interactions between these nodes is 50! = 3.04140932×1064, a number pretty much beyond any mortal brain).
this is why, if we ever build a reasonable model of the human brain, we will still have no fucking clue as to how our mind works.

Without a reference baseline this seems like it would just be a computer run amuck. What would the data reflect? How would it be translated into something usable? How would one generate the model given the random behavior of the human beast?

[LMNO]

the point is, the shrapnel/pooltable model IMO lacks this complexity. it's just balls on an infinite bumpy pooltable. everything in this model just screams at me: what's the point? where are you going with this? things are infinitely more complex than this! what do you expect to be able to model with this?

Well, I suppose it wasn't to map the complexity of a human's life.

I suppose it was to capture another idea of randomness: Rather than think of your life as a linear, straightforward narrative, random ideas (shrapnel) send you in random directions (pool ball collisions) that lead you to encounter new memes (bumps, dips), which send you off in new random directions.

well, yeah, but isn't that obvious to everybody? is it new? or does it just sound like old hat because i've been actively observing my own thoughts for so long now?

But wasn't the BIP obvious, too?

Incidentally, don't you think that if you had a table with random bumps, and pool balls flying around randomly, that a single cue ball rolled across the table would have an extremely complex and unpredictable path?

complex, yeah kinda, but not enough

what it lacks is a self-feedback effect.

basically, you can make the table arbitrarily bumpy or add an arbitrary amount of pool balls going off everywhere, and the cue ball's trajectory will become more and more complex, but it will not even begin to approach the chaotic complexity of feedback systems. and that just irks me.

But if we tie this into the "why are humans are predicatble?" thread, we can maybe see that a lot of the chaotic complexity you miss actually gets stripped out of the process.

I mean, if all that chaos was there, there would be a tendency towards more differences, not more conformity, right?