Hey...I've occupied myself for much of my adult life with wrestling with various philosophies - the main question behind all of which has, I reckon, been working out what is true/real and what is appearance (what "seems" to be reality).
Recently, I've seen that, in any given moment, there is no difference. The terminology only changes from "real" to "seemed real" once we have come up with some alternative version to what we have actually experienced - retrospectively.
Hi Robert, I agree with you and would like to add something: in my experience, I see and know that "proving" the "truth" of any metaphysical claim is impossible. Ok.
However, our metaphysical position influences our subjective experience and our behavior in the world. To grossly oversimplify for the sake of an example, if someone believes that behaving a certain way in life will lead to eternal suffering, that person likely experiences increased levels of anguish and suffering just thinking about whether and how they can avoid the pits of hell, or whatever.
By the same token, if someone believes that ultimately nothing more can be known than what is directly experienced, but we may as well be nice to each other in the meantime, that person will behave differently and experience life differently than someone with a different metaphysical position. Again, pardon the oversimplification.
I also know I did not "choose" to "believe" what I "believe", because free will does not exist (metaphysical assumption on my part, borne out by experience), so this is not "advice" for anyone to choose a metaphysical system that is more enjoyable, or life-affirming, and so on; it's just an observation that our position, though not "chosen" in the common meaning of that word, has significant impact on our lived experience.
a minor quibble … i wouldn’t lump Donald Hoffman in with the others. every interview i’ve seen/heard with him (admittedly not all) he is the antithesis of “delusionally sure”. he is hypothesizing, seeking more data, and states that he expects to be proven wrong.
thanks for the link. i’d read your analysis before but am glad to be reminded about it and to read it again.
your analysis strikes me as spot on. i was so glad you wrote it. i was quite taken by Donald and his “headset” idea. i appreciated his willingness to acknowledge that his ideas are building upon assumptions. that’s a big deal that i tended to overlook because i loved the “headset” exploration and just wanted to follow it along. i was down with suspending disbelief in service of my own amusement :)
he still doesn’t seem to me to be someone who is “delusionally sure”, and as i understand your analysis, you seem to concur that he is not. am i missing something?
while i still find his hypothesis interesting, i’m no longer paying a lot of attention to it. i spent six decades searching for theories and philosophies about what this human experience is, what’s real, what’s true, that seemed even remotely plausible to me. i called this curiosity, which is not wrong. but at the root of the thing was a discomfort with just being with what is. my curiosity was in service of escape. i’m not searching anymore, i don’t need it. what a relief.
i have tremendous appreciation for your work, Robert. it’s helped to clarify my own view in a way i had not managed through my own wondering and contemplation. thank you 🙏🏻
Thanks for that, Patricia. So many people have said that my work has had that effect. I always feel happy to hear that.
I agree. Calling Hoffman delusional is probably hyperbolic, although it seems to fit the others I mentioned. Still, Hoffman says that he cannot accept the math's undeniable implications on a personal level. In other words, he's saying that he feels certain that his common sense is wrong and the headset idea is something he must learn to tolerate. If he's going to doubt his common sense, why not be open to doubting the math too? Why the haste to conclude?
Hey...I've occupied myself for much of my adult life with wrestling with various philosophies - the main question behind all of which has, I reckon, been working out what is true/real and what is appearance (what "seems" to be reality).
Recently, I've seen that, in any given moment, there is no difference. The terminology only changes from "real" to "seemed real" once we have come up with some alternative version to what we have actually experienced - retrospectively.
In the moment, the issue is moot.
I wish you well bro.
Responding to https://robertsaltzman.substack.com/p/the-new-flat-earthers
Hi Robert, I agree with you and would like to add something: in my experience, I see and know that "proving" the "truth" of any metaphysical claim is impossible. Ok.
However, our metaphysical position influences our subjective experience and our behavior in the world. To grossly oversimplify for the sake of an example, if someone believes that behaving a certain way in life will lead to eternal suffering, that person likely experiences increased levels of anguish and suffering just thinking about whether and how they can avoid the pits of hell, or whatever.
By the same token, if someone believes that ultimately nothing more can be known than what is directly experienced, but we may as well be nice to each other in the meantime, that person will behave differently and experience life differently than someone with a different metaphysical position. Again, pardon the oversimplification.
I also know I did not "choose" to "believe" what I "believe", because free will does not exist (metaphysical assumption on my part, borne out by experience), so this is not "advice" for anyone to choose a metaphysical system that is more enjoyable, or life-affirming, and so on; it's just an observation that our position, though not "chosen" in the common meaning of that word, has significant impact on our lived experience.
a minor quibble … i wouldn’t lump Donald Hoffman in with the others. every interview i’ve seen/heard with him (admittedly not all) he is the antithesis of “delusionally sure”. he is hypothesizing, seeking more data, and states that he expects to be proven wrong.
Hi, Patricia. Have a look at this interview with Hoffman and my analysis of it. Let me know how it strikes you.
https://robertsaltzman.substack.com/p/a-deeper-intelligence-under-reality?utm_source=publication-search
thanks for the link. i’d read your analysis before but am glad to be reminded about it and to read it again.
your analysis strikes me as spot on. i was so glad you wrote it. i was quite taken by Donald and his “headset” idea. i appreciated his willingness to acknowledge that his ideas are building upon assumptions. that’s a big deal that i tended to overlook because i loved the “headset” exploration and just wanted to follow it along. i was down with suspending disbelief in service of my own amusement :)
he still doesn’t seem to me to be someone who is “delusionally sure”, and as i understand your analysis, you seem to concur that he is not. am i missing something?
while i still find his hypothesis interesting, i’m no longer paying a lot of attention to it. i spent six decades searching for theories and philosophies about what this human experience is, what’s real, what’s true, that seemed even remotely plausible to me. i called this curiosity, which is not wrong. but at the root of the thing was a discomfort with just being with what is. my curiosity was in service of escape. i’m not searching anymore, i don’t need it. what a relief.
i have tremendous appreciation for your work, Robert. it’s helped to clarify my own view in a way i had not managed through my own wondering and contemplation. thank you 🙏🏻
Thanks for that, Patricia. So many people have said that my work has had that effect. I always feel happy to hear that.
I agree. Calling Hoffman delusional is probably hyperbolic, although it seems to fit the others I mentioned. Still, Hoffman says that he cannot accept the math's undeniable implications on a personal level. In other words, he's saying that he feels certain that his common sense is wrong and the headset idea is something he must learn to tolerate. If he's going to doubt his common sense, why not be open to doubting the math too? Why the haste to conclude?
Thanks again for your kind words.