G Gordon Worley III's Shortform

Some thoughts on Buddhist epistemology.

This risks being threatening, upsetting, and heretical within a certain point of view I commonly see expressed on LW for reasons that will become clear if you keep reading. I don't know if that means you shouldn't read this if that sounds like the kind of thing you don't want to read, but I put it out there so you can make the choice without having to engage in the specifics if you don't want to. I don't think you will be missing out on anything if that warning gives you a tinge of "maybe... (read more)

Showing 3 of 9 replies (Click to show all)
1hamnox5moI am glad for having read this, but can't formulate my thoughts super clearly. Just have this vague sense that you're using too many groundless words and not connecting to the few threads of gnosis(?) that other rationalists would have available.
4romeostevensit5moIn particular, I think under this formulation knowledge and onotology largely refer to the same thing. Which is part of the reason I think this formulation is mistaken. Separately, I think 'reality' has too many moving parts to be useful for the role it's being used for here. [https://www.xenodochy.org/gs/multiordinal.html]

Maybe, although I think there is a not very clear distinction I'm trying to make between knowledge and ontological knowledge, though maybe it's not coming across, although if it is and you have some particular argument for why, say, there isn't or can't be such a meaningful distinction, I'd be interested to hear it.

As for my model of reality having too many moving parts, you're right, I'm not totally unconfused about everything yet, and it's the place the remaining confusion lives.

G Gordon Worley III's Shortform

16

Ω 3


Crossposted from the AI Alignment Forum. May contain more technical jargon than usual.