Ep. 28 - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis - Convergence To Relevance Realization 

I've loved his lecture series, but you hit the nail on the head. Embodying the ideas is easily the most difficult part of understanding it. I get it when I hear him speak, then I attempt to enact them, and it seems far more blurry. Basically computational explosion is some seriously real shit. lol

This is where Peterson's work is helpful. Maps of Meaning is a very practical and brilliant addition to this course. Elephant in the Brain is a fantastic book which describes our dark motivations which we hide from ourselves (by bullshitting!) The overall goal is just to reverse engineer the ideal version of yourself (divine double) by augmenting your daily behavior (attention/diet/exercise/study time/work/ etc.) Writing out who you want to be really helps you contrast your current set of behaviors from the ones you aspire to have. In a way, It's obvious for me because I work in a hospital where people are dying from various bad behaviors (excess sugar intake, alcohol, lack of exercise, lacking mental stimulation, bad relationships, etc. Not to mention all the time they waste thinking about irrelevant things, watching daily news, bickering with idiots about things that wont matter a week from now, or ever. As a result I've quit ingesting things that are bad for me, and I try not to read anything that will become outdated within the next few years, meaning that I spend about an hour a month on news, if that. If I'm spending time and attention, I want the approval of my divine double. It serves as a judge. "Is this relationship worth your time? Should you continue hanging out with this 'friend' who is a bad influence? Do you really want to spend any of your precious time on social media?" Cheers!

@@IEGTI one of the best convergent summaries written between Peterson and Vervaeke. Thank you! Very good synthesis of eclectic/converging material!

Agreed! I do believe some of the pactical steps are just ahead. Keep listening.

@@IEGTI Pleasant Greetings! Thanks for your advice, testimony, and relevant suggestions. Would you be so kind and provide me with your reference for the 'Divine Double' idea? A book? Lecture?

In conveying relavance realizaiton he became frustrated at the mass of information he could covey, having to narrow it down to what is most relevant. Very ironic, I laughed wondering if it was intentional. Well, luckily for you your relavance radar has lead you to John, and he still uploads! Don't stop 💚- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dxJtBEfAT_E.html

He seems such a serious person to me, I'm taken by surprise when he makes a funny. Just watched a VanderKlay video in which John quipped about "putting Descartes before the horse."

You could say that the amount of info John can teach is combinatorially explosive

Definitely needed to hear that. 😂👍🏻 Helps me understand people.

"There's so much more I could teach you...." "CONVEY IT ALL, JOHN!"

Hahah noo I don't think your RR is broken, to me these Rolling Stones lyrics fit the situation perfectly! But maybe it's just because a guy once pointed out to me how great a metaphor a car is for your merkaba... So maybe my RR is broken too ;) But John's videos are definitely a gas to me, or even more like kerosine heheh

That's the guy for those who are interested: ru-vid.com/show-UCH8ArKBBi1CSjSOL_3-my8A

Thanks for an underrated comment.

Yeah I was thinking this too. I think it’s because of the mic. Even John’s voice fades when he’s writing on the board or amplified if he’s facing down.

How is that theoretical motivational psychotechnology going?

I'm reading that book currently and indeed there seems to plenty of connections ;)

I don’t remember. But I don’t think so. Thanks for the kind words.

@@johnvervaeke Thanks for taking your time to read. Sometimes I think you're doing Tai Chi or something while doing a lecture, your breathing feels heavy and is kind of contagious, to me at least. It's a good experience.

It is because it is grounded in the autopoiesis of life. Life is self making for no purpose other than itself.

@@johnvervaeke I appreciate the reply. Unfortunately, while I have an answer, it belongs to my friend and he is currently writing a book on these epistemological-ontological matters. I enjoy the videos

So what is it to choose well? The problem with the term value is it conflates together everything from preferences to needs. I don’t think is I correct to say that my need for water is subjective. The point to you find and choose the information most relevant to solving your problem. That is not determined by just your subject values. If it were just subjective values why is there such difference in intelligence between people and why is it so difficult to make AI? There are skills and states of mind etc that make a difference. I hope this addresses your concern. Thanks for the comment.

So what is it to choose well? The problem with the term value is it conflates together everything from preferences to needs. I don’t think is I correct to say that my need for water is subjective. The point to you find and choose the information most relevant to solving your problem. That is not determined by just your subject values. If it were just subjective values why is there such difference in intelligence between people and why is it so difficult to make AI? There are skills and states of mind etc that make a difference. I hope this addresses your concern. Thanks for the comment.

@@johnvervaeke Who defines "well" if not the chooser? The chooser wants to pick the best option, or at least a "good" option, however they define or think of "good". "Need" is just a non-negotiable value, or a value of survival. You don't need water if you don't want to live, but you do want to live (understandably, biologically). I don't see why values being subjective would make them easier. Our subjective values have been refined and ingrained by billions of years of evolution, homing in on features causally related to survival (danger, food, sex, etc) and ingraining these physiologically, hence why almost all humans agree on these. Different hardware can perform the same task at different rates or to different accuracies. We generally value intelligence because it makes one better able to do whatever they may wish to do: it is a universally applicable tool. This is along the same lines: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hEUO6pjwFOo.html&ab_channel=RobertMiles Thanks for responding. I'm really enjoying your content, even if I don't agree with it all. You're doing the Lord's work, so to speak :)

There are dangers which our species has not evolved to detect, meaning our class of "dangers" is incomplete. But those genetically inscribed dangers must contain between them some essences or salient attributes of "danger".

Isnt it just the instinct is the assessment.

it seems more like there are categories which we find dangerous (big cats, hot things, etc.), which is why we many times miss the danger of novel things as dangerous (though, novel things can be a category in and of itself, which might relate to why some people are open and less open to experience) but then are able to integrate them into our danger detection (like guns, climate change or artificial intelligence)

That sounds more like repression, wisdom is much more than that

www.etymonline.com/word/semiotic Memes, anyone?

there are much bigger problems then np, and in general the epistemicological frame problem reveals that relevance, function etc. is indeterminately large and non static.

I wonder if trying to create G.A.I might be to ambitious currently. Could we replicate early life and have a self replicating program that learns and is embodied. Start it in a basic environment with the goal of replacing it's battery as John said then complexify the environment till it can cope with ours. Maybe then it'll be a G.A.I. I'm definitely missing the bit where it'll have to realize some relevance but it seems like following this track further may teach us something.

It's the moment of complete and total horse shit for sychophants, you mean?

@@PhoenixProdLLC Genuinely interested in what parts you consider horseshit and from what alternate viewpoint/formulation you consider it to be horseshit?

Hamed Moradi can you elaborate?

(e.g., a naturalistic account for nature is an obvious category confusion, I would think)

I will check into it.

@@johnvervaeke thank you, sir.

I think you really need to be in Google play music. There are many podcasts there.

You are assuming that definitions are logical instead of functional, the point is that the category of "problem" is not a strictly logical one since there isn't a way of defining it neatly but instead is a collection of things human's group toghether. The contention is not if all problems can be called problems but if they share a exclusive set of characteristics that we can work around

@@joseignaciomontes5712 replying me ?

Well jusst about anything to be defined as problematic. It makes me wonder if problemacy of problems must be essential ?

Alexander Ruden cheers !

It could mean one of them is about to conduct a sadistic virtual reality experiment on the other and transform them from an Woodland Elf into Uruk-hai? www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjP6sOfkNXjAhUFWX0KHaH7BaoQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2Fen-ca%2Fp%2Fthe-lawnmower-man-the-directors-cut%2F8d6kgwxb6p0x&psig=AOvVaw3Z6D5EgwpON3TySYR927rO&ust=1564317814367222

When one is concerned with the optimization of technologies, it is always preferable to seek the truth. But when one is concerned with survival, it's always preferable to seek what works. By "works" I mean something which benefits you--aids your survival, etc. The truth is not always beneficial.​

@Language and Programming Channel From a Darwinian perspective, the genes don't care about what kind of society they inhabit. What interests a gene is fitness. And what works will always improve genetic fitness. That's what I mean by "works"--something which benefits the individual (and species) in terms of survival.

@Language and Programming Channel Evolution is the result of random mutation and natural selection. What "works" would be the selective element. Human beings who are predisposed to follow strategies that don't "work" will have decreased their genetic fitness. Relevance works, irrelevance does not work.

The Illustrious Martyrs Club No, he’s gonna get into the details of how he sees we realize relevance. It’s a process having to do with our minds being embodied/ embedded in an environment and the fact that we need to search for food in order to survive. It’s too much to fit in a comment here, it will be very interesting how he presents it here in this format. I can say after listening to his other lecture series I understand prayer in a completely different way. I used to see it as just a ridiculous waste of time but now understand it can do profound things for people who do it seriously.

Ahh, there's the proof. You ARE a bunch of religious nuts trying to use science to further your bs and turn the world backwards in time. No need for such fantasies. Merely denying climate science and acting like it's not happening will utterly wipe your DNA out and that of any unfortunate progeny you have, that you will a world of ashes and illness and violence. No, there will be no "re-ward" post death for ones such as yourselves. In fact, not for anyone. Get over it, lock your spines back in place, and stop trying to rationalize your every selfish ambition, hobby, and behavior.

@@PhoenixProdLLC Ahh, you should have realized the irrelevance of your comment before you posted it, but I suppose you were desperate to escape your loneliness for a second or two. So we forgive you.

@@dsuleyma In Yorkshire we have a psychotechnology called "calling a spade a spade". But I like finding out what else a spade can be called so I'll keep following.

I would consider it in a similar class @The Illustrious Martyrs Club .... synonymous with the Images of revelation or receptions of a blessing from God. Vervaeke seems willing to “pretend” , as Paul Vanderklay likes to advocate. to believe in blessings from God but in a more polytheistic way where the god of Science is one of the new main players.