The Map and the Territory?

[j0hnny#]

If experience is filtered by the map i.e. what we experience is our maps - or, that is, our interpretations, what ground is there for supposing there is any territory? Even if there is some ground, what more can be said of it than that it is the territory, and what possibility is there for knowing the territory? Can we even speak of it?


I think there could be some ground for it - for example, I believe there are other existing entities - you will be one of them - despite that an interpretation (map) determines for me your existence - I do not want to say I am completely responsible for your existence.

[Merlin]

Hi J0hnny#,

I don't think i'd claim experience is filtered by the map. That's only partly true. If it were completely true, we'd never have made the map we have. We start with no map (birth). This computer you are using wasn't there then. Your map was added to.

>what we experience is our maps...

What we experience is our sensory input. From that input we build a map, a representation of the territory.

>what ground is there for supposing there is any territory?
What would be the benefit of denying reality?

>Even if there is some ground, what more can be said of it than that it is the territory,

What's wrong with territory being territory?
The leaning tower of Piza is the leaning tower of Piza. What more needs to be said?

> and what possibility is there for knowing the territory?

It's an interesting philosophical viewpoint. Is it usefur for you?

> Can we even speak of it?

We are now.

Territory exists whether you have a map of it or not.
The Atlantic Ocean is there, whether Rand draws it in or not.
Your map is only a vague representation of a small part of the territory.

[j0hnny#]

Hi Merlin,


I don't think i'd claim experience is filtered by the map. That's only partly true. If it were completely true, we'd never have made the map we have. We start with no map (birth). This computer you are using wasn't there then. Your map was added to.

>what we experience is our maps...

What we experience is our sensory input. From that input we build a map, a representation of the territory.Without the map, I think there is good reason to suppose that sensory information is not even available to us. Distinguishing some object in your encounter (this must be done in order to have an experience-for example you must distinguish yourself from it) requires that you are first able to make the distinction. So, you can point to some thing, and how is it possible for you to point to it? If you pointed, to which thing did you point? and how was that possible? Seems understanding the thing pointed to is a prerequiste for pointing - otherwise your pointing is entirely underdetermined i.e. you don't pick out anything (and if you don't pick out one thing, what hope is there for picking out many?). A piece of sensory information is one thing, therefore identifying a piece of sensory information (experiencing it) requires first understanding.

It may be the case that sensory information is experienced in some unconcsious sense - though I think that actually allowing it to come into consciousness (experience proper) requires some understanding in order to distinguish some things as things. So either children are born with some innate language (maybe a Chomskyian Universal Grammar).. or they don't encounter anything till language developes in them - its weird eh? You would think this occurs from the outside in, but it doesn't seem possible that it can.


>what ground is there for supposing there is any territory?
What would be the benefit of denying reality?Probably no point in denying reality per se.

I think there could be one massive benefit if people realised that reality is inaccessible with the understanding.. i.e. the humility of individual perspectives - that you might not be right, along with the understanding that at the heart of your systems of reference is a deep seated trust. Seems to me to be capable of developing a certain attitude on matters of human interaction... A cautious confidence. Rather than blantant dogmatic blundering kind of confidence.


>Even if there is some ground, what more can be said of it than that it is the territory,

What's wrong with territory being territory?
The leaning tower of Piza is the leaning tower of Piza. What more needs to be said?
Fair point... though I think even calling it territory is a map.... divinity is another, dharma another, arising another, being another, noumena (things in themselves) another,.. etc., etc. they perhaps all point to the unspeakable. However, I think it will get confused if you start trying to cash out what it is... so if you say it is everything material you start introducing a whoel framework of understanding and presuppositions about its metaphysical status.


> and what possibility is there for knowing the territory?

It's an interesting philosophical viewpoint. Is it usefur for you?

well, I think you could be reminding me here about purpose and conception.. which is a fine thing to do. So long as it is realised as useful understanding for a particular purpose I probably won't have a problem with claims made about it... so long as its clear its understanding for a particular purpose. It's usefuleness will not establish it as fact though.

> Can we even speak of it?

We are now.
Are we really?



Johnny x

[Hibbitty]

Johnny,

Have you ever looked into E-Prime? It seems as though many of your philosophical problems would dissolve quite easily with this simple semantical device.

Hibbs

[Merlin]

>Without the map, I think there is good reason to suppose that sensory information is not even available to us. Distinguishing some object in your encounter (this must be done in order to have an experience-for example you must distinguish yourself from it) requires that you are first able to make the distinction. So, you can point to some thing, and how is it possible for you to point to it? If you pointed, to which thing did you point? and how was that possible? Seems understanding the thing pointed to is a prerequiste for pointing - otherwise your pointing is entirely underdetermined i.e. you don't pick out anything (and if you don't pick out one thing, what hope is there for picking out many?). A piece of sensory information is one thing, therefore identifying a piece of sensory information (experiencing it) requires first understanding.

You start out life without that ability.
In fact, you don't know that thing moving around is an arm or hand. You do eventually learn to have control over that movement and later still discover its attached and a part of you.
But that had to be learned. No map to guide you.

>I think there could be one massive benefit if people realised that reality is inaccessible with the understanding.

Or so you believe at this point in your journey. What if reality *is* accessible, though you personally haven't learned it *yet*?

>Fair point... though I think even calling it territory is a map....

Perhaps your map is not yet sufficiently developed to call it territory.
It seems to me that it is a limiting belief on your part.

>Are we really?


It's for your map to grow :)

[j0hnny#]

:)


You start out life without that ability.
In fact, you don't know that thing moving around is an arm or hand. You do eventually learn to have control over that movement and later still discover its attached and a part of you.
But that had to be learned. No map to guide you.


IF you know the thing moving about you can distinguish its particularity and therefore must have the ability... it seems. So before the movement is encountered the thing moving must be distinguished, surely? The appearance of anything requires its distinction.... distinction requires some means of distinguishing.... if a child first sees the arm moving it must first see the arm... even if this is non-verbal pointing or picking out, if we are not describing only the childs behaviour from the outside (giving it an understanding from our prejudiced first person perspective) it will still require some means of making the distinction... what else could give it access to particularity? To know it (experience it) is to be able to identify its distinctness... So how is there no ablity to do this at first, if there is first the seeing moving about then the controlling?


Or so you believe at this point in your journey. What if reality *is* accessible, though you personally haven't learned it *yet*?
Could be... this is a question I am very interested in... though seems it couldn't be learned in understanding for that would be just another map... wouldn't it?


Perhaps your map is not yet sufficiently developed to call it territory.
It seems to me that it is a limiting belief on your part.
If map = map, and territory = territory, then territory not = map, and map not = territory....

When map becomes territory I think a person has fallen into error.

And nothing limiting at a cognitve level about realising map = not 'territory' (or whatever)... limitation only occurs (seems to me) when map is confused for 'territory', or when map is thought to match 'territory' (which is IMO even worse). Or, that is, unless like I say territory is defined for a particular purpose - say as all things understood to be material, or something - but then we are not talking about the same thing - the 'real' then......


Hibbitty, never tried E-prime - not sure what it is but will look into it.... However, these are not my philosophical problems.... they belong to everyone. And, also I know how to make them go away ala Wittgenstein... Still, its good to expand the mind, no? And who says Wittgenstein's solution is what to do? But that E-prime (had a brief look into it last night) looks like it could be quite interesting - though not sure if any amount of experimentation could solve a philosophical 'problem'.

[j0hnny#]

You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.

Robert Anton Wilson

So hibbity, it seems you think my posts are not E-primed or E-priming, or E-prime motivating already? Are You sure?

:D

[Merlin]

>IF you know the thing moving about you ...

Even that is learned over time.

>though seems it couldn't be learned in understanding for that would be just another map... wouldn't it?

If you limit yourself so.

>If map = map, and territory = territory, then territory not = map, and map not = territory....

if A=A and B=B, then not A=B?
How can you conclude this?

Interesting!

[j0hnny#]

Sorry Merlin, the reasoning would have been better put:

1) If A=A then A = not B
2) If B=B then B = not A
3) B=B and A=A
Therefore
4) A= not B
&
5) B = not A

If B = territory and A = map, & (A = not B) & (B = not A), then map is not territory and territory is not map.

Alternatively, if A=B then there is not really a distinction between map and territory... (where A=map and B=territory)

>IF you know the thing moving about you ...

Even that is learned over time.Don't necessarily disagree.. only disagree that it is learned in the strong empiricist manner you were suggesting (tablua rasa which is filled up with sensory information)... seems to me there is good reason to suppose that ability to know precedes appearance. Things i.e distinct entities don't seem to be available to us without understanding. Point to 'it', how did you point to 'it'?


>though seems it couldn't be learned in understanding for that would be just another map... wouldn't it?

If you limit yourself so.
Being aware of its seeming impossibility does not rule out its possibility.... though I wonder what form it will take if its form is not understanding.. or are you saying that maps are not understandings?

[Merlin]

> 1) If A=A then A = not B

Why?

> 2) If B=B then B = not A

Why?

>Point to 'it', how did you point to 'it'?

Point to it is learned.

>or are you saying that maps are not understandings?

I'm saying there is more that you (and most) haven't experienced yet

[j0hnny#]

If A=A then A = not B (if B is distinct from A - and there is a distinction to be made between map (A) and territory (B) I thought - or is 'map' 'territory' and vice versa... I might not disagree with this.... makes 'territory' just the map)

Better said:

If A=A & B=notA then A=notB, maybe?

same for B=B then A = not B

Fair point though.... was badly formed formula without the understandings of B, A and the qualification that they are distinct (just add the qualification: if A=not B & B=not A - to each part)

Ok, ok... furthermore it was a shyte way to make the point... still the point is that you want to make the two things not the same? Hence the NLP presupposition 'the map is not the territory', so either this is wrong and the map can be the territory, or the map is not the territory.. Either way the map prevails... the map gets taken for the territory or the territory eludes the map.

>Point to it is learned.
Or does it develop?

So point to it is learned, how is it possible for it to be learned? How can anything be learned without first distinguishing that which is learned from? If it is learned it is learned from something.. I would imagine?

>I'm saying there is more that you (and most) haven't experienced yet

Hope so.... or I probably would be dead. :) I think though you are meaning that there is higher or somehow more valuable understandings to be had..... though maybe not... I'm open to the possibilities of mystical experiences (experience without understanding) though not sure whether and how they could be had... seems their realisation will require understanding they were as they were... how else could they be available to us?

[Merlin]

>If A=A & B=notA then A=notB, maybe?

Nope :)
Nice tries tho :)

>Either way the map prevails...

Go to an expensive restraunt.
look over the menu.
Eat the menu.

The Map (menu) is not the territory (the actual food)
It should be obvious. Don't mistake the menu for the meal.
Don't get the idea there is only menu possible, but no meal.

>how is it possible for it <point to> to be learned?
How can you learn *anything* if you must know it first?
Doesn't that preclude the possibility of learning anything new?

[j0hnny#]

Go to an expensive restraunt.
look over the menu.
Eat the menu.

The Map (menu) is not the territory (the actual food)
It should be obvious. Don't mistake the menu for the meal.
Don't get the idea there is only menu possible, but no meal.
Nice..... though the analogy is not exactly appropriate as perception (the mode of experiencing, the map or the menu) is not the thing/s itself (the other, the territory, or the food)...

Menu and food are both perceptibles (to use a slightly dodgy word:) ). Map is perceptible, territory is only perceptible as map... (and to E-prime to be on the safe side)..... or so it seems.

Perception of the 'object' is not the 'object' itself... it seems it is a modification of the 'object' - representation of something at best, interpretation at worst, perhaps......

Our only way of getting at the object is through perception, it very strongly seems.

The menu is possible, the food is not in this case... we have the menu (perception) but not the thing itself (food).

Will attempt to answer your second argument later - will require a bit more to answer that... very good point...


>how is it possible for it <point to> to be learned?
How can you learn *anything* if you must know it first?
Doesn't that preclude the possibility of learning anything new?

[Unregistered]

Hi J0hnny#,

M: We start with no map (birth).

Mind conceives, creates and maintains reality/territories.
Part of territory, we start (conception) beginning our mapmaking. Unborns have been observed making choices therefrom before birth.


J: So either children are born with some innate language .. or they don't encounter anything till language developes in them - its weird eh? "

Beyond 5 physical senses and others, we are born with mind abilities, latent while focusing on learning communicating via human language.


J: I think there could be one massive benefit if people realised that reality is inaccessible with the understanding.

M: Or so you believe at this point in your journey. What if reality *is* accessible, though you personally haven't learned it *yet*?

J: a question I am very interested in... though seems it couldn't be learned in 'understanding' for that would be just another map... wouldn't it?

M: If you limit yourself so.

J: or are you saying that maps are not understandings?

Confucius' logical philosophy and psychology's imaginary hallucinations unuseful here, scientific uncoveries first-aid our understanding in 'part'. Beyond conventional science beliefs and theories fed to the mainstream, understanding can continue growing ...


J: I'm open to the possibilities of mystical experiences (experience without understanding) though not sure whether and how they could be had ?

'mystical' only in the sense of being beyond 'ordinary' understanding. Latent mind processes can be exercised beyond the assumed range for perceiving, receiving, etc. the territory. Classes in various such areas have helped people for decades. Already verified results, with verifications continuing, people have and are furthering their abilities.

Mind's original purpose and intent being *loving wisdom*.

Yes, your mind containing countless such seeds of possible potential, you can make your abilities grow, bearing forth good fruit :-)