🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (11 tweets)
If you're still using an epistemology (rationalist or otherwise) where if two statements or perspectives contradict each other then one must be false, then today's your lucky day to learn about resolving paradoxes using higher-dimensional thinking! https://t.co/p7lGAk9fAn
@hunchandblunder They're not necessarily false... they could both be representations that contain key but incomplete information (which is what "true" means) but that you don't know how to integrate coherently. Need to be able to hold that without assuming one is wrong. https://t.co/0FNi2ueI5s
Your two eyes have different perspectives and thus contradict each other constantly about what's closer and what's on what side of what... ...and—usually—rather than wasting energy on an argument over which 2D view is right, the brain integrates them into DEPTH PERCEPTION 🤯 https://t.co/k9w9t8pqxE
Similarly, when two people each have a different perspective on something, they can waste energy arguing over which limited 1-person perspective is right, OR they can seek to integrate their perspectives into something deeper & richer.
This isn't just "oh, you have this part, I have that part, discard the falsehoods & keep the true parts". If I think this object looks like a square and you think it looks like a circle, then neither of us is mistaken about what we're seeing. We're just missing the larger whole. https://t.co/jtCnA5IXoU
That example (the image at least) comes from this great article by Daniel Schmactenberger. https://t.co/0FNi2ueI5s
A longer and more evocative depiction of the same thing is in @Nsousanis's book Unflattening. I've shared the main 2 relevant pages below, though they're richer in the context of the whole book. https://t.co/RxIalNQvM1
@uncatherio For more on this thing about perspective, read Unflattening by @Nsousanis: a PhD thesis created as beautiful graphic art. https://t.co/FsKrSzd1j7 (Not coincidentally, I told @Conaw about it in Sept'18, in a convo where we talked about writing a book together) 2 relevant pages: https://t.co/Cvudcr4qib
I'm not thoroughly certain of this, but it seems possible to me that just like a single eye can't see in 3D, there may be thoughts that are too complex for a single person to hold at once, so it's not just about answering some question then distributing the answer to each person.
the link apparently changed so here's where to read it now: https://t.co/oHyK9C2CXu
Link got changed. This is the one that works now: https://t.co/oHyK9BL25W
Although sometimes the 3D shape might also just be fucking with you https://t.co/10Cc7g59mL