Elon and Epistemology

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Elon and Epistemology

Elon Musk made a fantastic compilation of clips from public appearances where he kept being needled and responded harshly. 

So why shouldn't this be in Ethics or Politics?

Why Epistemology?

The more I mulled it over, the more I saw pure epistemology coming through at the fundamental level--perception versus reality. Or to elaborate, perception without verification as a habit versus observing reality for real. 

 

When you watch the video, outside of enjoying the conflicts, look deeper.

When someone needled Elon, they did so with words connected to a political agenda that was disconnected from reality. When he responded, he not only got stubborn and hostile, he connected their words to observable reality.

That is about as Randian as it gets.

Both sides may use the same word, but they mean different things. One uses cognitive mush and a threat subtext as a word's referent. Musk rejects it and uses observable reality as his referent.

In short, you get to see the disrobing of two different concepts represented by the same word, and the dismantling of the word when used as a weapon of propaganda and intimidation.

Musk exposes the con. As an individual at that. No collective framing with him.

 

If you want to see how to do it, it's there. Several examples.

And if you want to see anything else Elon Musk is doing in reality, there's plenty of that out there, too.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following story about Elon Musk and Bill Gates is from a recent interview between Scott Adams and Naval Ravikant (see here for the full interview).

The Musk-Gates story is not Elon and Epistemology per se, as given in the title of this thread, but in one sense it is pure epistemology.

This time, instead of connecting abstractions and concepts and words to referents in reality, Elon takes mental visions and abstractions and so on and turns them into reality. This is the way epistemology is supposed to work when it is used as a tool. This is also pure Ayn Rand.

As an added bonus, this story shows Elon as a Randian hero more than any living person I know of. Ayn Rand herself could have written him.

Enjoy...

 

TEXT (NAVAL)

There was a story that I read about @elonmusk that really affected me, which was when he was talking to Bill Gates, and Bill Gates had just taken out some huge short on Tesla. It was like a billion dollar short or something.

And, Elon was like, “Why would you do that? Why would you short Tesla?” And Bill goes, “Well, you know, I talked to my financial advisors and I looked at the math and there’s no way it’s overvalued. And so I’m going to make money on the short.”

And Elon goes, “What do you care about making money? I thought you were into electric cars and climate change and saving the world. What are you doing trying to save a few bucks and betting against Tesla?”. And he just walked away in disgust.

And I think he never talked to Bill Gates after that. And that’s when I realized, like, Elon’s a purist. He means what he says. The money is a tool for him to get what he’s trying to do. And so I take him at face value, which is the crazy thing, because a lot of people who set these audacious goals to inspire people, you kind of know they don’t really mean it.

Elon, I take at face value. So I really do think he intends to get to Mars. I don’t think he’s joking about that. And I think he means to get there within a defined window of time. And I don’t think it’s just like an inspirational, faraway goal. I think he’s very, very concretely going to do whatever it takes.

Because Elon doesn’t want to go down in history as the electric car guy or even the guy who saved America guy. He wants to go down as a guy who got humanity to the stars. Again, I’ll give him more credit than that. I don’t even think he wants to go down as the “I got humanity to the stars” guy.

He’s just like, “I want to get to the stars, and so I have to make it happen in this lifetime. The only way that I get to experience the science fiction world in my head is if I get to the stars.” And so that’s so inspirational. I think that drives everything.

So I think the government was just a thing that got in his way.

END TEXT (NAVAL)

 

Man, that's inspiring.

Even Scott Adams, who is often too cute as master manipulator, is just listening in awe with a smile on his face.

 

Michael

[thommarc9s]

Thank you very much for sharing your insights,  Michael .

Overcoming the preference for appearance is more difficult than it appears for most people. 

Evolution hardwires most animals, including humans, to choose perception over reality, and does not readily reward those who choose reason. Rather, higher order thought/reason isn't apparent,  but requires mental-work, and the ability and willingness to interpret reality according to scientific fact amd the laws of logic.

[thommarc9s]

As for Scott Adam's being a "master manipulator" , what do you mean by that @Michael Stuart Kelly?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

Scott is a trained hypnotist and a public persuader.

He says so himself.

 

But he also teaches his techniques as he goes along.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

The problem comes when words or propositions replace reality in people's minds. 

There is plenty reality in people minds in the form of abstractions with referents that don't even need words or propositions: images, sounds, schema, even emotions.

Many in O-Land pretend these do not exist so long as a proposition can be made that fits whatever criteria they call reason at the time.

I am reminded of Rand's "ostensive definition" for existence. She swung her arm around and said, "I mean this."  

In my understanding, words should be connected to reality in some form other than words. Then, when one uses words according to logic, reason and so forth, they are talking about reality, not just word games.

Too many people in O-Land leave reality behind as they try to square syllogisms, align with what Rand has said before, cave to peer pressure and so on. To me, it's far easier. Find what reality the words you use refer to, then, once that is clear, it doesn't matter what anyone says. You know what you are talking about.

This is the way I see Elon proceeding.

Science and logic are built on top of that, not the other way around.

 

As to the left, they have become so mucked up in their minds, they no longer need reality. Words alone do the job for them. Thus, men can become women by saying the word, rigged trade can become free trade by calling it that, people can be racists by calling them racists. and so on.

Michael

[anthony]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

T,

The problem comes when words or propositions replace reality in people's minds. 

There is plenty reality in people minds in the form of abstractions with referents that don't even need words or propositions: images, sounds, schema, even emotions.

Many in O-Land pretend these do not exist so long as a proposition can be made that fits whatever criteria they call reason at the time.

I am reminded of Rand's "ostensive definition" for existence. She swung her arm around and said, "I mean this."  

In my understanding, words should be connected to reality in some form other than words. Then, when one uses words according to logic, reason and so forth, they are talking about reality, not just word games.

Too many people in O-Land leave reality behind as they try to square syllogisms, align with what Rand has said before, cave to peer pressure and so on. To me, it's far easier. Find what reality the words you use refer to, then, once that is clear, it doesn't matter what anyone says. You know what you are talking about.

This is the way I see Elon proceeding.

Science and logic are built on top of that, not the other way around.

 

As to the left, they have become so mucked up in their minds, they no longer need reality. Words alone do the job for them. Thus, men can become women by saying the word, rigged trade can become free trade by calling it that, people can be racists by calling them racists. and so on.

Michael

Michael, this is, simply, tops. We know the old term for placing 'reason' above reality: rationalism. Rand *could* appear to some in such a manner, since most lack comprehension of the enormous grasp she had upon metaphysical reality - seemingly, without leaving her desk! So in wanting to emulate her intellectual feats, one's reasoning may become detached from ('transcend'), the very source, "reality". 

Not new to anyone  here, one induces and derives propositions/principles/conceptions *from* reality -- and implements/applies those *back* to existence, completing the circle, so to speak. ("Without induction, I would not have a philosophy").

For the Left specifically, rationalism - and intrinsicism - will be their downfall every time. You could not design a "perfect system" like Marxian-Socialism without delving exclusively into your mind outside reality: i.e., I decree this is how mankind 'should' exist, in harmony, therefore men might have to be ordered to submit to it, for their own good. There's the Leftist total contradiction to, and attack on, the identity of human nature/man's nature - "autonomous and self-directing", the free-willed rational animals.  

[sjw]

Some of the stuff in the OP is great but some of it is just "reality-distortion field" by Musk: he's far superior at debate even when he's wrong. E.g. he attacks the bumbling reporter who can't find examples of "hate speech" even to the extent of accusing him of lying, whereas we all know Twitter does have racist/sexist posts even if we can't recall a specific instance on the spot (I saw plenty of racism myself during this H1B meltdown the past week but I can't point you to a specific tweet on the spot per not having a photographic memory for twitter URLs). This is sophistry by Musk even though the reporter is too befuddled to point that out. It's likewise sophistry to attack "work from home" from the angle of "if the janitor has to do it then everyone should have to do it."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I don't understand what sophistry means here.

Seriously. I don't understand.

 

My point was not that Elon won a gotcha.

It's that Elon always points to reality. He doesn't just point to words. And this confuses the press, which runs on nothing but gotcha and gossip.

But to be clear, Elon was not saying there is no hate speech on X. He was addressing a reporter who made an accusation about the culture on X. Elon wanted to look at some examples to continue the discussion. Identify before evaluate. I am talking about a producer perspective, not a rhetorical technique.

His drive in the discussion was not competitive. It was not to humiliate the reporter by being right when the reporter was wrong. I don't think Elon worries about verbal dueling unless he is bantering. And then he does it for laughs, often laughing at himself as much as others.

I know this because I am that way inside. (Now that is. In the past, I have done my own share of bickering online.  )

Also, the reporter needed to come with examples. The reporter is not a man off the street. He's supposed to have some elementary training to interview celebrities. Any reporter who comes that ill-prepared to a gig like that is like a lawyer who shows up to court in a major case without any evidence or paperwork and expects the judge to side with him.

As to work at home, it's the prerogative of the business owner to determine that, no? Owners who want a strong corporate culture and bonding among their employees know that coming to work fosters these things in a way that work at home does not. When a company has secrets that are super-damaging if they are leaked to competitors and enemies, loyalty is an issue. So some company owners reinforce feelings of loyalty with measures like this.

Agree or disagree, out in reality, Elon does run great companies. I do not. So if that's the way he wants to do it, I say let him. He knows how to make and run great companies. And he's on the cutting edge of technology.

Michael

[sjw]

Quote

I don't understand what sophistry means here.

Seriously. I don't understand.

I'm not using it in any special sense, just read what it means in a dictionary.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK.

Here's one definition (see here) - The Cambridge Dictionary:

Sophistry: "The clever use of arguments that seem true but are really false, in order to deceive people."

So Elon is trying to deceive people with clever arguments that sound good, but are really lies?

Sorry.

I don't buy it.

Total disagreement.

Besides, that's the brush-off argument.

 

Elon does not deceive nature. He builds things.

Reality is harder to brush off by saying "sophistry" because his rockets go up and come back down. And anyone can observe it. Need I go onto his other ventures? It's easy to do this with each one because anyone can observe it.

I believe Elon treats people the same, with reference to reality, not just reference to words.

Michael

[sjw]

You're misrepresenting my point. I only said that in that particular instance he was bullshitting with that reporter. I didn't make any wild claims about how reality-oriented Elon was or wasn't overall, or how good he is at understanding physical things vs. people in general.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, sjw said:

I only said that in that particular instance he was bullshitting with that reporter.

And I fully disagree with you for the reasons I stated.

It's a way of thinking.

Elon was using a way of thinking with the reporter, not bullshit.

Where you see bullshit, I see a rational productive mind using a rational productive epistemology.

A rational productive mind references reality before any other standard. In fact, reality is the standard this kind of mind uses to make standards.

Referencing reality is what Elon did with the reporter. He asked for examples in reality of a normative judgement the reporter made. 

(As an aside, this is the major appeal of Joe Rogan. He always asks for examples in reality of claims his guests make. His popularity shows just how hungry the public is for this when done in common language and not jargon. And they sense the difference between this and propaganda and hidden agendas.)

I call this a cognitive before normative thinking process and I have written about it often here on OL. I often follow with the question: How can you evaluate something correctly if you first don't identify it correctly? 

 

With Elon, this thinking process is so deep and automated inside his brain, it is second nature.

I never see him playing mind games (bullshitting) except when he is aiming for humor or banter.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

(As an aside, this is the major appeal of Joe Rogan. He always asks for examples in reality of claims his guests make. His popularity shows just how hungry the public is for this when done in common language and not jargon. And they sense the difference between this and propaganda and hidden agendas.)

Here is an example of Joe Rogan referencing reality while criticizing a guest's epistemology.

Okay, that was a quip.

With an element of reality.

 

Michael

[sjw]

On 12/31/2024 at 11:15 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Referencing reality is what Elon did with the reporter. He asked for examples in reality of a normative judgement the reporter made. 

At each step here you're not only missing the point but missing it in the least charitable way possible. I of course don't need lessons on the fact that it's good to substantiate claims.

He invited the reporter to give his own personal anecdote or sense of how things had changed, the reporter duly answered. At least in the context of the snipped video, there was nothing really wrong with the answer. But Musk acted like the reporter was advocating for censorship, or that the reporter was *not* merely doing what Elon himself asked for, giving a personal sense of how his feed had changed. Had Elon framed his question honestly, he would have asked "Prove to me from your own feed that racist/sexist speech has gotten worse." Then the reporter could have answered "Well, not only do I not have my feed memorized, but we can't fit such investigation into this tiny interview. That's an unreasonable ask." 

In this context Elon demanding "examples" as if he's in a courtroom is ridiculous. Not only because it's unreasonable to expect someone to memorize their feed, but because one person's feed isn't proof of anything. There's no way to determine if racism/sexism has increased/decreased just from one feed. There's no way to settle the question Elon is trying to settled via that method. Yet he's got a nice reality distortion field going that there is, and you're trapped in it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, sjw said:

At each step here you're not only missing the point but missing it in the least charitable way possible. I of course don't need lessons on the fact that it's good to substantiate claims.

Shayne,

This is so tedious.

It's not personal. Personal is boring.

Not only that, you say I am trying to give you lessons in how to substantiate claims?

You think I spend my time like that?

Really?

Good God.

 

 

The rest of your answer, though, pointed to a possibility that I am not communicating well. I know I'm not communicating well enough for you to see my point, even though I believe you know I disagree with you, so I communicated that part well enough, but I'm talking about the reader of this thread. I want to make sure the reader of this thread can see what I am pointing at with no ambiguity.

I am talking about a mindset, a way of thinking, a producer epistemology. I am very familiar this with since I share it. It's how my own brain works.

 

The automatic habit of a reality producer person is to look at reality without preconceptions as his kneejerk. He just wants to know what's there before he judges it. His automatic habit is not to deceive or win any cruddy verbal contest. It's to see correctly, then attach words to it, not the contrary. After that kneejerk, he judges and thinks if he needs to do--or can do--something with it. 

Elon did not ask the reporter for a "personal anecdote" to set him up. He did not try to trap the reporter. He was honestly curious and wanted to see if there was something he should look into, or maybe use as an example to explain what he is doing about it if the problem is serious, or explain how such example fits into the concept of freedom of speech at X right now if the example just shows stupidity of the poster, or something like that. Especially seeing how the reporter stated--as fact--something negative about his newest project, X.

Just look at what Elon's employees say and you will observe all of them saying this is what he does. He gets feedback, positive and negative, from others. He doesn't get pissed if he is wrong. Even on X, community notes correct him at times. 
 

You are attributing all kinds of motivations to Elon based on word games and mind reading and evil intentions that I have never seen him do nor signal before (acting like he is in a court demanding proof, making verbal traps and "reality distortion fields," framing questions dishonestly, and so on).

A person who thinks like Elon, who shows how he thinks by the magnificent things he builds (things that work, too), how he constantly course corrects based on feedback from reality and from those who point to reality, has no time for any of that. 

Elon does not use words as weapons to win arguments. He couldn't give a crap about arguments. That's not his method, nor his joy.

When he told the elites in an interview not too long age, "Go fuck yourselves," he was not doing verbal jujutsu or 5D chess or covert manipulation. He was telling them if they wanted to blackmail him with words and money, they should go fuck themselves. And he meant it.

Elon's still dreaming of taking human beings to the stars and save human consciousness in a universe where it could be extinguished by a single event. There are tons of examples of him saying this. 

That's what's behind his eyes, not what you claim motivates him.

 

I used to have time for mind games and one-upmanship shit, but not anymore. 

Even as I write this, I know I am not going to continue arguing about it. I've only gone this far because I like you. And I believe it is important for readers to not just read Rand's version of how producers do and act, but how their epistemology works in terms of their underlying thinking and reacting habits. (Rand avoided talking about that for the most part. She was more interested in their "sense of life.")

Elon's form of expression in this episode is a great example to point to about how such epistemology works.

But as I am writing this, my mind is drifting. I am thinking about my writing projects and some fascinating things I am learning about neuroscience and what a great time it is to be alive.

Like I said, I am very familiar with Elon's form of thinking since it is the way epistemology works inside my own brain.

 

If you disagree, that's fine.

We see what we see. We think what we think. And we produce what we produce.

Michael

[sjw]

Quote

You are attributing all kinds of motivations to Elon based on word games and mind reading and evil intentions that I have never seen him do nor signal before 

I'm primarily looking at the logic of his interaction with the reporter. It all boils down to the transcript of what was said in that video and the illogical leaps by Musk. The only way to settle our little debate here is to go over it line by line.

It's a huge mistake to idol-worship Musk (as opposed to having qualified admiration for some of what he's done). But that's a whole new topic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Whatever.

Idol worship? You are not a good mind reader. At least not for my mind...

 

 

I mean just because I said I like you, that doesn't mean I worship you like an idol.

  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 1/1/2025 at 6:31 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Idol worship?

Me with Elon?

Never gonna happen.

 

btw - Here's an interesting study at Harvard using AI on the historical Jesus Christ.

 

Michael