Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Think for Yourself, Schmuck! => Topic started by: LHX on December 06, 2006, 05:13:14 PM

Title: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on December 06, 2006, 05:13:14 PM
Another piece salvaged from TDN that I had cross-posted elsewhere

just for kicks
(http://i5.tinypic.com/27wzsxx.jpg)
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LMNO on December 06, 2006, 05:14:42 PM
We never saved any of our "origin of the lie" dialogues, did we?
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on December 06, 2006, 05:20:10 PM
no

we discussed that a lot over there

maybe we can still figure out a way to pick up where we left off

or re-construct it

or put together some sort of running synopsis


if i remember correctly - the dialogue was looking pretty good from both angles
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LMNO on December 06, 2006, 05:22:08 PM
If I recall, we had way more than 2 angles.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on December 06, 2006, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 06, 2006, 05:22:08 PM
If I recall, we had way more than 2 angles.

lmao
true

we really got down to the meat of it
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: East Coast Hustle on December 06, 2006, 09:47:46 PM
damn. I didn't get over there much, but I remember that thread and it was one of the most interesting discussions anywhere on the internets IMO.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: B_M_W on December 06, 2006, 11:53:28 PM
It was also really intense. I found myself having trouble grasping alot of it, so much theory.

Hopefully RWHN will get the backlogs sometime.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on December 07, 2006, 12:00:15 AM
every time the discussion comes up, it seems to come further out of the realm of abstract and more into the line of something observable

or at least - thats the goal of it anyway


i have to see if i can come up with some sort of summary
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: AFK on December 07, 2006, 02:35:35 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on December 06, 2006, 11:53:28 PM
It was also really intense. I found myself having trouble grasping alot of it, so much theory.

Hopefully RWHN will get the backlogs sometime.

Well, if I don't I'll at least succeed in jamming their inboxes pretty good. 
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Triple Zero on December 07, 2006, 07:20:20 PM
actually, even though i contributed a lot to it, i still don't quite get where you wanted to go with that origin of lie business :)

for me at least, the topic itself lead to a whole bunch of interesting discussions, but the original question "when and/or why did people and/or creatures start lying?" seems to hint to some suspicion of Big Truth that i just don't seem to get even a glimpse of..
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on December 07, 2006, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: triple zero on December 07, 2006, 07:20:20 PM
actually, even though i contributed a lot to it, i still don't quite get where you wanted to go with that origin of lie business :)

for me at least, the topic itself lead to a whole bunch of interesting discussions, but the original question "when and/or why did people and/or creatures start lying?" seems to hint to some suspicion of Big Truth that i just don't seem to get even a glimpse of..
thats why im glad youre around yo

its true: when you forget why you started talking about the abstract, sometimes you get lost there


Cain brought up the same reminder at times


the point of departure was this:

WE CANNOT SEEM TO AGREE ON EXACTLY WHAT THE PROBLEM IS OR WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
yet
here we are all living in the same place

thru discussing this angle - we refined and refined and refined until it led to the point where we were discussing language and communication itself

at the end of the equation is something similar to this: if you can understand the nature of language and communication, you might be better equipped to improve your situation

without getting to the root of these problems, it seems that all enterprises can be nothing more than temporary patches and fixes
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on January 12, 2007, 07:13:05 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 09, 2007, 10:56:25 PM
A physical need could turn into a psychological condition in post-sentience evolution.

It could become more than just avoiding pain, it could become avoiding death as well.

Though, I would say that avoiding death would have evolved first. Do trees feel pain? No, but their processes indicate a teleos which tries to avoid death.

Quote from: LHX on January 09, 2007, 11:01:45 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on January 09, 2007, 10:56:25 PM
Though, I would say that avoiding death would have evolved first. Do trees feel pain? No, but their processes indicate a teleos which tries to avoid death.

got dam that shit is fascinating

QuoteA physical need could turn into a psychological condition in post-sentience evolution.

It could become more than just avoiding pain, it could become avoiding death as well.
that makes sense

and once it is known that things move in a way to avoid death, there is the observation that one can use that fear of death as a penalty, and apply pressure / suffering

if the penalty for disobedience is that thing that you are afraid of, then guess who is gonna obey?

the math is basic at that point



good eye Monk
good eye

Quote from: triple zero on January 09, 2007, 11:03:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 09, 2007, 10:51:28 PM
Quote from: triple zero on January 09, 2007, 10:38:35 PM
why?

i really still don't get where you are trying to go with this "lie" stuff. the advantages are there, the ways to accidentally stumble upon the concept are also there. keep in mind we're talking about tens of thousands of <i>generations</i>. even a monkey could figure it out.

yeah - my hunch is that it was accidentally stumbled upon - but it was intentionally put into use

but of course.
i told you before, in order to observe the advantage, and then to put telling a lie to use, you need a certain amount of self-reflection. you can't get that without consciousness.

mmm i'm just going on a limb here, ok? let's say telling lies is advantageous to an individual. in order to tell better and better lies, one needs to develop the consciousness.


could it be?

Monk and 000 got me thinking about this again



basically:
if you can trace the steps back to the possible scenarios about how lies developed, you have a map that can be used to help get a glimpse of that non-existent or indefinable 'Big Truth' that 000 mentioned

the way it stands now - lies and 'truths' all wear the same clothes
strip the clothes away and you get to see what is what

a lot of clothes give the illusion of skin

(http://hpbimg.bms-italy.org/completo.jpg)

keep stripping them away --
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Thurnez Isa on January 12, 2007, 07:18:18 PM
One slight prob i have with the picture
Im not sure if our ancient ancestors had it too "safe"
It seems that life pre-civ was increasingly hard and dangerious
and to me, at least, I'm of the opinion currently that our development of early symbols was in direct relation with this lack of security, both for the practical and the psychological
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: AFK on January 12, 2007, 07:27:03 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 12, 2007, 07:13:05 PM
the way it stands now - lies and 'truths' all wear the same clothes
strip the clothes away and you get to see what is what

And everyone has a different fashion sense
Is it those who get their clothes from the same tailor who decide what their "truths" are.
Kind of like the idea of the grids from PD. 
Those who share the most in common when it comes to the clothes will most likely agree on what is a lie and what is a "truth"

And then when you get disagreement on the fashion do's and don'ts thats when the trouble starts.

Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on January 12, 2007, 07:47:39 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on January 12, 2007, 07:18:18 PM
One slight prob i have with the picture
Im not sure if our ancient ancestors had it too "safe"
It seems that life pre-civ was increasingly hard and dangerious
and to me, at least, I'm of the opinion currently that our development of early symbols was in direct relation with this lack of security, both for the practical and the psychological

good point

it is important to note these types of possibilities:

possibility 1:
the ancients always had it bad and progress was a direct result of this

possibility 2:
the ancients developed/found themselves in a 'heavenly' eden-type situation, and everything which followed was set in motion on purpose


both angles are worth investigating

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 07:27:03 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 12, 2007, 07:13:05 PM
the way it stands now - lies and 'truths' all wear the same clothes
strip the clothes away and you get to see what is what

And everyone has a different fashion sense
Is it those who get their clothes from the same tailor who decide what their "truths" are.
Kind of like the idea of the grids from PD. 
Those who share the most in common when it comes to the clothes will most likely agree on what is a lie and what is a "truth"

And then when you get disagreement on the fashion do's and don'ts thats when the trouble starts.



to stick with the metaphor:
some people get sold bulletproof vests that turn out to be made of styrofoam


by this stage - i dont know if its important 'how many people' agree on what is true - its more about who believes it


i just started a college course, and already im getting a taste of how little imagination these youngsters have

in all honesty - its this networks of idiots here that has provided the strength and encouragement to plunge back into the shark tank and try to smack some creativity back into these fuckers


when you guys tell me ive lost it and im full of shit, i listen

but when i hear it out here - i generally dont pay too much attention
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: AFK on January 12, 2007, 07:57:43 PM
possibility 3:
Human evolution has always been in an infantile state of boundary testing

Kids as they grow up are constantly testing boundaries through acting out, language development, symbolism development, learning how to use tools, etc., etc. 

Perhaps, in an evolutionary sense, the whole of humanity is in a constant state of infancy.  We're trying to 'grow up' by finding new ways to do things, or simply finding new things to do.  But as we exceed some boundaries (whatever that may mean) we find new ones. 

And like infants, sometimes we go too far, and then get put into "time out". 
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on January 12, 2007, 08:00:29 PM
the notion of a mystery god and eternal punishment dont really jive with being in a infantile state of boundary testing --
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: AFK on January 12, 2007, 08:11:42 PM
yeah, well I'm a blasphemous heathen so I don't jive well with the notion of eternal gods and mystery punishment.   :-D

But back to the discussion the only thing I wonder with possibility 1 is if the ancients really viewed their situation as "having it bad".  We have a bias of living in a world of "advanced" technologies.  So to many, not having a toilet would be "having it bad"  But with no concept of a toilet the ancients might not come to such a conclusion. 
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: B_M_W on January 12, 2007, 08:41:51 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 08:11:42 PM
yeah, well I'm a blasphemous heathen so I don't jive well with the notion of eternal gods and mystery punishment.   :-D

But back to the discussion the only thing I wonder with possibility 1 is if the ancients really viewed their situation as "having it bad".  We have a bias of living in a world of "advanced" technologies.  So to many, not having a toilet would be "having it bad"  But with no concept of a toilet the ancients might not come to such a conclusion. 

Quote from: Tao Te Ching
When the people of the Earth all know beauty as beauty,
   There arises (the recognition of) ugliness.
When the people of the Earth all know the good as good,
   There arises (the recognition of) evil.

Connections...
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Triple Zero on January 13, 2007, 06:30:15 PM
i talked about the origin of the lie again at a party yesterday, "i have no idea what this guy is trying to get at with it, but he goes on and on about the origin of the lie, what do you think of that", with the right people around you, this will almost always launch you into one of those hyper-intelligent discussions (and trying to keep on track by hitting them with the right barstools).

anyway, where i said "consciousness" before, i should say "self-consciousness" as a friend pointed out, a dog is conscious because it can feel pain, but a dolphin is self-conscious because it can recognize its reflection in a mirror.

now, self-consciousness in itself doesn't do much advantage to an individual. but there are some features that flow out of having self-consciousness: creativity, ability to tell good (working) lies, and probably more but with this little bit of distilled idea we came to an agreement in our heated discussion and thus, interest was lost, and beers were shared.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on January 13, 2007, 08:34:13 PM
Quote from: triple zero on January 13, 2007, 06:30:15 PM
i have no idea what this guy is trying to get at with it,
i guess i stumbled upon this entire thing in a attempt to determine why this society is so self-destructive in a situation where everybody has good intention

what other possible reasons is there?

weak will power?
'primitive competition'?

it is within our ability to determine the various possible scenarios about what may have happened



sometimes it seems important to try and determine how this situation developed ("if you dont know where youre from, you sure as hell dont know where youre going")

sometimes it seems like nothing more than a hobby


the more refined your map is, the better you can navigate the territory
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on January 13, 2007, 09:32:27 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 13, 2007, 08:34:13 PM
Quote from: triple zero on January 13, 2007, 06:30:15 PM
i have no idea what this guy is trying to get at with it,
i guess i stumbled upon this entire thing in a attempt to determine why this society is so self-destructive in a situation where everybody has good intention

what other possible reasons is there?

weak will power?
'primitive competition'?

You call it self-destructive, they call it an honorable sacrifice.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on January 13, 2007, 09:49:57 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 13, 2007, 09:32:27 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 13, 2007, 08:34:13 PM
Quote from: triple zero on January 13, 2007, 06:30:15 PM
i have no idea what this guy is trying to get at with it,
i guess i stumbled upon this entire thing in a attempt to determine why this society is so self-destructive in a situation where everybody has good intention

what other possible reasons is there?

weak will power?
'primitive competition'?

You call it self-destructive, they call it an honorable sacrifice.
--- in the name of ---?
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on January 14, 2007, 09:34:30 AM
Safety, freedom, gods, children, poor defenseless grizzly bears... it doesn't really matter as long as they have the key

But it depends on how you're thinking of self-destructiveness and good intention, what specifically do you mean with those terms?


At what point is something destructive, and by what measure is intent good?
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: LHX on January 14, 2007, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 14, 2007, 09:34:30 AM
At what point is something destructive, and by what measure is intent good?

these are key questions

the only reasonable answer i can put out there is that something is destructive when it appears to be destructive


and intent is good when it seeks to provide a nurturing environment where living things have a opportunity to thrive and perpetuate life (in whatever form it takes)


THAT BEING SAID

there are other reasonable angles to look at this from:

namely - the 'threat' or 'pressure' of being in a destructive situation is a catalyst for creation

(ie. the best art comes out of the worst, most bleak circumstances)


without the slums, there is no Wu-Tang


in a nurturing world, we dont even get brought together

no BIP

no orbital platforms
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Kai on August 29, 2009, 07:25:07 PM
I am bumping this thread for great justice in reference to the epic Origin of the Lie thread of the late The Discordian Network.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: rong on September 06, 2009, 03:35:06 PM
maybe i shouldn't be butting in here as i haven't been through this discussion, but dammit, sometimes something is so interesting you feel compelled to post.

from my own personal experience, moving from the city to the woods - i have never been more compelled to lie to people.  the lies i'm compelled to tell are about how many fish did i catch? where did i catch them? seen any bucks lately?  no matter what the truth is - i don't want anyone to know there's a nice 8 pointer hanging out on my land.  i don't want anyone to know where the walleye are biting. 

this got me thinking that the origin of the lie could stem simply from putting the needs of the self over the needs of the species. 

the irony being that preserving the self does preserve the species (assuming the self procreates).  but it also alters the species - in favor of the liar.

anyhow, maybe this has all been covered ad nauseum, but thanks for giving me something new to think about today. 
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Captain Utopia on September 06, 2009, 04:26:21 PM
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 03:35:06 PM
maybe i shouldn't be butting in here as i haven't been through this discussion, but dammit, sometimes something is so interesting you feel compelled to post.

from my own personal experience, moving from the city to the woods - i have never been more compelled to lie to people.  the lies i'm compelled to tell are about how many fish did i catch? where did i catch them? seen any bucks lately?  no matter what the truth is - i don't want anyone to know there's a nice 8 pointer hanging out on my land.  i don't want anyone to know where the walleye are biting. 

this got me thinking that the origin of the lie could stem simply from putting the needs of the self over the needs of the species. 

the irony being that preserving the self does preserve the species (assuming the self procreates).  but it also alters the species - in favor of the liar.

anyhow, maybe this has all been covered ad nauseum, but thanks for giving me something new to think about today. 
Is the tasty butterfly species, which has evolved to show the markings of a poisonous butterfly species, telling a lie? Or is the individual butterfly telling a lie?

Does a childs first lie express an intent to deceive or a lack of comprehension of the difference between a preferred reality and consensual reality? What starts as an accident may be propagated because it confers an advantage?

Your example is interesting because presumably these are lies you have a very low chance of being caught out on. Have you found yourself lying more in other contexts?
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: rong on September 06, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 06, 2009, 04:26:21 PM
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 03:35:06 PM
maybe i shouldn't be butting in here as i haven't been through this discussion, but dammit, sometimes something is so interesting you feel compelled to post.

from my own personal experience, moving from the city to the woods - i have never been more compelled to lie to people.  the lies i'm compelled to tell are about how many fish did i catch? where did i catch them? seen any bucks lately?  no matter what the truth is - i don't want anyone to know there's a nice 8 pointer hanging out on my land.  i don't want anyone to know where the walleye are biting. 

this got me thinking that the origin of the lie could stem simply from putting the needs of the self over the needs of the species. 

the irony being that preserving the self does preserve the species (assuming the self procreates).  but it also alters the species - in favor of the liar.

anyhow, maybe this has all been covered ad nauseum, but thanks for giving me something new to think about today. 
Is the tasty butterfly species, which has evolved to show the markings of a poisonous butterfly species, telling a lie? Or is the individual butterfly telling a lie?

Does a childs first lie express an intent to deceive or a lack of comprehension of the difference between a preferred reality and consensual reality? What starts as an accident may be propagated because it confers an advantage?

Your example is interesting because presumably these are lies you have a very low chance of being caught out on. Have you found yourself lying more in other contexts?

i would say the butterfly example supports the evolutionary advantage of the liar altering the species notion.

i would guess that a child's first lie depends on the child. 

personally, it's only as to the whereabouts of good things in nature.  around here, i'm not the only one in that regard - nobody will ever tell you where they find their morel mushrooms. ever.

i guess i would call it protecting a limited supply of something you can't physically defend.

edit: in responding to your questions, i forgot to mention some other related things that came to mind.

there's some sort of quandry, i think:
-in the "defense of self" sense justification of the lie, it would seem that only the "weak" or "unsuccessful" really need the Truth.

-only those in power are in the position to demand the Truth.

-a lie is the only defense the weak has against those in power.

speaking in broad generalizations here, i suppose.  and i need to think about this some more before i see what i'm really getting at.

(where the definition of the Truth remains to be determined - and i did read enough of this thread to see that the Truth is where the discussion eventually headed, but i don't think i'm done with the lie yet)
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Captain Utopia on September 06, 2009, 05:46:28 PM
I realise we're likely retreading old hashed-out ground here - having missed out on the original thread also, but I really like where you're going with this, so if you wanna bash this out some more, I'm game.


Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
personally, it's only as to the whereabouts of good things in nature.  around here, i'm not the only one in that regard - nobody will ever tell you where they find their morel mushrooms. ever.
To a certain extent then, that environment supports multiple realities more easily - e.g. the one where you say you saw a buck but didn't, vs the one where you say nothing when you do - the cost of the lie is very cheap.

I suppose, living in the city, I could equally make up stories/lies.. but since a city is built for consumption, there's rarely as much personal benefit to doing so. What's the point of not telling my friends about some great new place to eat, when if it's good it's going to be packed within a few weeks anyway?

Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
i guess i would call it protecting a limited supply of something you can't physically defend.
Also, in more "civilised" areas, you don't need to personally defend things physically, as you can depend upon other institutions to uphold your rights. If your car gets stolen, you can replace it on insurance.

Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
there's some sort of quandry, i think:
-in the "defense of self" sense justification of the lie, it would seem that only the "weak" or "unsuccessful" really need the Truth.
Yes and no I think. It's like the Tragedy of the Commons - when no-one has a motivation to cooperate, the weak and unsuccessful are those who play by the rules. But if most (I think there's a critical mass) people play by the rules, then everyone can benefit.

For example, if you trusted your neighbour to share your mushroom patch fairly, he may tell you about good resources on his land. I'd be surprised if long-term acquaintances, who have built trust, don't do this already in secret.

Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
-only those in power are in the position to demand the Truth.
Very true.

Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
-a lie is the only defense the weak has against those in power.
I'm not sure about this.. yes on one level, but I think it maintains the power disparity in a broader sense. For example, if everyone who supported the legalisation of weed stood up and were a united political force, that would be unstoppable. But instead most of those people are concerned about their jobs/relationships/criminal records, and lie themselves into a weaker position.

When lying is easier than telling the truth, it becomes the path of least resistance?
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Kai on September 06, 2009, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 03:35:06 PM

this got me thinking that the origin of the lie could stem simply from putting the needs of the self over the needs of the species. 

the irony being that preserving the self does preserve the species (assuming the self procreates).  but it also alters the species - in favor of the liar.

anyhow, maybe this has all been covered ad nauseum, but thanks for giving me something new to think about today. 

Recently I learned the two cardinal sins of animal behavior study:

1. Anthropomorphism - ascribing human characters to non human organisms

2. "For the good of the species" - assuming the behavior of an individual in some way is meant to benefit a vague metapopulation of individuals.

The reason the first is bad is obvious. The second is equally wrong; unless you are talking in particular about non-human altruism, organisms don't act towards anyone's benefit but their own, and certainly not to a vague metapopulation of individuals within roughly the same lineage (a species).
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: rong on September 06, 2009, 06:13:32 PM
thanks for pointing that out - i think i was mixing premises - as i was operating under the assumption that only humans lie, and instead of "for the good of the species" i should have said "for the good of the tribe"

Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Kai on September 06, 2009, 07:24:49 PM
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 06:13:32 PM
thanks for pointing that out - i think i was mixing premises - as i was operating under the assumption that only humans lie, and instead of "for the good of the species" i should have said "for the good of the tribe"



some thoughts about false advertising.

Take the sneaker males, for example. Here we have a species of fish where there are two male morphotypes in the population. There's a larger size male, the normal one, and theres the small, camoflagued male, called the sneaker male. When other males are guarding a nest site, fighting among each other, the sneaker males come in and drop their sperm on the eggs, thus fertilizing some of them. Both ways exist, cause both ways end up working. If the sneaker male didn't exist the population would probably continue. If the sneaker male existed in high numbers then the population would probably go extinct, since the sneaker males don't make nests, they only exploit them.

In other words, for false advertising (and other forms of "lying") to be sustained in a population, there must be enough individuals that do not exploit this method. If too many people were big time liers, then society would fall apart. There have to be enough honest (or some would say, stupid or gullible) people to sustain the batch of liers out there. Populations with high numbers of false advertisers would be selected against, simply because those societies would fall apart. Therefore, over the long term honesty would be conserved as a value for the majority of the population.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: rong on September 06, 2009, 07:44:27 PM
isn't your example an Anthropomorphism?

but, to run with your metaphor:

the chicken/egg here is that, without the truth, there can be no lie (or vice versa?)

and, in some cases, the lie can become the truth

edit:
after thinking some more, i think we've pointed out there are different types of lying.  for the purposes of discussion, i'll call them deceptive and protective.  (although i'm not exactly happy with those labels, because, after all, all lies are deceptive, right?).

but i would call my example protective lying in that i haven't taken advantage of anyone else's work.  whereas your example is a more "evil" kind of lying - hmm - maybe offensive and defensive lying would be better terms (but now i can't stop thinking about john madden   :argh!:).


Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Kai on September 06, 2009, 09:55:30 PM
Quote from: rong on September 06, 2009, 07:44:27 PM
isn't your example an Anthropomorphism?

but, to run with your metaphor:

the chicken/egg here is that, without the truth, there can be no lie (or vice versa?)

and, in some cases, the lie can become the truth

edit:
after thinking some more, i think we've pointed out there are different types of lying.  for the purposes of discussion, i'll call them deceptive and protective.  (although i'm not exactly happy with those labels, because, after all, all lies are deceptive, right?).

but i would call my example protective lying in that i haven't taken advantage of anyone else's work.  whereas your example is a more "evil" kind of lying - hmm - maybe offensive and defensive lying would be better terms (but now i can't stop thinking about john madden   :argh!:).




Its not an anthropomorphism because I didn't ascribe human characters to non humans (note "lying", in quotes). "Cheating" is more often used to describe this sort of behavior; I guess you could use a long phrase to describe it, but cheating is faster. Non-conscious deception maybe?

A better way to say it would be, without some sort of established behavior shared by most of the population, there can't be a strong antithesis to that behavior. In other words, if there is no valuing of aesthetics, there won't be distaste for "bad aesthetics". Cf. Tao Te Ching, Chapter 2.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: rong on September 06, 2009, 10:34:06 PM
i would argue that cheating and lying are both types of deception and now we have to decide whether to stick to talking about lying or broaden the scope to include deception. 

(i don't want to argue about whether your example was an anthropomorphism, that is, unless you do)

- - - - -

dang - as i was re-reading this thread to try to remember what it was, initially, that sparked my interest in the first place, i see i missed a reply from fictionpuss.

i'm not familiar with "the tragedy of the commons" so i'll have to look into that.

instead of cutting and pasting and responding piecemeal, i'll just say that i think we agree, to a certain extent (on whatever it is we agree on, i'm not exactly sure . . .)

i'm sure what you say about long term aquaintences is true.  the most dangerous part about someone discovering your morel patch is if they pick ALL the morels, they won't grow back next year.

that, combined with what you say about the "united political force" being unstoppable and lying becoming the path of least resistance, leads me to think that trust plays an important enough role to warrant inclusion in the discussion.

----

my apologies if this reponse is overly fragmented - this is the fragmented part of my day. (so it seems fragmented to me . . .)

Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Kai on September 07, 2009, 01:42:07 AM
tragedy of the commons refers to common property where no one has the responsibility of caretaker, therefore no one takes care of it. It comes from the common areas of villages in Europe that were shared in use by everyone in the village.

These days it usually refers to broader resources, such as the global airmass, freshwater, groundwater, the oceans, parks and the like. The solution to a tragedy of the commons is to allocate a person or group of people as caretakers with specific rules and regulations as to use. As long as the resource remains common and no one takes care of it, it will continue to be misused and damaged.

Also, your thing about morels is generally false. Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies, while the vegetative body is the mycelium, the network of hairlike cells that lies underneath and within the substrate. It's like picking an apple; as long as the conditions are good the mycelium will survive to the next year. Otherwise yes, I agree. As Tom Montag's Ben Zen said, "take what you need, leave some for seed".
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: rong on September 07, 2009, 08:42:16 PM
i think my hangover has subsided enough so i can think about this again.

thanks for correcting me about the morels - i feel better about finding some someday, now.

kai, would i be correct to say that you believe "the lie" is akin to a mutation that proved evolutionarily beneficial and, therefore, stuck around?  i find the combination of examples from nature and the trap of anthropomorphism a little perplexing, but the examples from nature keep forcing me to think in terms of evolution.

Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Kai on September 08, 2009, 12:35:49 AM
Quote from: rong on September 07, 2009, 08:42:16 PM
i think my hangover has subsided enough so i can think about this again.

thanks for correcting me about the morels - i feel better about finding some someday, now.

kai, would i be correct to say that you believe "the lie" is akin to a mutation that proved evolutionarily beneficial and, therefore, stuck around?  i find the combination of examples from nature and the trap of anthropomorphism a little perplexing, but the examples from nature keep forcing me to think in terms of evolution.



Morphological and behavioral deception based in genotype and not learned behavior would have to be beneficial or at LEAST not incur significant fitness costs, or it wouldn't stick around.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: rong on September 08, 2009, 01:20:52 PM
so, do we agree that the same can be said for lying?

although, now that i think about it, maybe there is some sort of law of natural selection applicable to lies. 

i would equate non-beneficial morphological and behavior selection to lies that didn't work.

i.e. it's not beneficial to claim that stop-signs are green, so that lie doesn't work.

so, then, is there a way to usefully classify lies?  could the terms of classification be used to construct known beneficial lies?
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: Captain Utopia on September 08, 2009, 04:08:42 PM
Quote from: rong on September 08, 2009, 01:20:52 PM
so, do we agree that the same can be said for lying?

although, now that i think about it, maybe there is some sort of law of natural selection applicable to lies. 
Well what's your working definition of a 'lie'? A deliberate falsehood presented as truth? If so, it can only be deliberate once the individual has learned enough about its environment to be conscious of the distinction. As those factors change in different social groups, I think it might be tricky to attach it directly to natural selection.

Although the extent to which social group interactions is determined by the characteristics of the species is something I'm unclear upon - e.g. if you released human-raised lions into an otherwise lion-free environment, assuming they knew enough to survive, how many generations would it take them to form prides, or would they form something different?

Quote from: rong on September 08, 2009, 01:20:52 PM
i would equate non-beneficial morphological and behavior selection to lies that didn't work.

i.e. it's not beneficial to claim that stop-signs are green, so that lie doesn't work.

so, then, is there a way to usefully classify lies?  could the terms of classification be used to construct known beneficial lies?
The stop-sign example is easily discoverable - so that lie has a high-risk of being detected. There would have to be a big payoff expected (before the consequences of detection come into play) to make that a rational lie to make.

If you use "risk" and "payoff" as the two axis, then you could probably identify areas which are frequented by different groups of people - e.g. criminals might have medium-high risk vs. deliberately confusing terms/conditions used by large institutions which have low-risk because technically obfuscating the truth is not the same as telling a falsehood.

You could maybe use such a chart to determine whether to become a criminal or investment banker.
Title: Re: A Brief Unverifiable History in Pictures
Post by: rong on September 14, 2009, 04:35:36 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 08, 2009, 04:08:42 PM
If you use "risk" and "payoff" as the two axis, then you could probably identify areas which are frequented by different groups of people - e.g. criminals might have medium-high risk vs. deliberately confusing terms/conditions used by large institutions which have low-risk because technically obfuscating the truth is not the same as telling a falsehood.

You could maybe use such a chart to determine whether to become a criminal or investment banker.

or a cult leader "man of the cloth"