The Back Story:
Goes thusly, I have a friend, a real friend, not one of those binary friends that some people have. And we have an argument, it goes thusly:
He say, "There is objective truth and objective good, thus we should be able to devise a consistent set of moral guidelines which will always be applicable."
I say, "No. There is no objective morality."
The argument stagnates, as arguments in this manner are want to do.
The Story:
I have been led to an idea. An idea based upon evolution, such that, I am gonna do that thing where people draw direct parallels between genes and memes.
Many people will tell you that people are special. Why are people special? Because they create, and love, and maybe have free will, or are at least complicated enough to appear to have free will, and sometimes they write poetry. And animals don't write poetry.
Therefore, humans =/= animals.
I say: Maybe.
I would, however, suggest that the most important aspect of humanity, and the one that has allowed us to flourish in almost all regions of the planet is this (yup, you're getting there right?):
Adaptation.
While other animals are subject to slow change through natural selection, we can adapt in a behavioural manner much more quickly.
Now replace genes with memes and humans with moral codes and BOOM. There's my idea. The most powerful and effective memes should be the ones that promote adaptation. I say nay to objective morality and yay to adaptable morality. Probably.
I should also point out that this line of thinking is something that is coagulating in my brain space, so you know, show me the holes people.
uhh... not those holes.
x
edd
Umm..Yes, I guess.
Oh and gods are one off memetic entities.
Would aliens study them as a species?
egads.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 07, 2010, 10:05:16 PM
The Back Story:
Goes thusly, I have a friend, a real friend, not one of those binary friends that some people have. And we have an argument, it goes thusly:
He say, "There is objective truth and objective good, thus we should be able to devise a consistent set of moral guidelines which will always be applicable."
I say, "No. There is no objective morality."
The argument stagnates, as arguments in this manner are want to do.
The Story:
I have been led to an idea. An idea based upon evolution, such that, I am gonna do that thing where people draw direct parallels between genes and memes.
Many people will tell you that people are special. Why are people special? Because they create, and love, and maybe have free will, or are at least complicated enough to appear to have free will, and sometimes they write poetry. And animals don't write poetry.
Therefore, humans =/= animals.
I say: Maybe.
I would, however, suggest that the most important aspect of humanity, and the one that has allowed us to flourish in almost all regions of the planet is this (yup, you're getting there right?):
Adaptation.
While other animals are subject to slow change through natural selection, we can adapt in a behavioural manner much more quickly.
Now replace genes with memes and humans with moral codes and BOOM. There's my idea. The most powerful and effective memes should be the ones that promote adaptation. I say nay to objective morality and yay to adaptable morality. Probably.
I should also point out that this line of thinking is something that is coagulating in my brain space, so you know, show me the holes people.
uhh... not those holes.
x
edd
um, memes are what allow us to adapt so quickly. To have the metaphor work properly you'd need some sort of meta-meme that a moral code posesses, since memes make up their equivalent of their genetic code. We don't adjust genetically, we adjust memetically.
Quote...To have the metaphor work properly you'd need some sort of meta-meme that a moral code posesses...
That seems as though it could be the case, no? If you were to replace moral code with world view, it seems obvious that the memes we identify with and are subjected to make up our overall world view. Perhaps it is best to speak in terms of world view instead of moral code, so that memes are the genes of world views, they are what code for world views, which seems sensible thus far?
x
edd
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 07, 2010, 10:30:39 PM
Quote...To have the metaphor work properly you'd need some sort of meta-meme that a moral code posesses...
That seems as though it could be the case, no? If you were to replace moral code with world view, it seems obvious that the memes we identify with and are subjected to make up our overall world view. Perhaps it is best to speak in terms of world view instead of moral code, so that memes are the genes of world views, they are what code for world views, which seems sensible thus far?
x
edd
Makes sense so far. I think you may be overcomplicating it. Humans are successful because we are adaptable. We are adaptable because we can adopt differing memes based on the circumstances. That would include the memes that make up our world views and moral codes as well as memes such as cookie recipes. So having an adaptable world view, or moral code, is an evolutionary advantage.
good, i may be overcomplicating it, but we're on the same page thus far.
So how about a moral code/world view with adaptability as its core meme, instead of the usual "play nice and be friends"?
x
edd
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 07, 2010, 10:52:31 PM
good, i may be overcomplicating it, but we're on the same page thus far.
So how about a moral code/world view with adaptability as its core meme, instead of the usual "play nice and be friends"?
x
edd
I think that might be a bit too adaptable.
Adaptability to one's environment, from what i've heard is behaviourist's name for sanity.
Adaptation is only important at the survival level, and when a lot of our environment is dictated by other humans - what validity does it have?
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 07, 2010, 10:05:16 PM
Many people will tell you that people are special. Why are people special? Because they create, and love, and maybe have free will, or are at least complicated enough to appear to have free will, and sometimes they write poetry. And animals don't write poetry.
Therefore, humans =/= animals.
Also:
Regardless of free will (which is an unfertile ground of a concept) and love (which i think better is approached as attachment, which animals have too), the creation you speak of, say, in poetry or whichever type, that "makes us not animals" maybe in other words the capability of having complex symbolic thought processes.
QuoteAdaptation is only important at the survival level, and when a lot of our environment is dictated by other humans - what validity does it have?
I'm sorry but that is just blatantly incorrect, unless you specifically mean genetic adaptation.
QuoteRegardless of free will (which is an unfertile ground of a concept) and love (which i think better is approached as attachment, which animals have too), the creation you speak of, say, in poetry or whichever type, that "makes us not animals" maybe in other words the capability of having complex symbolic thought processes.
I thought I made it fairly clear that the humans=/=animals idea is not necessarily one I hold, but to it was mostly to make the point that, if one were to distinguish between humans and animals, I would find ti most convincing to distinguish between them based upon their adaptability.
x
edd
RB, what are you talking about? Animals are highly adaptable--it's how they survive.
Bacteria, virii, flying rats pigeons, roaches and rats are way more adaptable than us.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 08, 2010, 06:32:05 AM
Bacteria, virii, flying rats pigeons, roaches and rats are way more adaptable than us.
I'm going to get some sleep, and come back to address the misuse of "adaptation" in this thread (including what is wrong with the above statement) in the "morning".
At a guess, I would say the concept of metacognition is going to play a role in that answer.
Quote from: Brotep on August 08, 2010, 04:09:11 AM
RB, what are you talking about? Animals are highly adaptable--it's how they survive.
If you put a desert lizard in the arctic wastes it dies.
If you put a desert human in the artic wastes it wears a coat.
One of these animals I would describe as being more adaptable than the other which brings us to:
QuoteI'm going to get some sleep, and come back to address the misuse of "adaptation" in this thread (including what is wrong with the above statement) in the "morning".
I'm almost certainly guilty of that, but if i could be bold enough to steer the conversation a little, I would like to get back to the "adaptable meme" concept. I suspect it would no doubt have some parallels to rationalist and discordian thinking, as it would likely have to promote self-questioning, to avoid dogma and thus a lack of adaptability.
What I am suggesting, is (mostly cause I think this could be a fun experiment) a belief system where the central tenet it not "this is the correct way", but instead "the correct way is the way most effective in the given situation". If it were proposed as belief/religion it may be helpful to throw on some moral failsafes, but it seems plausible to me at least that working with people is probably more effective than not. maybe...
Quoteconcept of metacognition
I'm going to look that up, but it would be nice if you elaborated too, 'cause you're normally pretty good at that. :)
I think semantics are important, if you arent using the biology definition of adaptation, then it would be nice of you to come up with one?
Quote from: Wiktionary
Adaptation:
1.The quality of being adapted; adaption; adjustment.
2.Adjustment to extant conditions: as, adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation; modification of some thing or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its current environment.
3.Something which has been adapted; variation
I guess that under the bolded definition, humans are more "adaptable", but now my doubt is then, what is the quality of rats/bacteria/virii/cockroaches, because they arent changing their "things or parts", would their quality be called merely "endurance" or some other technical term?
Also i suppose that animals/insects is different from bacteria/virii in the sense that the latter some strains are resistant to certain environment, but lets say, not a strain capable of withstanding freezing temperatures put in a highly salty environment and viceversa; while rats/cockroaches are more within the "endurance" category.
Im not sure this is still on topic, but regardless id like to know the appropiate term for each of these "survivabilities".
Okay.
The biggest problem I have with the term adaptation being used in this situation is we are actually talking about acclimation. Adaptation refers to an evolutionary process taking place within populations, not individuals. When an individual organism changes it's physiology in response to environmental variables, it's called acclimation.
Second, what grounds are we using for comparison here? Pigeons, bacteria more "adaptable" than humans? All animals can acclimate to the their environments at least somewhat, either physiologically or behaviorally. It reminds me of a statement my professor made on asking if insects are intelligent, or of greater or lesser intelligence than other organisms. He said it was much more useful to talk about something measureable, like memory. Can insects remember? Yes. Length of memory and for what stimulus are things that we can measure. Maybe if we were talking about breadth of ecological niche then a comparison could be possible. But just saying "humans are more adaptable" is a really vague and useless statement.
Third, Humans /are/ animals. We are metazoans, chordates, mamalians, primates, and great apes. We are not of a separate domain, we are not specially created, and we share characters that "we in our arrogance used to think were just human" (quoting Jane Goodall) with many other species. Rereading the OP, I see you are not advocating the separate domain of humans, so retracted.
QuoteWhile other animals are subject to slow change through natural selection, we can adapt in a behavioural manner much more quickly.
Other animals can acclimate behaviorally. Culture is a byproduct and extension of our genetic heritage, and the basic tendencies are under genetic control (and thus produced by natural selection, specifically inter-group selection (cf. multi-level selection).
QuoteNow replace genes with memes and humans with moral codes and BOOM. There's my idea. The most powerful and effective memes should be the ones that promote adaptation. I say nay to objective morality and yay to adaptable morality. Probably.
Well, yeah. Consider if we, as EO Wilson did in Consilience, had evolved from termite or ant like ancestors instead of primates. Our morality would include things humans consider immoral, like fratricide, as being wholly moral and good. There is a /human/ morality, which often seems to have universal elements, but it is not universal in the sense of all life, here or that which may be possible elsewhere in the galaxy.
Its this statement in particular:
QuoteThe most powerful and effective memes should be the ones that promote adaptation.
That is confusing me. Taboo the words "meme" and "adaptation" and their variants, and try again.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 08, 2010, 08:19:35 PM
Quote from: Wiktionary
Adaptation:
1.The quality of being adapted; adaption; adjustment.
2.Adjustment to extant conditions: as, adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation; modification of some thing or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its current environment.
3.Something which has been adapted; variation
I guess that under the bolded definition, humans are more "adaptable", but now my doubt is then, what is the quality of rats/bacteria/virii/cockroaches, because they arent changing their "things or parts", would their quality be called merely "endurance" or some other technical term?
Also i suppose that animals/insects is different from bacteria/virii in the sense that the latter some strains are resistant to certain environment, but lets say, not a strain capable of withstanding freezing temperatures put in a highly salty environment and viceversa; while rats/cockroaches are more within the "endurance" category.
Im not sure this is still on topic, but regardless id like to know the appropiate term for each of these "survivabilities".
Again, it's called acclimation. There's no specific word for "power of total acclimation", as every acclimatory change is in respect to a different variable. Human acclimation to temperature changes: Physiological =sweating, shivering; Behavioral = evasion. Putting on a coat wouldn't be considered acclimation unless people are born with the ability to produce and correctly wear artificial bioinsulation.
Is what we are really talking about here problem solving abilities, or as Cain mentioned, meta-cognition? The latter /may/ be unique to humans on this planet, but of course there's no way to find out without interspecies communication. The former is not unique.
So, possible topics this thread may be about standing under the word "adaptation":
1. Acclimation.
2. Problem solving.
3. Meta-cognition.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 08, 2010, 12:05:53 PM
I'm almost certainly guilty of that, but if i could be bold enough to steer the conversation a little, I would like to get back to the "adaptable meme" concept. I suspect it would no doubt have some parallels to rationalist and discordian thinking, as it would likely have to promote self-questioning, to avoid dogma and thus a lack of adaptability.
What I am suggesting, is (mostly cause I think this could be a fun experiment) a belief system where the central tenet it not "this is the correct way", but instead "the correct way is the way most effective in the given situation". If it were proposed as belief/religion it may be helpful to throw on some moral failsafes, but it seems plausible to me at least that working with people is probably more effective than not. maybe...
It sounds like you're talking about rational pragmatism, IOW, optimization within both epistemic and instrumental rationality.
ETA: Is there a word for the ability to change one's own mind? Openness? I'd hate to define that term under "adaptability" since it's a variant of adaptation which has a very specific biological definition and various connotations.
FTR not a lot of desert dwellers will survive after being dropped in an arctic environ without training. FFS.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 09, 2010, 03:41:58 AM
FTR not a lot of desert dwellers will survive after being dropped in an arctic environ without training. FFS.
Very true. And vice versus.
Quote from: Kai on August 09, 2010, 04:07:17 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 09, 2010, 03:41:58 AM
FTR not a lot of desert dwellers will survive after being dropped in an arctic environ without training. FFS.
Very true. And vice versus.
Exactly. Humans are actually very fragile and will die quicker than many of our wild animal cousins.
ok, im gonna try put this in this simplest form.
Being able to change in response to ones environment = better survival.
How can this be applied to beliefs? If it worthwhile considering this conjunction with the spread of ideas? How would a belief system that defined "being able to change in response to your environment" as "good", differ from a belief system that defined "good" as being nice to people (human morality, as Kai said earlier).
Furthermore, could said belief system in fact focus on changing ones mind, as opposed to finding "ultimate truth"?
Being "dynamic"?
Which maybe has to do with Kai's system of "emergence" (i say maybe, because i havent actually read that thread).
oh hey, just found this great thread!
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 09, 2010, 11:07:54 AM
ok, im gonna try put this in this simplest form.
Being able to change in response to ones environment = better survival.
How can this be applied to beliefs? If it worthwhile considering this conjunction with the spread of ideas? How would a belief system that defined "being able to change in response to your environment" as "good", differ from a belief system that defined "good" as being nice to people (human morality, as Kai said earlier).
Furthermore, could said belief system in fact focus on changing ones mind, as opposed to finding "ultimate truth"?
Alright, I'm digging it...
So genes and memes both have similar goals - with genes we call it reproduction, with memes we call it transmission. They have a better shot at achieving this goal if they benefit the host.
---Incidentally, this is why there are no quakers anymore. Part of their group programming included the meme "NEVER FUCK. EVER.", which, it turns out, is not the best moral imperative for an organization with any longevity.
I've been thinking about this too - living here in the united states, our political spectrum consists of TWO count 'em TWO choices, neither of which are satisfactory. In my mind, since these parties build their platforms to be token resistances to each other, anybody who has 100% bought into one party or the other has a fucked up world view. To me, the healthiest thing is to take a bit from each party. Be Pragmatic, because you're not going to find a solution if you buy into the yes/no choices implicit in the system.
It's the same with religion. Every religion has a few kernels of wisdom in it, and you can actually enjoy those kernels even if you don't buy into the whole religion. I can dig on the Golden Rule even though I don't follow J-C. I can USE concept of the
Nafs even though I know little to nothing about sufism. And I don't practice chaos magic or anything crazy like that, but I can get behind the notion of hacking certain parts of my nervous system though symbolism and visualization.
So perhaps we need a good term for somebody who only uses the useful parts of any platform, and is able to evaluate things critically without getting mired in identity politics. PRAGMATIC is the existing term. But I'm sure it could be repackaged in a way which makes it its own platform, a capsule people can swallow and incorporate into their thinking.
I'm not into the occult, but I do I practice PRAGMAGIC.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 09, 2010, 11:07:54 AM
ok, im gonna try put this in this simplest form.
Being able to change in response to ones environment = better survival.
How can this be applied to beliefs? If it worthwhile considering this conjunction with the spread of ideas? How would a belief system that defined "being able to change in response to your environment" as "good", differ from a belief system that defined "good" as being nice to people (human morality, as Kai said earlier).
Furthermore, could said belief system in fact focus on changing ones mind, as opposed to finding "ultimate truth"?
I already accept that both of these are good. We have to ability to operate on more that one level at a time.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 09, 2010, 03:23:28 PM
oh hey, just found this great thread!
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 09, 2010, 11:07:54 AM
ok, im gonna try put this in this simplest form.
Being able to change in response to ones environment = better survival.
How can this be applied to beliefs? If it worthwhile considering this conjunction with the spread of ideas? How would a belief system that defined "being able to change in response to your environment" as "good", differ from a belief system that defined "good" as being nice to people (human morality, as Kai said earlier).
Furthermore, could said belief system in fact focus on changing ones mind, as opposed to finding "ultimate truth"?
Alright, I'm digging it...
So genes and memes both have similar goals - with genes we call it reproduction, with memes we call it transmission. They have a better shot at achieving this goal if they benefit the host.
---Incidentally, this is why there are no quakers anymore. Part of their group programming included the meme "NEVER FUCK. EVER.", which, it turns out, is not the best moral imperative for an organization with any longevity.
I've been thinking about this too - living here in the united states, our political spectrum consists of TWO count 'em TWO choices, neither of which are satisfactory. In my mind, since these parties build their platforms to be token resistances to each other, anybody who has 100% bought into one party or the other has a fucked up world view. To me, the healthiest thing is to take a bit from each party. Be Pragmatic, because you're not going to find a solution if you buy into the yes/no choices implicit in the system.
It's the same with religion. Every religion has a few kernels of wisdom in it, and you can actually enjoy those kernels even if you don't buy into the whole religion. I can dig on the Golden Rule even though I don't follow J-C. I can USE concept of the Nafs even though I know little to nothing about sufism. And I don't practice chaos magic or anything crazy like that, but I can get behind the notion of hacking certain parts of my nervous system though symbolism and visualization.
So perhaps we need a good term for somebody who only uses the useful parts of any platform, and is able to evaluate things critically without getting mired in identity politics. PRAGMATIC is the existing term. But I'm sure it could be repackaged in a way which makes it its own platform, a capsule people can swallow and incorporate into their thinking.
I'm not into the occult, but I do I practice PRAGMAGIC.
Cram, nice. I smell a TFYS project in the making. Pragmagic Universalists.
Quote from: wiktionary
Pragmatic:
1.Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory
Useful for what?
Good luck reconciling art or fun with practicality. :wink:
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 09, 2010, 06:29:14 PM
Quote from: wiktionary
Pragmatic:
1.Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory
Useful for what?
Good luck reconciling art or fun with practicality. :wink:
You only think that because you're still under the impression that Spock was rational.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 09, 2010, 06:29:14 PM
Quote from: wiktionary
Pragmatic:
1.Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory
Useful for what?
Good luck reconciling art or fun with practicality. :wink:
in both art and fun, one must utilize
methods to accomplish one's goal.
so what method is best?
pragmatism! take a little of philosophy A, mix it up with technique B, apply it using method C...
pragmatism means taking the bits that work and discarding the bits that don't. This sounds useful regardless of what you use it for. Art, fun, religion, sex, programming, whatever.
I think the only time it'll betray you is if you need your position to be
pure for some reason and you can't afford to sacrifice parts of the system.
I also want to point out that emotions and fun aren't irrational, if they match the circumstance.
Spock was completely irrational in keeping calm under all circumstances. He wasn't exactly pragmatic either.
Spock also pronounces "atom" in a funny way, and he once bought a camera with a crappy lens because it had a shitload of megapixels.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 09, 2010, 06:29:14 PM
Quote from: wiktionary
Pragmatic:
1.Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory
Useful for what?
Good luck reconciling art or fun with practicality. :wink:
It is practical for me to be happy. I'm a real pain when I'm not.
Fixed :)
@CRAM: YEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!
One thing in particular has struck me about this idea, one thing that I really like, is that it doesn't
necessarily require an internal consistency. Like JN pointed out, useful is pretty hard thing to define.
Something else to point out, is that as well as borrowing from other religions, there is also the idea that some aspects of those religions may be
more or
less applicable in certain situations.
Also, Pragmagic Universalism :) :) :)
I feel like this fits in well with incompleteness theory
no one model can be correct all of the time
therefore to achieve maximum correctness, pick and choose from different (often conflicting) models
"Buffet-Style Methodology"
Quote from: Cramulus on August 09, 2010, 07:03:05 PM
I feel like this fits in well with incompleteness theory
no one model can be correct all of the time
therefore to achieve maximum correctness, pick and choose from different (often conflicting) models
If you're talking about Godel's Incompleteness, that's not quite how it works. At least, the bit after your "therefore" isn't.
I personally haven't (yet) found a way to include Godel into many real-life situations, even though I tried. A lot :)
If you weren't talking about Godel, ignore this post :)
I was just pointing out
no one model can be correct all of the time
well, that seems to be correct, nearly all of the time ;-)
Quote from: Cramulus on August 09, 2010, 07:10:21 PM
I was just pointing out
no one model can be correct all of the time
Well, to aviod the trap you will have to be, i dunno,
adaptable.
Well, i dont much know about Spock, other than seeing the recent Star Trek movie in a bus, so i cant say...
In regards to pragmatism, i considered it in the context of politics, which maybe its just a fraction of what it can actually be or just a subset... for example, i was thinking it from the traditional perspective of what is "useful" which is money/production, so in that sense i thought of it as irreconciliable - but now i see what you mean.
Fun might not be irrational all the time, but i do think that emotions are irrational, im not sure what you mean by "matching the circumstance".
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 09, 2010, 07:34:02 PM
Well, i dont much know about Spock, other than seeing the recent Star Trek movie in a bus, so i cant say...
In regards to pragmatism, i considered it in the context of politics, which maybe its just a fraction of what it can actually be or just a subset... for example, i was thinking it from the traditional perspective of what is "useful" which is money/production, so in that sense i thought of it as irreconciliable - but now i see what you mean.
Fun might not be irrational all the time, but i do think that emotions are irrational, im not sure what you mean by "matching the circumstance".
I think you could easily make the argument that if art and fun raised productivity it would be pragmatic for governments/business to promote them.
I presume an example of emotions "matching the circumstances" would be my justified fear of being sliced into tiny pieces causing me to move out of the way or a runaway shredder.
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
I think you could easily make the argument that if art and fun raised productivity it would be pragmatic for governments/business to promote them.
Tell that to sweat-shops and factory owners :lulz:. They are "useful" for emotional health, but not much other than that.
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
I presume an example of emotions "matching the circumstances" would be my justified fear of being sliced into tiny pieces causing me to move out of the way or a runaway shredder.
Emotion at its root is irrational, although it is true that it can prompt rational decisions, just as it can prompt irrational ones - such as freezing up and getting torn to shit by said shredder.
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 09, 2010, 07:34:02 PM
Well, i dont much know about Spock, other than seeing the recent Star Trek movie in a bus, so i cant say...
In regards to pragmatism, i considered it in the context of politics, which maybe its just a fraction of what it can actually be or just a subset... for example, i was thinking it from the traditional perspective of what is "useful" which is money/production, so in that sense i thought of it as irreconciliable - but now i see what you mean.
Fun might not be irrational all the time, but i do think that emotions are irrational, im not sure what you mean by "matching the circumstance".
I think you could easily make the argument that if art and fun raised productivity it would be pragmatic for governments/business to promote them.
Yes, but that'd be the wrong way around, eh? Government/business productivity is a means, not an ends.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 09, 2010, 08:34:03 PM
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
I think you could easily make the argument that if art and fun raised productivity it would be pragmatic for governments/business to promote them.
Tell that to sweat-shops and factory owners :lulz:. They are "useful" for emotional health, but not much other than that.
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
I presume an example of emotions "matching the circumstances" would be my justified fear of being sliced into tiny pieces causing me to move out of the way or a runaway shredder.
Emotion at its root is irrational, although it is true that it can prompt rational decisions, just as it can prompt irrational ones - such as freezing up and getting torn to shit by said shredder.
I fully disagree that emotion is irrational. Is loving a newborn irrational? Is loving your spouse irrational? Is a piece of music making you feel good irrational?
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 09, 2010, 07:34:02 PM
Well, i dont much know about Spock, other than seeing the recent Star Trek movie in a bus, so i cant say...
In regards to pragmatism, i considered it in the context of politics, which maybe its just a fraction of what it can actually be or just a subset... for example, i was thinking it from the traditional perspective of what is "useful" which is money/production, so in that sense i thought of it as irreconciliable - but now i see what you mean.
Fun might not be irrational all the time, but i do think that emotions are irrational, im not sure what you mean by "matching the circumstance".
I think you could easily make the argument that if art and fun raised productivity it would be pragmatic for governments/business to promote them.
I presume an example of emotions "matching the circumstances" would be my justified fear of being sliced into tiny pieces causing me to move out of the way or a runaway shredder.
Yeah. There's nothing irrational at crying at the death of a relative or friend, for example, or getting angry when someone has intentionally wronged you, or feeling exuberance at reaching a significant goal in your life. IMO, it would be irrational NOT to feel those things. Neither is fun not pragmatic. Pragmatism is simply whatever works to reach a goal.
How efficient will the optimization be if I'm never enjoying myself, never having fun? And then the question would be, is your goal in life to be emotionless and unfun? Why?
QuoteQuote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
I presume an example of emotions "matching the circumstances" would be my justified fear of being sliced into tiny pieces causing me to move out of the way or a runaway shredder.
Emotion at its root is irrational, although it is true that it can prompt rational decisions, just as it can prompt irrational ones - such as freezing up and getting torn to shit by said shredder.
I know it's easy to spit that line out, but can you describe your reasoning? ETA: my thought is no, you're guessing the password.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 09, 2010, 08:35:54 PM
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 09, 2010, 07:34:02 PM
Well, i dont much know about Spock, other than seeing the recent Star Trek movie in a bus, so i cant say...
In regards to pragmatism, i considered it in the context of politics, which maybe its just a fraction of what it can actually be or just a subset... for example, i was thinking it from the traditional perspective of what is "useful" which is money/production, so in that sense i thought of it as irreconciliable - but now i see what you mean.
Fun might not be irrational all the time, but i do think that emotions are irrational, im not sure what you mean by "matching the circumstance".
I think you could easily make the argument that if art and fun raised productivity it would be pragmatic for governments/business to promote them.
Yes, but that'd be the wrong way around, eh? Government/business productivity is a means, not an ends.
Thank you for saying it. There's this screwed up notion that hard work in and of itself is an end. You hear it at funerals, "he was a hard worker". Same goes for productivity. Working hard on WHAT, producing WHAT? Happiness? Love? Enjoyment? Contentment? I mean, we're no longer living in an environment where we have to work constantly for our survival (and research suggests that hunter-gatherers worked less than we do weekly in any case); productivity systems like David Allen's GTD are to increase efficiency of obtaining goals, not to make meaningless output. What is the point of our lives? Certainly not pushing papers faster.
I was merely giving an example rather than saying productivity was an end in itself.
You raise an interesting point though. Can a pragmatic account ever justify any end? It can obviously justify the means used but surely by its nature it's telling us the best means to carry out our goals rather than actually telling us which goals to pursue or which goals are good ones to pursue.
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:52:28 PM
I was merely giving an example rather than saying productivity was an end in itself.
You raise an interesting point though. Can a pragmatic account ever justify any end? It can obviously justify the means used but surely by its nature it's telling us the best means to carry out our goals rather than actually telling us which goals to pursue or which goals are good ones to pursue.
Work to live, do not live to work.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 09, 2010, 08:55:07 PM
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:52:28 PM
I was merely giving an example rather than saying productivity was an end in itself.
You raise an interesting point though. Can a pragmatic account ever justify any end? It can obviously justify the means used but surely by its nature it's telling us the best means to carry out our goals rather than actually telling us which goals to pursue or which goals are good ones to pursue.
Work to live, do not live to work.
Surely that's a belief you're bringing from outside of pragmatism. In the same way that maths can tell you how to discover the circumference of a circle but not why I should, pragmatism could tell you how best to carry out your belief that we should "Work to live, do not live to work." but not why that is desirable.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 09, 2010, 08:55:07 PM
Quote from: Cosmic Joker on August 09, 2010, 08:52:28 PM
I was merely giving an example rather than saying productivity was an end in itself.
You raise an interesting point though. Can a pragmatic account ever justify any end? It can obviously justify the means used but surely by its nature it's telling us the best means to carry out our goals rather than actually telling us which goals to pursue or which goals are good ones to pursue.
Work to live, do not live to work.
Yeah. Efficiency is not laziness, though to some people it would look the same because a very efficient person spends little time working, simply because he knows his goals and puts in the minimal necessary effort to achieve them.
Also, you want someone else to tell you your goals?
Quote from: Kai on August 09, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
Also, you want someone else to tell you your goals?
No, I was simply pointing out an apparent limit to this pragmatic theory. It has no real means for assessing the desirability of goals. I suppose this is why someone proposed some external moral restraints
one the "goals" that might be "desirable", could include pragmatism itself, being able to adequately respond to change.
Secondly, see cramulus' earlier post.
One could use ideas from other religions/general information to pragmagically decide what your goals should be given your current situation/environment.
x
edd
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 09, 2010, 11:28:57 PM
one the "goals" that might be "desirable", could include pragmatism itself, being able to adequately respond to change.
Secondly, see cramulus' earlier post.
One could use ideas from other religions/general information to pragmagically decide what your goals should be given your current situation/environment.
x
edd
I think Crams 'sliding scale' idea was genius.
Quote from: Kai on August 09, 2010, 08:37:41 PM
I know it's easy to spit that line out, but can you describe your reasoning? ETA: my thought is no, you're guessing the password.
Is this an insult? (I get lost sometimes from certain mediatic references such as Star Trek, or coloquial expressions)
Im just engaging the conversation as it comes up, poking holes at what doesnt seem correct to me and reevaluating my thoughts after i see other contrasting thoughts.
Based on the examples, yeah, i guess emotions can be both rational or irrational.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 10, 2010, 03:07:01 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 09, 2010, 08:37:41 PM
I know it's easy to spit that line out, but can you describe your reasoning? ETA: my thought is no, you're guessing the password.
Is this an insult? (I get lost sometimes from certain mediatic references such as Star Trek, or coloquial expressions)
Im just engaging the conversation as it comes up, poking holes at what doesnt seem correct to me and reevaluating my thoughts after i see other contrasting thoughts.
Based on the examples, yeah, i guess emotions can be both rational or irrational.
Try thinking for yourself, just once.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 10, 2010, 03:07:01 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 09, 2010, 08:37:41 PM
I know it's easy to spit that line out, but can you describe your reasoning? ETA: my thought is no, you're guessing the password.
Is this an insult? (I get lost sometimes from certain mediatic references such as Star Trek, or coloquial expressions)
Im just engaging the conversation as it comes up, poking holes at what doesnt seem correct to me and reevaluating my thoughts after i see other contrasting thoughts.
Based on the examples, yeah, i guess emotions can be both rational or irrational.
Guessing the Password: having a placeholder for a particular term but not actually understanding it nor having any practical ability with it.
"Emotions are irrational" is something I've heard before, and it's probably a meme that started with so and so philosopher, but after reading the Less Wrong sequences I can clearly see how emotions are not irrational if they are matched to the circumstances.
Mind you, there are two different types of rationality, epistemic (maximizing correlation between map and territory) and instrumental (optimizing one's own life, IOW, winning). Epistemically, emotions are neurophysical/behavioral reactions to environmental/somatic stimuli. Instrumentally, when my emotions are appropriate to the circumstances, they are rational (falling in line with my optimization of myself). Being "Spock calm" all the time is not instrumentally rational, and it IS instrumentally rational to have emotions appropriate to circumstances.
Of course, you can ask what circumstances and emotions would be inappropriate? How about getting angry at someone who means nothing to you and has done no harm to you. Or grieving at the death of someone you have never met and has never had any effect on your life. Or being happy at an event that has caused you and people you love great pain. Those are obvious sorts of emotional irrationality. More subtle are the types where emotions are carried for extended periods, far past the point that they are relevant. I have many examples in my life of anxiety attached to events that happened long ago and have no relevance anymore yet I hold onto them as if they mattered.
So, yes, there are appropriate (rational) and inappropriate (irrational) emotions depending on circumstance. But no emotion is inappropriate in all circumstances.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 04:33:56 AM
Try thinking for yourself, just once.
I dont see how that is even relevant, it seems as if you just wanted to shout that meme at someone.
And i dont like your condescending attitude, i have the habit of thinking for myself.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 10, 2010, 04:50:14 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 04:33:56 AM
Try thinking for yourself, just once.
I dont see how that is even relevant, it seems as if you just wanted to shout that meme at someone.
And i dont like your condescending attitude, i have the habit of thinking for myself.
Not according to your posts. I don't care what you think.
Quote from: Kai on August 10, 2010, 04:37:09 AM
Guessing the Password: having a placeholder for a particular term but not actually understanding it nor having any practical ability with it.
"Emotions are irrational" is something I've heard before, and it's probably a meme that started with so and so philosopher, but after reading the Less Wrong sequences I can clearly see how emotions are not irrational if they are matched to the circumstances.
Mind you, there are two different types of rationality, epistemic (maximizing correlation between map and territory) and instrumental (optimizing one's own life, IOW, winning). Epistemically, emotions are neurophysical/behavioral reactions to environmental/somatic stimuli. Instrumentally, when my emotions are appropriate to the circumstances, they are rational (falling in line with my optimization of myself). Being "Spock calm" all the time is not instrumentally rational, and it IS instrumentally rational to have emotions appropriate to circumstances.
Of course, you can ask what circumstances and emotions would be inappropriate? How about getting angry at someone who means nothing to you and has done no harm to you. Or grieving at the death of someone you have never met and has never had any effect on your life. Or being happy at an event that has caused you and people you love great pain. Those are obvious sorts of emotional irrationality. More subtle are the types where emotions are carried for extended periods, far past the point that they are relevant. I have many examples in my life of anxiety attached to events that happened long ago and have no relevance anymore yet I hold onto them as if they mattered.
So, yes, there are appropriate (rational) and inappropriate (irrational) emotions depending on circumstance. But no emotion is inappropriate in all circumstances.
I appreciate your explanation even after i agreed.
Yes, im guessing i heard or read that kind of idea of somewhere and i just instinctively recalled it, might be Nietzsche?
Also, ill admit, sometimes i jump the gun a bit against rationality, with my school curriculum, personal orientation et al.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 04:52:24 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 10, 2010, 04:50:14 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 04:33:56 AM
Try thinking for yourself, just once.
I dont see how that is even relevant, it seems as if you just wanted to shout that meme at someone.
And i dont like your condescending attitude, i have the habit of thinking for myself.
Not according to your posts. I don't care what you think.
NO CB, MY E-PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS! :fnord:
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 10, 2010, 05:05:02 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 04:52:24 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 10, 2010, 04:50:14 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 04:33:56 AM
Try thinking for yourself, just once.
I dont see how that is even relevant, it seems as if you just wanted to shout that meme at someone.
And i dont like your condescending attitude, i have the habit of thinking for myself.
Not according to your posts. I don't care what you think.
NO CB, MY E-PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS! :fnord:
That's your response? Seriously?
Do i have to tell you? think for yourself, just once.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 10, 2010, 05:14:19 AM
Do i have to tell you? think for yourself, just once.
Jesus fucking christ. You are as weak a troll as I have ever sen.
Can a mod split this please?
I do not contest the previous points, but seeing as you mentioned Lesswrong wiki and im supposing the "Emotion" article...
Quote from: Lesswrong-emotionContrary to the popular idea, rationality doesn't mean denying emotion. When emotion is appropriate to the reality of the situation, it should be embraced; only when emotion isn't appropriate should it be suppressed.
Im not sure if you would agree with the bolded part, but im against it; suppressing an "innapropiate emotion" is avoiding important underlying issues that one is simply not ready to accept.
Weve all seen people that feel in a contradictory manner as they think they ought to, and thats mainly because of the difference of unconscious and conscious desires.
Rather i would say: When emotion isn't appropriate to the reality of the situation, it should be
investigated.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 07, 2010, 10:05:16 PM
OP
Hm, quick behavioral change as the difference between humans and animals? I'm not so sure. I would phrase it differently though, as the greater capacity for behavioral variety. Certainly, humans have that more than other animals (as far as I know). But, I don't think there's a strong dividing line between humans and animals on anything; that is, a line on one side of which is having the quality and on the other is lacking it. Evolution has so made it that everything is a gradient.
Not sure if what I've said has had any positive value, but I wanted to say it anyway.
Also, here's a quote that seems relevant, and which I like.
Quote from: Miguel de UnamunoMan is said to be a reasoning animal. I do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. Perhaps that which differentiates him from other animals is feeling rather than reason. More often I have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. Perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly — but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the second degree.