From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Mon Aug 11 2003 - 09:56:11 MDT
Omard picks up our somewhat lengthy thread with a second
bite and writes:
---------
But just to briefly recap. I am trying to argue (despite views to
the contrary from many intelligent philosophers like Russel)
that it may in fact be possible to derive a moral or ethical
code on the basis of a handful of universal truths which are
a) the all (effectively all in the moral universe) humans have
some propensity to reason,
b) that all humans by nature are born in a state of such
dependency that they cannot even lift their head to feed so
they are by nature at least predisposed to be social. i.e.. they
need others or have needed others at some stage to survive.
c) I am arguing that the simplifying principle for developing a
moral code is that the essential self interest of each individual,
that they perceive the universe from a necessarily self centric
position cannot be denied.
d) I don't claim that moral codes remove the need for moral
judgements just that a good moral code (one that acknowledges
these principles) helps inform moral judgements in real time
better than a poor one (like the 10 commandments, or utilitarianism
or any other code on offer) and in the end each of us must
make moral judgements ourselves -we must each follow the
maxim "to thine ownself be true".
Ergo my argument comes down I think to the notion that
if we were to teach children that they are rational and social
and that they ought not accept challenges to their self interest
other than through the process of reasoned compromises for
a net gain we would have the basis of a more enlightened society.
Key to this notion is that belief has no place, belief is contradictory
to reasoning and clear thinking and that when intelligent people
use the word belief they usually mean it as a form of shorthand
for "this is my current working hypothesis", or alternatively, they
are not at that moment being particularly rational or intelligent.
Further language and participation in the social stock of
knowledge flows from our capacity to reason not from belief.
Belief qua belief then in this system is anti-social and
dysfunctional as is altruism.
To be clear I would not ban the use of the word belief I would
leave it as a useful means for numskulls to continue to identify
themselves as such and allow them to continue to shortchange
their reasoned (or otherwise) arguments in political discourses
in front of audiences.
This is just a summary. Its a long thread :-)
-------End of attempted recap.--------
> > Brett writes:
> > Whether it would in fact yeild the best outcome for
> > you is not the point as the facts of the outcome are
> > not knowable to you at the time you decide.
> >
> > <me> I would say that they are; I would say that the
> > only reason to willing self-delude yourself via fantasy
> > or whatever is specifically because you have examined
> > the outcomes and decided that reality sucked and you could do better.
>
> <snip>I see. You are interchanging fantasy and self-delusion. I
> tend to think of fantasy as suspension of disbelief. One
> knows one is doing it and one is doing it for fun.</snip>
>
> === ... and here we continue ====
>
> > I would say that you would end up having to constantly
> > (subconsciously) moniter reality to decide when you
> > would come out of ur protective insanity.
> >
> > <brett> Now thats the moral code. The reason for the
> > moral code is that usually judgements will be required
> > in real life which one cannot
>
> > anticipate and the better, the more sophisticated your
> > moral code the better, (the more enlightened) your
> > judgement of your own best interests will be.
> >
> > <me> again I balk at the requirement for a sophisticated
> > moral code; you can have an incredibly simple moral
> > code; but apply it through the
>
> > use of a sophisticated world view (ergo ur judgement).
>
> <brett> A person who is reasoning at level 1 on Kohlburgs
> scale (the simplest) may [elect] not do something that is
> good for society in general but for far more basic reasons
> than a person who is reasoning at level 5.
>
> <brett> But the higher up in the levels one goes the more
> levels o[f] abstraction and nuance are likely to influence your
> code. I would think that a person would have a hard time
> having a [sufficiently] complex moral code without having
> the ability to use language for instance.
>
> <me> "But the higher up in the levels one goes the more
> levels or abstraction and nuance are likely to influence your
> code"... Exactly my point :) this is what I would term a
> sophisticated world-view. You understand why things are,
> and how they're stated affects the outcomes...
>
> <brett> Our leaders must make judgements that will have
> impacts on lives other than their own. The more of us that
> are reasoners and critical thinkers and the fewer of
> us that are mere believers the better (the healthier) we will
> be as a society in my
> opinion.
>
> <me> depends :) there are uses for followers (believers);
> for instance, I would not necessarily want to run a committee
> of reasonerss and critical thinkers :) but I would love to chair
> one where there was one or two other reasons, and the rest
> were followers :)
Could it be your experience to date is coloring your preferences
here? Followers, believers, are not hard to find. If you want
people to just follow instructions then, acquire some skills and
you'll find them. But the projects that are really worth doing,
the ones on a grand scale. Say extending human life are likely
to require the coordinated efforts of many bright people who
may themselves be able to bring followers in their train.
Hey votes still count but not everyone gets to decide what
the policy choices are that they vote on.
> I think btw, that
> nature establishes the proportion of leaders to followers...
To an extent. There are various theories of leadership. Personally
I take a situational approach. Sometimes I lead, sometimes I
follow, sometimes I'd be laisse fair, sometimes in military situations
I'd be more authoritarian. Its horses for courses.
>
> > and I do dispute ur choosing
> > to hallucinate;
> > ever hear
> > of self-hypnosis?
>
> <brett> No. I am an open minded sceptic when it comes to
> conventional hypnosis. I have never experienced it
> and those that I have seen ostensibly hypnotised on
> stage seemed to me to be substantially "hamming"
> or playing it up for the attention. I think some of
> us sometimes like not having to be analytical all
> the time and to have others tell us what to do
> and just follow alone can be pleasant.
>
> <me> trust me, hypnosis is real, and very VERY effective :)
I've heard it varies from person to person. I'll trust you that
it is not a complete crock :-)
>
> > If you can get urself into a deep enough trance, you
> > can suggest
> > post-hypnotic suggestions that trigger when you wake... including the
> > post hypnotic suggestion to renew itself until you are rescued. And
> > you can cause hallucinations
> > in a deep enough trance btw. And thats not even calling upon the
> > experience
> > of mystics, or people who have sufficiently advanced manipulation
> > techniques...
>
> <brett> I don't know if I can get into a trance as you put it. I guess I
> can its just not something I am very familiar with.
>
> <me> you should check it out :) their are some qualitative tests
> to see whether or not you are hypnotizeable to any such degree.
If I could do them without giving another person power over my
mind maybe I'd try em. Otherwise I don't think I'd be good at
cooperating.
> It may also be a comfort issue with you :) There are
> (technically) ways to get around your mental
> blocks... read some material on hypnotic inductions for patients
> who are subconsciously resisting hypnosis :)
All links and book refs I'd be curious in at least. But I don't
have a burning desire to be hallucinated I'm kind of fond of what
I think is my capacity for clear thinking - why would I want some
one to mess with it?
>
> <brett> I suppose when it comes to my mind I am a bit of a control
> freak, I don't like it when the captain is not on the bridge.
>
> <me> depends on what the crew's going to do when ur away :)
Sure. But still what would be in it for me?
>
> > > <brett> I find this conclusion (Bertrand Russell's) powerful,
> > > dangerous and deeply unsatisfying so I am keen to have at it.
> > >
> > > <me> I was just telling my little sister yesterday about one of the
> > > classical issues in my life (at one point during my younger years);
> > > at
> >
> > > what point does being too intelligent start to harm you (the classic
>
> > > form being, if you could trade intelligence for gauranteed
> > > happiness, would you do it)... most intelligent people say no; I
> > > think the really
> >
> > > intelligent people though, when they consider it, say yes.
> >
> > <brett> I think this is pure speculation. Would a less intelligent you
>
> > be you?
> >
> > <me> does it make a difference if you are gauranteed to be happy?
> >
> > <brett> If you think so there may be possibilites for you
> > to chart a life for yourself that involves more happiness
> > and less intellect. But personally I don't think so. How do you aim at
>
> > happiness without identifying something that will make you happy.
> > Happiness is not itself a thing that can be persued.
> >
> > <me> ergo my point :) if you can't gaurantee happiness by method of
> > intelligence, and some mythical blue genie (whom to the best of your
> > abilities to discern is capable of granting) is willing to gaurantee
> > ur happiness at the cost of your intelligence than any sane, rational
> > person of sufficient intellect would not think twice. This assumes
> > that everyone wants to be happy[maiximized utility table]... which I
> > don't think is an unreasonable...
>
> <brett>I must be failing to follow what you mean by maximizing your
> utility table or something because it still seems to me that happiness
> cannot really be a target that one aims at it is a consequence that
> arises as a desired and hoped for side effect of something else one aims
> at.
>
> <me> theoretically [NOT physically] everyone has an internal weight to
> stimuli; maximizing ur utility table means successfully selecting an
> action
> from all available actions that maximizes ur utility for that set of
> actions... ergo happiness :) ergo all ur actions are incidental as they
> are all targeted towards maximizing ur utility table :)
Sorry still don't get it. Can you break it down further. I know what
utility (usefulness) is and what a table is. But your comments about
"selecting an action form a set of actions aimed at maximising happiness
just doesn't seem correct.
Let me ask do you see this utility table as a construct one makes or
an evolutionary artifact one inherits?
<snip>
> I don't believe in regret as an emotion :)
I miss you point. Regret *is* a word. Prima facie it has a referent
or maybe more than one. Have you never experienced regret?
Do you think regret is not experienced by others?
> > > This is of
> > > course, assumes that people intuitively seek to maximize their
> > > utilities, and said maximization of utility defines a state of
> > > happiness [which is, I think, reasonable]...
> >
> > <brett> I don't. I think its premature at best and problematic at
> > worst. One cannot be happy without a cause. Happiness per
> > se is not persuable. Pleasure is. Lesser levels of sentience are.
> > But I doubt these are what appeal to you as an alternative.
> > <brett> ..... The potential to persuade using the sociability aspect
> > *is* far stronger when individuals are [relatively] powerless [like
> > children] and my point is that the all those who are mortal are
> > now becoming *aware* that they possess a poor form of wealth
> > and power if it can't extend their life and health.
> >
> > <me> ... and these are the only people you're interested in
> > approaching?
>
> <brett> Yeah only all those who are *mortal* and have a
> self-interest ;-)
>
> <me> I was referring to the wealth and power aspect :)
From a practical point of view, bearing in mind I have only so
much time, and I do have particular objectives, yes all things
being equal I prefer to persuade and may allies amongst the
powerful. Its quicker. And if they are offside they can slow things
down. But there are different types of power.
>
> > <brett> There is an opportunity there to get them to revisit
> > the social compact. But these cagey old survivers will not
> > fall for bs. When arguments are put to them that are not in
> > their interest they will not buy into them.
> >
> > <me> its been my experience that people who are very
> > wealthy generally don't give a shit about social compact.
It's not been mine. Not as a generalisation.
> > They got (and preserve) their wealth at the cost of other
> > individuals... I would agree that you need to put it in
> > terms that involve greed.
>
> <brett> Well self interest will do.
>
> <me> in most cases, it will; in some cases (where the agents lack
> vision), it doesn't :)
As a rule the successful folk, don't lack vision across the board.
And one does not need to persuade all of them to make progress.
My point is that if you approach them with a real answer to their
*fair* question, what is in it for me, you are likely to get further.
>
> > <brett> So in my view a moral argument cannot be put to
> > a rich or powerful individual unless it is couched in terms of
> > offering *something* for them. We live in an historic period.
> > In this period it might be possible to promote a policy of more
> > life for all or [posit that the alternative may be] more life for
> > none.
> >
> > <me> good luck getting the rich to give a shit about the poor
> > (past the ones making off with their valuables)....
I think luck has nearly nothing at all to do with it. My point is
a *moral* rich man *is* a poor man.
>
> <brett> No I'd aim to get the rich to care more effectively
> for the rich by recognizing their relationship with the poor.
> My emphasis is not be charitable to the poor; my emphasis
> is on how would you life be better if the poor were not so
> poor? If they [the poor] had more to loose. If they [the poor]
> were able to cooperate with you to make both you and them
> wealthier in absolute terms rather than relative terms.
>
> <me> if they acknowledge a relationship with the poor...
I'm at a loss with that remark :-) How could they not acknowledge
a "relationship". If they don't I can point out several in seconds.
The poor vote with one vote each just like the rich. They can
even vote themselves money. Don't confuse the relatively poor
with the stupid. Democracies are the result not of the wealthy
and powerful conceeding rights to the masses they are a point
of rough equilibrium between power groups.
>
> <brett> Would you rather be healthy and active at 130 or have a
> very expensive funeral and a prestigiously looking burinal
> plot at 80?
>
> <me> the former :) I (personally) am not arguing with ur goal :)
> I just think rich people won't see it ur way (as a win-win
> solution).
I don't need to persuade all of them. Just the ones who want to
be still richer in absolute life terms.
>
> > <brett> The alternative may be cabals of the powerful
> > working to 'immortalise' themselves. Such a scenario
> > may restart "history" whose demise was greatly
> > exaggerated.
<snip>
> <me> .....I would not be part of a cabal
> that sought to hold back life-extending technologies...
> I think all medical advances should be shared equally,
> without regard to effort involved (or contributed) by
> individual parties.
That's nice but we gotta be practical. You do vaccinate
the doctors before you send them into a plague, rather
than make them take their chances in a lottery.
>
> > > <brett> Further those who do not endeavour to
> > > understand themselves, what manner of creature
> > > they are, are not going to be in a position to know
> > > what the most optimal compromises for them are
> > > when compromises need to be made.
> > >
> > > <me> I've met several people who are extremely
> > > intuitively, but unable
> >
> > > to verbalize (form coherent sentences) expressing their
> > > viewpoints...they just know what is right for them,
> > > and what is not...
> >
> > > how does your system encompass them?
> >
> > <brett> They learn to reason and they learn to use
> > language to persuade.
> >
> > They learn to understand what they want. This gives
> > them the best chance to make their way and improve
> > their situation as they go. It does not guarantee them
> > success.
> >
> > <omd> and if the overall performance of this new
> > system ends up being worse than their intuitive model?
> > what then?
>
> <brett> I have no magic. If my moral code is adopted
> by others it will because they see merit in it. If they see
> merit in it and I see merit in it I'm prepared to work on
> the assumption that their is merit in it. - That a bit
> simplistic but this thread is very long.
>
> <me> in other words, you are willing to accept a less
> than perfect moral system :) for the sake of efficiency...
No I'm prepared to take on board constructive criticism,
integrate it and build a still stronger system as a result.
>
> <me> my only concern, really, is to point out that you
> may be arbitrarily limiting yourself :) and wouldn't it
> suck if it took an intuitive person to find the solution
> amidst all the noise...
If the intuitive person could communicate the solution
with language that's great, I'm not anti-intuition, if not,
they don't have a solution I'm interested in, because it
cannot be socialised. I'd regarded it as just another
belief system.
<snip>
> >
> > <omd> work smarter, not harder has always been
> > my motto...
>
> <brett> Makes sense. But leveraging your efforts with
> others can be a particularly effective way of working
> smart.
> > <brett> I would have been happy to point out to the
> > unibomber that he was born social, so much so that
> > he couldn't raise his head to feed.
> >
> > <me> granted :) but that doesn't really nullify the fact
> > that he did become extremely antisocial afterwards...
>
> <brett> Granted. But there is value in knowing why
> > and how. The value is in the power to identify route
> > causes that can be changed. Lets go for the disease
> > not the symptom.
>
> <me> assuming that it is a disease, and that it is a root
> cause to be attacked...
Yes. But a better word than disease would have been a
dysfunction or a suboptimal worldview for achieving his
enlightened best interest.
>
> > <brett> Then I'd ask him where his sociability ended.
> > It could be an insightful conversation.
> >
> > <me> probably when he realized it was a losing game
> > for his utility
> > tables...
>
> <brett> Or he may discover that he's been shortchanging
> his own self interest with a suboptimal utility table.
>
> <me> ... if he was shortchaning his own self-interest :) we
> can keep going in circles if you like :)
No, I won't go in circles indefinately with you, anymore than
I would with him. At some point other considerations in this
contingent universe require I make a judgement. So sooner
or later I'd make a judgement on the best data available.
At some point I might launch a pre-emptive strike because
if I did not the shit would hit the fan on some other front
I was being forced to neglect whilst I argued in circles.
I would not try and bs him about his self interest if he is
a genuine predator and likes it, that is a fact and that I
would deal with. This is why peace must be one. We
can't choose it for others when they choose conflict.
We can only respond to their choice to predate on
us with resistance or surrender. I'm not into surrendering
my life any more than he/she is.
> > > > Some are quite capable of going it alone while
> > > > others would die if seperated from the herd.
> >
> > <brett> None are capable of going it alone yet.
> > But here is the point in the future we may re-
> > engineer ourselves to such an extent that some
> > may indeed feel capable of going it alone. And
> > these indivduals will not necessarily be able to
> >be reasoned with with the same starting premises.
> > [sociability etc]
> > These individuals may become meglomanical,
> > persuing as the culmination of their individuality,
> > dominance over all else. Because, if you have no
> > empathy - why the hell not?
> >
> > <me> why not indeed?
>
> <brett> And therein lies the danger of the future.
> Rugged immortal individualists fighting for supreme
> godhood in the universe.
>
> <me> at least it would be entertaining :)
It would be a continuation of the status quo except
fewer sentients would die by misadventure or accident
and more would die by murder.
>
> <brett> By why not? Seriously. I dunno but I figure
> god would be bored (and lonely) well perhaps not
> lonely.
>
> <me> I don't particularly believe in God :)
Neither do I. The lowercase letter was not a typo.
There was a Jesuit Frence philosopher who tried
to reconcile the theory of evolution with theology.
He argued that God created the usiverse but through
the mechanism of evolution. Teilhard de Chardin.
(spelling may be wrong).
I am not sure if it was his idea or my extended musings
on it, that posited "the beginning there was only one
sentience" it was bored and lonely so exploded itself
into fragments that made the universe and over time
those fragment coallesced into more and more intelligence.
There was a movement back towards godhood.
However, power is seductive, and the satan myth is
provocative too. I can imagine self satisfied super
powered satanic like sentients wanting to be the one.
Let me be clear I am playing with *myths* here.
Intellectually I am an agnostic. Practically I am
an atheist because the position of indecision about
whether the cavalry is coming or not I think we'd better
not dwell on whilst there other things so obviously needing
doing. Atheism is my operating hypothesis. All notions
of god I have ever heard of were logically inconsistent
or fanciful beyond my capacity to accept. I can't prove
there is no God if one adopts an atypical definition and
I am not going to waste too much time with the question.
If there is a god, my numbers in the phone book, he/she/it
can call me, meanwhile I'm busy trying to clean up the
mess with a few practical likeminded humanists like
myself.
I have pretty much the same reaction to the notion that
we are in a sim and that their is some architect calling
the shots. I an agnostic on that point to and in practical
terms I act atheistic. I think this is *more* moral than the
alternative of waiting for the supernatural cavalry but that's
just my opinion.
> > <brett> Everyone is social to a degree. Am I really
> > saying that > > everyone
> >
> > is reachable through their residual sociability. I doubt
> > it. I think nature throws up dysfunctional types of all
> > forms and some genuine sociopaths can probably
> > only be dealt with as amoral threats.
> >
> > <me> watch some interviews with a sociopath :)
> > they're really quite fascinating... anyways, there's no
> > reason to render a sociopath a threat; in fact, I'd
> > say they can be harnassed to detect flaws in
> > current modes.
I would not *render* them a threat. I'd make a judgement
as to whether they were a threat, a curiosity, or something
else on the evidence. A sociopathic serial killer that enjoys
it would not be *rendered* a threat by me but I would
hope they would be accurately *perceived* as one by me
to the extent that they were.
> <brett> Perhaps I'm saying sociopath when I mean
> pyschopath.
>
> <me> they're both used interchangeably :) the explicit
> difference is between antisocial and socio/psychopathic...
> The best guy (in my opinion was Clark)... Brilliant on
> this topic :)
<snip>
> omard-out
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 11 2003 - 10:02:10 MDT