Re: Parenting (was: God, Education, Epistemology)

On 04 Nov 2012, at 17:13, Rami Rustom wrote:

> On Oct 22, 2012 4:16 PM, "Bruno Marchal" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 21 Oct 2012, at 14:38, Rami Rustom wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 21, 2012 4:47 AM, "Bruno Marchal" <[email protected]>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 19 Oct 2012, at 22:31, Rami Rustom wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That has nothing to do with love. If a parent doesn't help a  child
> > > > > solve his problems, love won't matter.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I disagree. Intelligence is an emotional state. I think.
> > >
> > > Intelligence is not a state. And its not emotional either. Emotion
> > > includes a physiological component.
> > >
> > Intelligence too.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Take for example a situation where a child is trying to solve a
> > > problem. He's riding his tricycle and it just started to veer  right
> > > heavily. His attempts to just turning the steering wheel left  fail.
> > > Lets say he gets frustrated. At this point, there is still no  emotion.
> > >
> > ?
> > Frustration is an emotional state.
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is a psychological state without any physiological component.
> > >
> > There is always a physiological components, in most plausible theories
> > of the mind, and certainly with comp.
>
> I guess you mean neuronal firing. I'm talking about hormone secretion,
> increase heart rate, etc.
>
?
But that is physiological.



>
> >
> >
> > > Now
> > > lets say no one is around to help him. He might get angry,  
> especially
> > > if he has seen his parent get angry after getting frustrated. The
> > > anger is an emotion. There are physiological changes like   increased
> > > heartbeat, some hormones are secreted more, etc.
> > >
> > perhaos I am using the word "state" in a more large sense. This is
> > vocabulary. What I meant is that intelligence is something you can  get
> > in one second, and that you can lost in one second. It is quite
> > different from competence, which can ask for years of work.
>
> I don't see a difference bewteen intelligence and competence.
>
> I see intelligence as a function of one's epistemic ideas. More
> intelligence means better epistemic ideas. The results is increased
> ability to solve problems. It means better creativity and better
> criticism. It means better error-correction methods in one's thinking.
>
OK. But that is not competence, it is more a form of meta-competence.  
Someone can be so much competent (usually in some domain) that he will  
lack the ability to be criticized.
Intelligence is needed to develop competence, but competence can have  
a negative feedback on intelligence.





>
> > > > Is Nature not a bit authoritative when It imposes you your  genomes,
> > > > right at birth?
> > >
> > > For humans no, for others yes.
> > >
> > ?
>
> Our genes don't affect our ideas.
>
I doubt this. Unless perhaps in the ultimate enlightened state.



> Our genes produce our inborn
> softcoding, and then we change that softcode afterwards.
>
Very partially and painfully. But we are always influenced by a  
complex context.
Again, you present the ideal situation.




>
> >
> >
> > > Human minds are 100% softcoded.
> > >
> > Human minds are Lôbian (they are universal and knows that they are
> > universal), but I think this begin with spider and octopi. The
> > difference between human and spider is a matter of degree. there is
> > always a level where everything is hard coded, but once you have a
> > universal soft program, you get "infinite freedom" in principle.  Some
> > spiders have that.
>
> Are you saying that some spiders are 100% softcoded?
>
I am saying that the spider got the universal 100% softcode, but it is  
executed by a 100% hardcode.
We are all executed, at some level, by 100% hardcode. We are words  
written in the universal biochemical language. My mind cannot change  
the trajectory of an electron at will directly. I have to use my brain- 
muscle relations which are hardcoded.




>
> > > > I disagree. The teacher is supposed to have learned the subject
> > > > matter, and he evaluates the student's work according to his  beliefs
> > > > and knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > Bad teacher uses authoritative arguments. Not all teachers are  bad.
> > >
> > > I said "choice". I said that when a teacher makes the choice of
> > > setting a grade, he is exercising his authority over the student.
> > >
> > His authority in the field taught.
>
> But sometimes the student is right and the teacher wrong even within
> the teacher's field. And in these situations, the teacher will decide
> whether the student is right or the teacher is right. At this point,
> the teacher is exercising his authority to decide who is right.
>

His authority in the field. He doesn't have to make it into an  
authoritative argument. he will not if he is a good teacher.
But we all do that. If you think that your salvia can grow outside in  
winter, the gardener, if he is good, might decide to put them indoor,  
as he is competent and know that the salvia cannot survive a probable  
icy winter. He does not do that per authority, but just because he is  
a good gardener knowing his stuff, with the goal to grow healthy salvia.




>
> > > We criticize our gut feelings and emotions like we criticize  theories.
> > >
> > I don't think so. It is different.
>
> We guess and we criticize. Right?
>
I don't guess an emotion, nor a headache. I live it. It is 1p  
experience. In the math, a part of them are unconscious guess, but the  
"guess" part cannot be conscious, even if in some case, with drugs, or  
meditation, we can become aware of it, but this is a special case.




>
> >
> >
> > > Why am I having this gut feeling? It is a theory.
> > >
> > Not at all. It is more close to a sensation or a feeling. You can't
> > control it in the same way than your thought process. Some "yoga"
> > technic can be needed, or some drugs.
>
> Why are you talking about control?
>
Why were you talking on criticizing an emotion, if not for controlling  
(changing) some behavior?




>
> >
> >
> > > One that conflicts
> > > with the theory that I am currently thinking about  (consciously). With
> > > some thinking, I can figure out what the subconscious theory is and
> > > make it conscious and explicit.
> > >
> > Partially, and most of the time, for most humans, very partially.
>
> Can you give an example and an explanation of why it must be partial?
>
A person can understand some theories, which might be correct, on the  
basic functioning of their brain.
They can also "understand, or feel to understand" their most high  
level functioning, but in between, no machine can unravelled the  
complexity of their own behavior. It is just too much complex, and  
partial comprehension here, when made explicit, can only make the  
things more complex. Like in the joke, "I felt guilty with respect to  
my mother, and I saw a doctor. Now I felt guilty toward my mother and  
toward the doctor".




>
> >
> >
> > > Then I can properly criticize both
> > > rival theories in order to judge which one is right (the one that is
> > > left uncriticized).
> > >
> > > So the point is that we are never left only with gut feelings and
> > > emotions. We should dig deeper. There is no limit to figuring out the
> > > reasons why one is having a gut feeling or an emotion.
> > >
> > You live the emotion, you reason on a theory. I can explain that the
> > machines have both, and they obey to very different logic.
>
> K. Explain.
>
Intuitively:  You look at a movie, then you laugh. You lived the  
laughing feeling, you can't criticize your primary emotion. Perhaps  
later you can doubt it was really funny, but this is a critics of  
reason, not of the primary feeling that you were living. The emotion  
is a given experience, mainly hardwire, through chemical receptors  
that you cannot directly control. There is no reason why machine  
cannot live them, and comp assumes they can.







>
> > > You might have a different understanding of what a gut feeling  is than
> > > I do. A gut feeling means that you have a (conscious) idea that  you
> > > are currently thinking about and it "feels" wrong. That   "feeling" is a
> > > result of the fact that you have a subconscious and inexplicit   idea
> > > that conflicts with the conscious idea you're thinking about.
> > >
> > There is always a conflict, or a dialog, between the heart and   reason.
>
> The heart is a mechanical pump and nothing more.
>

The heart, in this setting, is the old name for the "right brain",  
which is also a suggested natural "implementation" of the Yin of the  
Yin-Yang. The heart is the lived intuition, as opposed to the colder  
analytical mode of reasoning.



>
> > They can be both right, and yet cannot always see that. My opinion  is
> > that in case of doubt, reason has to be the servant of the heart.
>
> What is the heart? You mean gut feelings and emotions? What causes gut
> feelings? What causes emotions?
>
I guess that they are byproducts of the universal goal imprinted in us  
by nature and which is that we have to do whatever we can do to  
survive and multiply.




>
> >
> >
> > > And that
> > > conflict is what is producing the gut feeling.
> > >
> > No. the conflict is only when the gut feelings is in opposition with
> > the theory, but most people will follow their guts even before
> > thinking to a theory.
> > Why?
> > Because our emotions are rooted in billions of years of evolution.
>
> How do you think emotions work? What is happening in a person that
> causes emotions?
>
Very deep subroutine probably, related to our survival, and the deeper  
part of the brain. The cerebral stem and the limbic system manage most  
of it.




>
> > Our
> > theories are far more recent.
> > I guess we are more hard or soft, but precoded than you think. We
> > cannot change our gut feeling by reason. We can learn to act against
> > them in some circumstance, but we have no control on our deep  emotion
> > and even beliefs.
>
> That doesn't make any sense to me. I believe the theories that I have
> no criticisms of.
>
You said this often. I am not sure about this, but I do agree that  
such a theory is deep and important, but not yet totally correct. What  
about theories that you don't criticize, but don't criticize the  
opposite theory?





> What do you mean that I don't have control over
> this?
>
Because we are not even conscious of them. We are just ignorant of  
them. We can' make our thought processes entirely conscious, for the  
same reason that you are not conscious of the working of all what your  
computer is doing to present you my post.




> I actively create and seek out criticisms of my currently
> unrefuted theories. Sometimes I create (or am provided) with a
> criticism that I can't refute, in which case my previously unrefuted
> theory is now refuted, and rendered false, in which case it is no
> longer a belief of mine.
>
OK.



> I was responsible for actively thinking about
> my theories. I was responsible for criticizing them, and for posting
> them publicly so that I can get external criticism.
>
Good. I do the same.



> I was responsible
> for actively thinking about the criticisms, which means actively
> trying not to rationalize (i.e. shield my theories from criticism).
> You are saying that I am not responsible. How does that make sense? Or
> did I misunderstand you?
>
I guess you did, as we were talking about emotions and so old theories  
that we are not even aware of them. Note that, as a logician working  
on very fundamental question I work semi-axiomatically, abstracting  
from many existing nuance to quickly get the most general result, and  
for a large part of what I say, I identify number, machine, body,  
theories, language, ideas, etc. I think that there is a level of  
explanation where a human body is really a theory made by nature,  
itself a theory selected by consciousness, etc. You are not  
responsible for your unconscious subtheories, because you inherit them  
from your biological ancestors. You did invent the idea that when you  
are hungry you have to eat.



>
> >
> > > It is not
> > > counter-productive. Quitting is counter-productive. Not thinking  about
> > > why one is having a gut feeling is counter-productive and  irrational.
> > > Note that by rational approach I mean an approach that invokes
> > > truth-seeking methods. And seeking the subconscious ideas that  are the
> > > cause of gut feelings *is* a truth-seeking method.
> > >
> > But this is what we do when introducing laws, and teaching. We just
> > cannot do that "in real time".
>
> I do it in real time plenty. My sales manager had a gut feeling about
> a potential sales person. I didn't have that gut feeling. I asked him
> to try to explain it. It was hard for him. Some time later, because of
> some of my questions and guesses and criticism, we discovered what it
> was that his gut feeling was telling him. It was something he
> subconsciously picked up on in the interviewer's body language and
> responses. That new thing we learned we were able to apply to future
> interviews, this time without relying on the gut feeling, and instead
> relying on the objective facts about the interviewer's actions. And
> the point is that I was able to learn this idea too, even though I
> never had the gut feeling.
>
One case is not a statistic. As you mention it was hard for him to do  
that. Luckily you could help, but in many case things remains  
subconscious.



>
> > No animals can do that.
> > This is an overuse of reason, and I can explain why, even for the
> > ideally correct machine, this is already NOT rational. It is  rational
> > to be irrational on those matter.
> >
> > In the present case, the father took a long time before punishing  the
> > kid, because he was acting rationally. But this was probably what
> > makes the child even more and more angry against his father. The point
> > was made by the child. Everyine was relieved when finally the father
> > get angry and did what everyone felt to be the correct, and loving,
> > attitude. Fair punishment can make sense, and are taken by  children as
> > mark of genuine love.
> > This is part of our condition today.
> > I kind of agree with you "in theory", but imposing such a theory  would
> > lead to the contrary of the intended effect.
>
> You mean onto newborns?
>
Onto most thinking entities.



>
> > > > It was not a criticism. It your opinion.
> > >
> > > It was an explanation. A theory about why the guy thinks it was  good
> > > for his father to punish him. My theory conflicts with your  theory.
> > > Therefore my theory is a criticism of your theory.
> > >
> > I am not sure to see what you theory is, at this point. That
> > punishment is bad?
> > I agree with that theory, but only ideally, meaning that I cannot
> > judge someone who does not follow it. I can only try to apply it
> > myself, and in all human affair, I know that I can expect situation
> > where it will not work. All generalization are wrong on the human
> > affairs (and more generally on the universal machine affair).
>
> False. For example, stealing is bad, all the time. Agreed?
>
No. Stealing the weapon of your enemy can be good, even moral. But OK,  
in general (meaning allowing exceptions).
I often agree with you, but in the human affair, or in the higher  
complexity domain, there are always exceptions. exceptions are not  
necessarily refutation of theories, in the human domain. Such theories  
have often fuzzy values, with no clear frontiers.



>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > A criticism is an
> > > explanation of a flaw in a theory. You can call it an opinion  also,
> > > but that label doesn't change that fact that it is a criticism.
> > >
> >
> > We can have different opinions, and we can be both partially right  and
> > partially false.
>
> Right.
>
OK.



>
> > > Complained about what? Is complaining bad?
> > >
> > Complaining is not bad, but points on something which is bad and  needs
> > to be fixed.
>
> It points to the idea that the father's parenting is bad, and needs  
> fixed.
>
But in the situation I described, there were no complains, after the  
punishment.



>
> > > > > Why does child have goal of non-cooperation?
> > > > >
> > > > There are billions of reasons. The "non-future" state of mind, the
> > > > part of adolescense where you can easily made them kills  themselves
> > > > legally (war) or illegally (gang). The passage from child to  adult,
> > > > makes them dumband vulnerable, and there are many crisis before.
> > > > The causes, might terribly multiple.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that those things are inevitable?
> > >
> > Well, if that damned Eve did not eat that damed apple, may be things
> > would have been avoided.
> > You seem to think that we can reason in theory, like in practice.  But
> > the application of a theory to a concrete siutation is itself
> > something complex.
>
> So what? Are you saying that the complexity of the situation prevents
> us from applying reason?
>
It asks us to apply reason, but being aware that the application is  
limited by that complexity. In complex domain, reason is often wrong,  
as it lacks a lot of information.



>
> >
> >
> > > That children cannot
> > > do better?
> > >
> > The fact is that he did not get better until the punishment.
>
> Who defined what "better" means?
>
In this case everyone in the family, say.



> How do you know the father or even
> the child was right about that?
>

We never know such things for sure, but we can have deep general  
intuition about it.



>
> >
> >
> > > That they aren't rational enough to do better?
> > >
> > Reason is not synonymous with better, although it can help a lot.  But
> > it is counterproductive on the irrational, like the "reason" why we
> > are living. That's why theology is a very complex field, full of
> > traps, and delusion.
>
> I use reason for that too. Why do you think its off limits?
>

Because, notably, we can prove that, for machines, the truth will  
always extends what the reason can justify.



>
> >
> > > If so, do
> > > you believe that *all* children are like that? If not, what do you
> > > believe is the difference between the children that are like  that and
> > > the children that aren't like that?
> > >
> >
> > Some dogs barks, others don't. We, the animals, are very similar,  and
> > very different. It is a bit like the shape of the clouds, or of the
> > parts of the Mandelbrot set. With comp such difference are related  to
> > the infinite richness of arithmetic. It is full of chaos, life, and
> > surprises. We can only scratch the surface, and we know already that
> > the more we will know about that, the more we will realize that we  are
> > ignorant about that. When embedded in real relative time and space,
> > most our decision are irrational.
>
> What do you mean by irrational? Do you mean wrong? Or without use of
> reason? Or without use of one's error-correcting methods of guesses
> and criticism?
>
Without use of reason.




>
> > > No. Most lie to themselves and make themselves believe that they  are
> > > doing their best.
> > >
> > Some lie to themselves. Not most. You seem to have a negative view   of
> > the humans. I agree they lie more easily than animals, but they are
> > not so bad with their children, in majority. Imo.
>
> Animals don't lie. Lying is deception. Animals don't attempt to
> deceive other animals nor themselves. Only humans do that.
>

Animals attempts to deceive other animals. Some spiders can mimic non  
edible ants for not being eaten by their predators, some animals can  
fake being death to survive. Some wasp can chemically makes ants to  
believe they are their own enemies so that they fight themselves  
instead of the wasp, etc. delusion exists everywhere in nature.



>
> > > Actually that *is* coercion. But that coercion is moral. It is
> > > analogous to (coercive) self-defense and police (coercively)
> > > restraining a person intending to commit violence.
> > >
> > OK. Then I will just put the act of the punishing father in that
> > category. It helps a lot the family. I will not tell you what the
> > child did, I don't even know myself, but I can guess easily that it
> > was way worst than throwing dishes.
>
> Ah so he was using violence against another family member. Any idea
> why he would do that? Bad parenting.
>
I disagree. I have lived a period where the child is all nice, and if  
it is not it is the fault of the parents, but things are much more  
complex, and some people are "bad" because they have a chromosome too  
much. Of course we have to help them, and protect the community of the  
bad doing, but sometimes it is not as clear as the case of one  
chromosome too much. There are family traits.




> Coercion. Parent not helping
> child learn conflict resolution methods so that their kids know how to
> do it instead of fight.
>

There is also an age where children are programmed to piss of the  
parents, and parents reacts as they can, with the information available.

A good idea was the initiation idea, where the grow up child have to  
pass some test, like in the Bwiti religion, where they have to take  
some amount of iboga, which helps a lot to become "adult", apparently.  
But I guess you will not appreciate such testing.



>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > If you ask the child what problem he is trying to solve by   throwing
> > > > dishes, you take the risk to get the fork and the knife on you.
> > >
> > > You're describing a father-son relationship where the son   distrusts
> > > the father. That is not a "human nature" thing.
> > >
> > ?
>
> I'm saying if the son distrust the father, it means that the father
> acted in such a way for the son to distrust him.
>
I am far from sure about this. They can have simply different and  
hardly compatible character, or the child is in love with his mother  
and jealous with the father, but not consciously. I can imagine  
thousand of reason for a child to be hard with the parents for complex  
reasons not amenable to the direct use of reason.




>
> >
> > > It is a result of the
> > > father's behavior towards the son. It is 100% the parent's fault.
> > >
> > How can you know that?
> > If you can imagine a bad father-adult, why can't you imagine a bad  son-
> > kid?
>
> Because all evil is due to ideas, or lack thereof.
>
I don't believe this. Evil can be circumstancial and related to bad  
situations.




> The father passed
> on some of his anti-rational memes. And he didn't do well helping his
> child learn how to resolve conflicts.
>
In this case I think he did.
Children don't want to be love by reason, but by heart.



>
> > May be it was the fault of the grandfather?
>
> If the grandparent was involved in the parenting, sure.
>
> > Oh, wait, it is was 100% the fault of Eve! or of the Snake.
>
> They weren't involved in the parenting.
>
Of course, even if indirectly.




>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > For one thing, having a 2nd child is the father fault. He  betrayed the
> > > 1st child when he did that. He forced the 1st child to share stuff
> > > with the 2nd child (like a bed room, toys, parent time, etc.).  So for
> > > example, if 1st child gets jealous of 2nd child, should the parent
> > > blame the 1st child for "being" jealous? No. But that is what your
> > > argument says to do. The reality is that the parent caused a  situation
> > > where the 1st child feels that way. The parent could have done
> > > differently such that the 1st child wouldn't feel that way. And  the
> > > parent can do these even after making the first mistake of  having a
> > > 2nd child.
> > >
> > ??? It is a mistake to do a second child? I believe the complete
> > contrary, and would say it is a mistake to do only one child. But,
> > anyway, those are not "mistakes". Those are current facts of current
> > life.
>
> Having two children, and then failing to help them learn conflict
> resolution, is a recipe for disaster.
>
Nothing will help more a child for learning conflict resolution than  
having a bro or a sis. Imo.




>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > All
> > > > parents knows that some child can have difficult moment, which  are
> > > > hard to reason about at times.
> > >
> > > And most parents resort to punishment instead of truth-seeking.
> > >
> > Truth seeking is way more complex. You just can't do it in most
> > situation for the human affairs. It is too much complex. People have
> > very different theories about this.
>
> Why does it matter that most people have different theories about it?
>
It was just a pointing on a fact.



> What problem does that position solve?
>
What problem does solve the annulus of saturn?



>
> > > The
> > > truth that should be sought after is *why* does the kid want to  hurt
> > > his family. What is the underlying problem that is causing the  obvious
> > > problem (that the kid wants to hurt his family)?
> > >
> > That the child was believing his father did not notice him, or  taking
> > him seriously. The child was wrong. He failed to see the positive
> > contribution of his father? He noticed it after the negative
> > contribution (punishment).
> > Everyone was happy after. Is that not the main thing.
>
> No. You're saying that ends justify the means. Its evil.
>
Some ends can justify partially some means.




>
> For one thing, they say they are happier, and could be rationalizing,
> i.e. deceiving themselves.
>

Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's were the gut feeling will do the  
decision, and where reason is very often self-deceiving.



>
> Another thing is that they have nothing to compare their situation to.
>
Neither the alternative.



> Say the parent did something different, other than punishment. Say
> that produced better results, i.e. they are happier.
>
Or they are self-deceiving.
I do think that a fair punishment can make someone happier in life.



>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > And you're saying that in this situation
> > > > > parent should do more of his badness and that will somehow  work? No.
> > > > > Parent should stop coercion and start persuasion and start to
> > > > > eventually child will learn to not distrust parent.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree in principle, and we must tend toward that. But you can
> > > > advertize on this only by examples, and you cannot judge the   parents
> > > > in concrete situation, as there is no way for you to think and   judge
> > > > from their perspective. There is no theory to follow, even if  you
> > > > follow mostly your reason.
> > >
> > > You're saying that there might be relevant details about the  situation
> > > that are crucial to understanding the morality of the situation. I
> > > agree. But, for example, one of the situations you described  didn't
> > > have missing relevant details. You said that father punished son  in
> > > order for him to study.
> > >
> > ? I don't remember saying this. If I say this, it was another case.
> >
> >
> >
> > > This is immoral. It is anti-freedom. It is
> > > also counter-productive in that what can be expected is that the  son
> > > can learn to hate studying.
> > >
> >
> > But I still disagree. I am happy to have studied, but I was against
> > going to school when young. I am happy my parent coerce on me for
> > doing that.
>
> You might have been against school because school is coercive. You
> might have been *for* a better situation. One where you got to learn
> whatever you wanted to learn. And your parents or other people helped
> you in your learning. And each thing you were interested in, is the
> thing you would go learn. Its a problem for you. And by learning it,
> you solve your problem. And that reveals new problems for you, new
> things you're interested in. And you solve those problems. And repeat.
>

This can work for some people, and not for some others.


>
> The point is that learning works best when a person is interested. So
> that what people should learn, stuff they are interested in.
>
But sometimes you have to learn boring things before being able to  
grasp the presence of wonderfully interesting things behind them.




>
> > My opinion is that people should mind their own business, and stop
> > judging others as bad or good, as far as they don't feel their  liberty
> > and souls threatened in some immediate way.
>
> By that logic, nobody is evil.
>
OK. That is what I like in this. Nobody is really evil. So evil is  
just when *you* are threatened. The tiger is not evil; but the  
situation you+the tiger can be evil for you.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]