Self-image (was: Constructor theory paper by David)

On Nov 11, 2012 9:26 PM, "a b" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:10 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> >> > This isn't necessary
> > >> >> >> > true in more business/middle-class districts...but in poorer
> > >> >> >> > districts
> > >> >> >> > dealers are often pushers...under pressure to get new customers
> > >> >> >> > for
> > >> >> >> > new types of drug. It happens. There will be lots of other,
> > >> >> >> > complicated, social class relaterd, explanations.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> And in all of that you fail to mention the law.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > We've been talking around the idea you had rejected cannabis was a
> > >> >> > gateway drug. If that wasn't the case why didn't you just say so?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't know what you're asking. You asked me questions and I
> > >> >> answered
> > >> >> them directly. Are you again saying that I evaded?
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't remember the first time I said you were evading. I'm not
> > >> > aware
> > >> > of feelings like that toward you. Did I introduce that word?
> > >>
> > >> Well, the joke thing you said that I did is a type of evasion.
> > >
> > > Rami - I'm sorry for raising the joke thing.
> >
> > No apology necessary. You use it as part of your explanation about the
> > self-image. I see no problem in that.
> >
> > > The intention was to
> >
> > > illustrate a reflexive response that we all fall into sometimes when
> > > things happen very quickly.
> >
> > *Each* time that it happens, there is a meme involved. Its not some
> > default mode of thinking or anything like that.
> >
> >
> > > I wasn't thinking of 'evasive' because
> > > from my perspective...from looking at myself and others...what happens
> > > in those situations is that we respond - as I say - reflexively and
> > > then we rationalize what we did in keeping with our self-image and
> > > then it's gone.
> >
> > By reflexive, you mean subconscious. Though, I think you're saying
> > that since its a reflex, then it can't be changed. But thats false.
> > Its an idea. We can change them.
>
> I would agree with you that it can be changed. But something I
> currently question is whether the popperian mindset helps or hinders
> making such changes.

External criticism helps a person notice his anti-rational memes. Agreed?

Popperians ***want*** external criticism because they know that
criticism can help them with the growth of their knowledge.

So Popperians seek out external criticism by posting their ideas publicly.

And then they address the criticism, rather than evade.


> In your case, denying concepts like ego,
> self-image and so on....I see this as a really useful conceptual
> framework for identifying such behaviours in oneself.

When you first brought up the idea of self-image, I had never thought
about it before. My initial reaction was this IIRC:

Why *should* anyone think about their self-image?

And you didn't answer me. Why? I guess you're thinking that *everyone*
*must* think about their self-image. But I don't know since you didn't
answer me.

Why did I ask that question? Because I didn't understand the purpose
of thinking of one's self-image.

Most of my life I've been asking, "What do I gain by doing X?" If I
can't answer that question, then I don't do X.

So when you brought up the idea of self-image, I asked: "What do I
gain by thinking of my self-image?" And since then, I've figured some
out.

I think that thinking of one's self-image is harmful. And I see no advantages.

What do you think?


> With that said, you strike me as someone who has done a lot of work on
> himself. You've mentioned that this process goes back way before
> coming along to the popper philosophy. You also mentioned that many of
> the popper positions, you actually came to on your own. I'm interested
> in that.

There is one objective set of truths. I called it the universe's
knowledge network.

And each one of us has a set of conjectural truths. I called it each
person's knowledge network.

All humans are trying to make their knowledge network converge with
the universe's knowledge network. In the Popper/Rand era, Popper's and
Rand's knowledge networks converged with the universe's knowledge
network more than any other people.


> Perhaps you would consider doing a separate post to the group
> telling your story. I would be interested anyway. Another point of
> interest is that you've characterized your internal learnings - and
> popper/deutsch's - as a 'network' or at least used that word. I'm
> certainly like to hear more about that.

Popper and Rand both understood that *all knowledge is connected*. I
realized that back in July 2010. I wonder if I knew it subconsciously
before that and in July I just made it conscious and explicit.

*All knowledge is connected* implies that all knowledge exists in a
network. All I did was apply some math to the idea. I have a strong
math background.


> >
> >
> > > So no evasiveness as I am interpreting you are using
> > > the word.
> >
> > You're thinking of consciously evading. I'm thinking of evading in
> > general, which includes subconsciously evading.
> >
> >
> > > FWIW my personal learning from this discussion will most
> > > definitely include that the way you responded to my raising the joke
> > > thing was very much in keeping with the claims you had earlier made
> > > about yourself (a lot of people - possibly including myself - would
> > > have reacted much more adversely).
> >
> > I don't know what you mean. What claims did I make about myself?
>
> I think during this dialogue I have mentioned your post/s in which you
> say you have moved beyond, for example, shame. As well as other
> personal growth events. I was just saying that, your composure under
> fire has impressed as a trait I would expect to see in someone who had
> accomplishments like that.

Ah. I note that you said "under fire". That says something about your
attitude towards discussions. You thought that I would take your
discussion tactics as offensive or warlike or whatever. That is a
zero-sum attitude. I used to have that attitude. My attitude now is
very much non-zero-sum. I don't consider these discussions as
offensive/warlike. I saw your discussion tactics as a way to reveal
the truth. Why else would you do what you did? To hurt me? To make me
feel bad? I don't think you care about stupid stuff like that.

And if a person *did* think that way, and said things like that to me,
why should I get offended or feel shame or whatever? Either he made a
mistake or I made a mistake. Mistakes are not bad in and of
themselves.

Anyway, I discovered somethings about psychology before learning the
non-zero-sum idea. I learned that *all* emotions are due to
thoughts/ideas. So if one doesn't like his emotion, then he should
work to discover the thought/idea that is causing it. And if he
doesn't know immediately, then the idea is subconscious, in which case
there is some work to be done to make it conscious and explicit.


> >
> >
> > >
> > > However, I feel the joke thing has its own container separate from the
> > > gateway thread. In fact having just checked you introduced the word
> > > asking me if I was evading providing a response about something.
> >
> > Not addressing criticism can be evasion. Or it could be genuine lack
> > of interest. Or it could be related to a specific problem one has, and
> > addressing criticism does not solve his problem, or it would make the
> > problem worse.
>
> Yes...not responding has many meanings. In fact could I ask you
> something about this? Something I've noticed in some of your posts is
> the way you talk about people stopping responding. I could be wrong
> but it seems as though you are assuming they have no further
> criticisms?

No. But that is one possibility.


> Is that the case? If it was, I'd probably think that
> fairly unreliable. I for one, will only respond if several boxes are
> ticked. The most important is that I think the other person is making
> an effort to understand what I have said.

Sure. But, if you think he's not making an effort, instead of
quitting, you could choose to call him out on that.


> It's not that I am making
> them responsible for what can be awful communication on my part...I'm
> more than happy to take responsibility...but the bottom line is still
> that the other person has to be getting it at least to some extent.
> Good motivation is another key for me. There are lots of others. I'm
> sure it's the same for most people.
> >
> > The point is that a Popperian wants to solve his problems. And he
> > knows that anti-rational memes are problems. And he can't be sure
> > whether or not he has fixed all of them. So, in situations where he
> > subconsciously evades, he's (by definition) not aware that he did it.
> > So he wants others to point it out to him, allowing him to address it
> > and fix it.
>
> That's the aspiration, but is it the reality?

Are you saying that some problems are insoluble?


> >
> > People that consciously evade, are not Popperians. They have goals
> > that are inconsistent with Popperism.
>
>
>
> To be popperian wouldn't it be enough to want to think better and be
> making progress at thinking better? Are you saying consciously evading
> is a hurdle someone has to get over before they can even be considered
> on the path? What if they are really trying but have some whopping big
> irrational memes in that area?

One huge criteria I would think is required in order to have the label
of Popperian is to like criticism.


> I'm not sure what you are saying works.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > I'm not sure we're communicating too well....I'm happy to take
> > >> > responsibility for that. Let's give this discussion a bit longer to
> > >> > come to something and then maybe drop it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I reject the idea that any choice is a gateway to another choice
> > >> >
> > >> > It looks to me like you are defining 'gateway' in particular ways
> > >> > that
> > >> > I wouldn't and doubt any mainstream discussion would either. If as a
> > >> > consequence of buying grass, someone comes to a decision point about
> > >> > heroin that they would not otherwise have come to, then that would be
> > >> > enough to call buying grass a 'gateway' on some definition of
> > >> > gateway.
> > >> > There's no need to include personal responsibility in the equation
> > >> > unless that is specifically what you want to do.
> > >>
> > >> I don't see any way for a gateway theory to make sense. If you do, tell
> > >> us.
> > >
> > > A 'gateway' seems to me more a 'container' word that is given sense or
> > > not by the explanations provided. Like I say, if getting in pot
> > > results in finding oneself at decision points that one would not
> > > otherwise have come to, that is enough to start defining the decision
> > > to get into pot as some sort of 'gateway'.
> > > There's nothing wrong with defining it philosophically in terms of
> > > choices and personal responsibility but that isn't necessary or
> > > implicit unless those are the things you want to examine or refute or
> > > whatever.
> >
> > No. Its *always* necessary when talking about choices.
>
> We're talking about something that does at the individual level
> involve choices, but that doesn't mean we are necessarily talking at
> this time....about individual choices.
> Just logically speaking....if smoking pot leads to a decision point
> that the person would not otherwise have come to, or would have had a
> much lower probability of coming to, then that is enough to start
> defining smoking pot as a gateway to that decision point. The reason
> why we are doing it is undefined in this example, and does not need to
> be defined in the logic being proposed.

Ok. And at this point, its not a good explanation.


>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > Suggesting the gateway theory is that
> > >> >> >> > 100% of people who try cannabis will try heroin is obviously
> > >> >> >> > not
> > >> >> >> > plausible at all.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> That is not a theory. That is a statement of an expected
> > >> >> >> observation.
> > >> >> >> You're saying that the gateway theory *is* of the form: X% of
> > >> >> >> people
> > >> >> >> who do X will do Y. That is not a theory. It doesn't explain why
> > >> >> >> anything is happening. It only *asserts* that something is
> > >> >> >> happening
> > >> >> >> without explaining causality.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> And the only causality you've explained so far is stuff about
> > >> >> >> drug
> > >> >> >> dealers and you didn't even mention why we have drug dealers.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I actually don't know what you are talking about at this stage. We
> > >> >> > began a discussion based on the idea you had defined the concept
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > cannabis being a gateway drug as "100% of users will try heroin".
> > >> >> > If
> > >> >> > that wasn't your position you should have said so.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I didn't say anything about numbers. You brought that up. All I said
> > >> >> was that the gateway theory says that A causes B. And I'm saying
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> A and B are choices. And choices don't cause choices. People make
> > >> >> choices using their ideas.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I thought the refutation you brought...along the lines of an example
> > >> > of someone smoking pot and not taking heroin....implied that the
> > >> > conjecture you were perceiving involved an absolute link in each and
> > >> > every instance.
> > >>
> > >> If A causes B, then A *always* causes B. There is no sometimes or in
> > >> some situations.
> > >>
> > >> If the gateway theory doesn't talk about causality, then what is the
> > >> point of the theory?
> > >
> > > I don't think the causality is implied by the term 'gateway'.
> >
> > Then its stupid. A theory that doesn't explain causality is a bad
> > explanation. It says nothing.
>
> Explaining causality would certainly be an essential end-product. But
> knowledge creation is step-wise and evolves - as you know. There are
> all sorts of devices (thought experiments, say)  that might be
> deployed to support the knowledge creation process. All that is
> important in the popperian sense - I think - is that each step is
> subject to the explanation/criticism process. In terms of using an
> abstract container such as 'gateway' one explanation would presumably
> be along the lines of "this is why using this abstraction is useful to
> the process of ultimately explaining what if any link connects pot to
> smac and whether that link is useful/interesting"
>
>
> >
> >
> > > You have
> > > to add in what it is. What I would expect is that in the mainstream
> > > debate, things begin with some statistics and testimony, and a process
> > > of adding causality has been attempted in various ways and remains
> > > incomplete.
> >
> > What is the causality part of the gateway theory?
>
> Well....I don't know precisely where the mainstream debate has got to
> on this, but in my example above the  causality would still be a work
> in progress but could be stated so far as, people who obtain and
> consume pot are X more probable to come to a decision point about Y
> (say heroin) than people who do not obtain and consume pot.

That is a bad explanation. It uses the idea a person makes a decision
by probability. That idea is false. Do you have a criticism of this
idea?

So, if you want to fix the bad explanation, you can start by taking
out the probability part.


> The nature
> of the link would not yet be understood, but the use of the gateway
> concept would be explained as a container for things like the
> statistics, the testimonies, the proposition of a link...and all
> useful if, and only if, the process is brought closer to identifying a
> cause.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > My original point was just that, it only makes sense to try to capture
> > > the actual process that has taken place in the mainstream debate,
> > > before attempting to refute it or not.
> >
> > But the mainstream debate messes up the causality of the gateway theory.
>
> It might. But what it simply cannot be seriously proposing is "100% of
> people who smoke pot go on to take heroin". That can't  be the
> proposal because that just isn't at all sensible.
> >
> >
> > > Another way to refute it in the popperian method would be to
> > > 'pre-refute' for violating some other principle regarded as true.
> >
> > Right. And you think this is a fault, right? So explain it. Explain
> > why you think this is a fault.
>
>  I don't think that is a fault, although I do think sometimes
> Popperians misuse it. But that is for another discussion since that is
> not what you did. What you did was define the mainstream gateway
> conjecture effectively as "100% of people who smoke pot go on to take
> heroin". That is what you then refuted.
>
> >
> > Basically you're saying that if an explanation (theory) is bad, then
> > its still ok to consider it true or do science based on that theory.
> > You are contradicting Popperism. So what is your criticism? What is
> > your explanation that this is a flaw?
>
> I don't think has been said, at least not in this thread.
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> And if its going to talk about causality, how can anyone create a
> > >> theory which explains causality when each person that the theory
> > >> attempts to explain is different. Each person has different ideas, and
> > >> those ideas affect his choices.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >> > You are implicitly assuming Popperianism is infallible. I have
> > >> >> > said I
> > >> >> > have a criticism, one knock-on consequence of which is that
> > >> >> > Popperians
> > >> >> > aren't going to be any better than anyone else at hearing
> > >> >> > criticism
> > >> >> > they don't want to hear.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Do you know why people don't want to hear criticism of certain
> > >> >> ideas?
> > >> >> It means they have anti-rational memes related to those ideas. Can a
> > >> >> Popperian have anti-rational memes? Of course. I've already said
> > >> >> this.
> > >> >> What is infallibilist about it?
> > >> >
> > >> > You haven't heard the criticism because I haven't made the decision
> > >> > to
> > >> > attempt to explain it. So there's no way that I can see that you can
> > >> > attach antirational memes to it.
> > >>
> > >> I brought up anti-rational memes because that is the only thing that
> > >> shields ideas from creativity and criticism. By *shielding* I mean
> > >> that a person *evades* thinking about the (shielded) idea. Feeling
> > >> shame is one type of consequence of a person feeling the effects of an
> > >> anti-rational meme doing its work of shielding an idea.
> > >
> > > I hear what you're saying but I do feel there's a certain amount of
> > > circularity going on in how you define the extent someone understands
> > > popperianism...that doesn't seem to keep fallibility enough in the
> > > loop.
> >
> > You said that earlier. I replied with a criticism and a question. You
> > did not address my criticism nor answer my question. And then you
> > repeated your unexplained assertion a second time. This is a form of
> > evasion.
>
> You might be right....but if you're willing I think you'll have to run
> this past me one more time. Perhaps one way to help me understand is
> by explaining the distinction between where you are going in this
> component, and the following statement which can't be popperian
>
>  "Someone who criticizes Popperianism cannot understand Popperianism".

I didn't say/mean that.

I said that someone who consciously evades criticism doesn't
understand Popperism.

But, you brought up a couple of other reasons that someone would
consciously evade criticism, like believing that the other person is
not willing to understand your argument. But, a Popperian would call
him out on that, instead of not addressing a criticism.


>
> >
> > But, maybe you have a gut feeling, that disagrees with me. That means
> > you have a subconscious idea that conflicts with my idea. So, at this
> > point, you could try to make that idea conscious and explicit, so that
> > you can present it to me, so that I can try to criticize it, or be
> > persuaded. Of course, you would only want to do that if you're
> > interested in this problem. By problem I mean the conflict between my
> > theory (that your action is inconsistent with Popperism) and your
> > theory (that your action is consistent with Popperism).
>
> I would have to be interested in the problem, and believe that you
> were able and willing to work with me to put my idea into a reasonably
> strong form, such that we'd both come away satisfied by either an
> agreement or a refutation.
>
> I appreciate what I say above is not necessarily according to the
> understanding of popperian deployed in these lists, but:
>
> - it is consistent with my criticism of, say, the way you set up the
> gateway conjecture

What you tried to do with the gateway conjecture was make a trap for
me to fall in. That is a tactic that conventional debaters use. Its
anti-Popperian.


> - on the face of it, it is also consistent with something popper
> himself said which was something like, before criticizing an idea, one
> should first improve it, improve it again....and then criticize THAT.
>
> >
> >
> > >> > If
> > >> > an obligation like that does exist in the philosophy, then for sure
> > >> > that is an area I didn't know about.
> >
> > >> > Also, as mentioned above, I don't recall thinking or saying that you
> > >> > were being evasivre in this particular thread.
> > >>
> > >> You said that I was evading about not getting the joke. You did use
> > >> the word "evading" but its the same meaning.
> > >
> > > I didn't mean anything with the same meaning as evasive as I
> > > understand it to be, but I do acknowledge that would very likely be
> > > the strong impression given. Also...I want to apologize for putting
> > > you on the spot about that.
> >
> > I'm not hurt. And you needed to do it to explain your theory about
> > self-image.
>
> OK Rami that's very cool

For any given observable, there are an infinite set of possible
interpretations. Some are negative -- some are positive. The goal is
to rule out all but one. But often we are presented with situations
where we have to make a choice where we haven't yet ruled out all but
one interpretation. What should we do? I choose to error on the side
of a positive interpretation.

In this case, the observable was your debate tactic, and the positive
interpretation I chose was that you used the debate tactic in order to
reveal something that would help explain your self-image theory. In
this interpretation, your goal is good -- you are trying to expand
your knowledge.

In other words, "Innocent until proven guilty."

-- Rami