Re: The Nature of Man

On 18 Nov 2012, at 20:09, Rami Rustom wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 Nov 2012, at 15:45, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16 Nov 2012, at 15:42, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> A better way to think about it
>>> is to like the idea that I just learned that somebody else has
>>> something that I don't have and I want it and I could emulate him to
>>> learn it (or acquire it).
>>
>> It will not work.
>
> i.e. some problems are insoluble. But that is false. Do you have a
> criticism of DD's "All problems are soluble"?

Like Hilbert? There is no "ignorabimus"!
I agree on this at the metalevel, but not at the level of the things  
under scrutiny.

Assume comp, then the brain can be described by a code having some X  
gigabytes.
Almost all sequences having more than X giga bytes will be random and  
yet cannot be proved as such by a machine having X gigabytes of  
description. So the problem to figure out if something more complex  
than us is random or is the result of a "short" programs will be  
necessarily insoluble for us.

Our self-consistency, in case we are self-consistent, is also insoluble.
I can explain that IF we are machine, a part of the consciousness  
problem will have to be insoluble.
The problem of where the natural numbers comes from is also insoluble.  
If you don't assume them, you don't get them.
In fact, almost all diophantine equations are non solvable by humans,  
or machines. In some case we can meta-solve them, by explaining why  
they have to be insolvable.

I think DD should be OK with this, as this go in the direction of the  
beginning of infinity.

I think we might agree, here, but the thread on this should be clearer  
on what is meant by "solvable", as the question is different in the  
short term and the infinitely long term.




>
>
>> For jealous people, the neighbors' grass is always
>> (irrationally) more green, even if yellow.
>
> And that is caused by a lack of knowledge. Are you saying they can not
> gain that knowledge? Of course not. You gave a situation where
> somebody does gain the knowledge: "except rarely by big life
> experience, or some shock."
>
> Persuasion works too.

I don't think so. You will, with chance, convince the "right brain",  
but the "left brain" will not understand. You might be correct in some  
ideal case, with immortal and rational persons. But not, today, in the  
real limited life of those persons. Jealousy might use some hardwired  
part of the limbic system.



>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> addiction to power,
>>>
>>> People who want that have a zero-sum worldview.
>>
>> Explain what you mean and how you related that to addiction of power
>> (or money).
>
> What do you mean by addiction of power? Doesn't that mean wanting to
> control people and then liking the feeling of controlling people?

Feeling perhaps reassured, yes.



>
>
>>
>>> This is a lack of knowledge.
>>
>> This is not clear.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> inferiority/superiority complexes,
>>>
>>> If one believes he is inferior to another, he should emulate the
>>> superior one to improve himself.
>>
>> Those who feel inferior can't emulate the one they think being
>> superior, and that is why the feel (usually wrongly, not always with
>> respect to some task) to be inferior.
>
> Why can't they?

Because they are sticked by their prejudices about themselves.




>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> the instinct of
>>>> following leadership, etc.
>>>
>>> There is no such instinct. Instincts are inborn. We are not born  
>>> with
>>> knowledge that explains what is a leader and what is a follower.
>>
>> I doubt this. All mammals are born with a tun of prejudices and
>> instincts.
>
> Humans are born with very little.

I doubt this. I can imagine that the cortex contains some virgin  
universal system, but it is controlled by the limbic system, the  
cerebral stem, etc. At birth we are giving a very sophisticated  
organic computer, which is based on billions years of evolution. It is  
not little.




>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can agree that at some level all this is a product of ignorance,
>>>> but
>>>> I am still not sure that at such a level, the whole physical  
>>>> universe
>>>> is a product of ignorance and delusion, so that to eradicate the
>>>> delusion, and evil, would not be equivalent with the eradicating of
>>>> the physical reality.
>>>>
>>>> A minimal but solid part of evil is build in in our survival
>>>> instinct,
>>>
>>> None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good.  
>>> For
>>> example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
>>> uncomfortable.
>>
>> When you have a baby you might change your mind (grin).
>
> I have 2.

OK.



>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and is part of the game, if only to make sense of the good. That i
>>>> something rather well explained by the taoist philosopher.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure we can eradicate evil, as the relation between evil  
>>>> and
>>>> good is like the extremities of an arrow, and if you cut the arrows
>>>> you just get two new one, with still an evil part and a good part.
>>>
>>> Why do you believe that good/evil is like an arrow?
>>
>> Because the opposition between bad and good has never work, but harm
>> reduction does work, from my many reading and experiences, and
>> observations.
>
> What does "the opposition between bad and good has never work" mean?

I was thinking of the myth common in many religion (but made explicit  
in the manicheism ...
(http://www.livius.org/man-md/manicheism/manicheism.html))
... according to which there is an opposition between Light and Dark  
powers.

It is the idea that there is a sort of war between good and bad.
Platonism can justified that there are some partial truth there, but  
also that the relation between good and bad, as absolute concept is  
very complex, a bit like inside or outside the Mandelbrot set, so that  
from our relative points of view (we are embedded in the reality),  
that opposition can be and usually is misleading, and that a part of  
the Good needs the Bad, if only to make sense, and that in practice we  
can only reduce the bad, never make it completely disappear. Today,  
harm reduction is practiced in the construction of cars (like with the  
security belt, for example), but is violently opposed by the  
pharmaceutical industry, and the political world, probably for special  
interests. There is a good journal on the harm reduction strategy.




>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So
>>>> I tend to not believe in an totally absolute good/evil distinction
>>>> (even if I do believe a part of it is absolute), but I do believe
>>>> strongly in harm reduction policy.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that morality is relative?
>>
>> Partially so, as moral is based on good/bad, and good/bad is relative
>> to me. If the tiger eat me, it is good for him, bad for me; if i eat
>> the fish it is good for me, bad for the fish.
>
> Fish get eaten by all sorts of animals. He doesn't care if a human
> kills him or another animals.

?
How can you know that?



> So I don't see the problem.

*ALL* animals and plants "care" in surviving.



>
>
>>
>> There is a part of good/bad which can be universal, but still have
>> that indexical feature;
>
> By indexical, do you mean contextual?

OK. (it is enough related).


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evil has important relation with ignorance, but ignorance is
>>>> unavoidable:
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "ignorance is unavoidable"? Are you saying that
>>> some problems are insoluble?
>>
>> Most of them are. Both practically and theoretically.
>
> Examples?

See above.



>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> we can only scratch the surface, and sometimes we can
>>>> only have faith--- as some truth can be known but never been  
>>>> publicly
>>>> justified, or they become lies.
>
> I'm still unable to parse that. What do you mean by "or they become  
> lies"?

Take a consistent machine. Using some logical tools, we can define "I  
am consistent" in the language of that machine, and it gives a true  
proposition. But if the machine take that true proposition as axiom,  
she becomes a new inconsistent machine.




>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The best we can hope is that people minds
>>>> their own business, and do their work.
>>>
>>> Yes. Freedom. Each one of us should have the freedom to pursue our  
>>> own
>>> happiness and we should not violate the freedom of others to pursue
>>> their own happiness.
>>
>> So you agree that If some people want be romantic and married, it is
>> OK (unless they coerce for other people doing that, 'course)?
>
> If two people value marriage (and have no criticisms of marriage), and
> value each other, and want to get married to each other (and have no
> criticisms of this idea), then they should marry.

OK, nice.

Bruno



>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Each of us is the only judge of
>>>> what is good or evil for only oneself, as we might be very  
>>>> different
>>>> from each others.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that morality is relative?
>>
>> Partially so. See above.
>
> -- Rami Rustom
> http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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





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