Re: The Nature of Man

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.

I don't know what you mean by metalevel. Could you explain your
criticism again without using that word?

And I don't know what you mean by "things under scrutiny". Any "thing"
(aka idea) can be 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.

That sounds like a physical limitation. Right?


> 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.

Sounds like a physical limitation again.


>
> 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.

All behavior is theory-laden. That means that all behavior is caused
by one's ideas. Do you agree?


> You might be correct in some
> ideal case, with immortal and rational persons. But not, today, in the
> real limited life of those persons.

Today, most people have insufficient knowledge to be able to learn
from persuasion. That is consistent with my _The Nature of Man_ essay.


> Jealousy might use some hardwired
> part of the limbic system.

No. Your limbic system doesn't know your values. It doesn't know that
someone has stuff that you don't have and you want.


>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

Feeling good about that means to value it, which means having a
zero-sum attitude.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.

Lack of knowledge. So its consistent with my essay.


>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

What inborn things does it know how to do?


>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

War means zero-sum attitude.


> 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.

What is limiting us (besides the fact that we are infallible)?


> 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?

Are you saying a fish has a preference for which animal will eat him?


>
>> So I don't see the problem.
>
> *ALL* animals and plants "care" in surviving.

Yes. They have an inborn and hardcoded value of living.


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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).

Agree that the truth of every decision depends on context.


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

Sounds like a criticism of axioms.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com