I am sorry you feel that way. I felt I understood it, but that doesn't mean I did. For what its worth, you have a good soul and I wish you the best going forward! — Philosophim

Hello @Philosophim,

It is with a greater sense of clarity, purpose, but also sadness I answer this time. I can only say likewise, and wish you the best as well.

This has been a long journey, a deep dive into sides of my own psyche that have long been underdeveloped, and it does feel good having come out the other end of this educational sparring with more insight. I thank you for that, and again appreciate the time, effort and conscientiousness you have put into not only your theories and models, but your answers as well.

I'll see what else there is to gain, and to share, with people here or elsewhere, and quite possibly we will virtually meet again.

I wish you all the best. It is a great gift to me knowing you do what you do, and I am glad to have met you, and have gained a lot from our interactions.

Take care.

Sincerely,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Hello again @Philosophim,

I did read the full theory initially, and I then went back to the first page.

From my experience so far, you seem conscientious and sincere in your pursuits, and I fully respect you for that - but that isn't enough for me. To work with someone, I need them to incorporate and work with all kinds of mediums, paradoxes and opposites, and the willingness to leave behind even their fundamental, partial, truths.

I am seriously pondering what you have written, and incorporating it, but you don't seem to do the same with what I write. I am not saying you don't read it and care about it, no, but you don't actually read it. You don't actually imagine a world where we, humans from each other, or humans from the universe, are fundamentally different, instead you believe you 'understand' me, when you actually have no idea. And so, we aren't really getting anywhere, from my point of view, and which is why I feel like things have come to an end.

Your theory is nice, and thorough, but from my perspective, it can only be a piece of any moral theory. It only tells one part of a much bigger story. I am looking for a more complete version. I am not discriminating between various types of knowledge, I am discerning for skill and complexity.
Is someone willing and able to incorporate multiple, mutually exclusive and seemingly paradoxical perspectives, is an important question, and can they do act and make decisions on multiple levels at once, whilst moving forward on questions that are hidden in many different pies, simultaneously?

I hope you find someone who can make this gem you care about shine clearer, but you will have to find someone else.

It has been a nice journey so far, and this is probably not the last you have heard of me, or that I am cutting you off or anything. I sincerely wish you well, but I respect my pursuit for what I believe in, and don't see you aiming for the same depth of complexity as me - without that meaning I disagree with you, just that I want to look at more sides of the elephant than one.

If there is something unclear so far, or there is something you want to get off your chest, let me know.

If not, thanks a lot for these sincere interactions so far, and I wish you well moving forward. It was a pleasure.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Greetings again @Philosophim,



I am grateful that you are able to work with what I wrote, as it wasn’t really easy trusting my moral intuition to speak its truthfulness. I’ll do my best to write how I see things, but be aware that from my perspective we aren’t necessarily disagreeing about ‘what is moral’, we are disagreeing on how we see reality and about humanity.





I would consider myself a fairly moral person. I donate to charity. I moved to a different city to help my sister when she was diagnosed as bipolar. I believe in the goodness of the human race. I believe intelligence, thought, and progress can be made to benefit us all, and not a means of exploitation of the few on the many. So i do not believe that logic and morality are incompatible. I believe that if humanity could understand what morality truly is, that it could be a push forward that would make the previous years look like the dark ages. — Philosophim


Yes, but look at what you write, and put it up against the known reality. Based on what is known to you, does everyone you know, and have ever met, have the same moral standards for themselves that you have? I’m not talking about if they try to, or you can’t judge them because you don’t know their life etc. Just look, stare deeply into people’s eyes and souls, and judge their actions and what you know. Yes or No.



«I believe in the goodness of the human race.»

Is the human race morally good, in this present moment? Or were there ever a time when the human race was morally good? Simply apply your moral standard to everyone, as is.



«I believe intelligence, thought, and progress can be made to benefit us all, and not a means of exploitation of the few on the many.»

Does everyone you know have the same purpose? No one exploits others for their own gains entirely, and dismiss any hints at intelligence, thought and progress for the purpose of benefitting anyone but themselves? No one sticks to a self-serving agenda till they die, and no one has?

«So I do not believe that logic and morality are incompatible. I believe that if humanity could understand what morality truly is, that it could be a push forward that would make the previous years look like the dark ages."



The kind of logic you are talking about isn’t inherently wrong or immoral, but forgetting the absolute when it comes to moral reasoning, is what I see as a rational error, and a grave one.
Our lives are finite, our moral is immediate. Either you help your sister, or you don’t. Our finite lives means our actions are absolute in [human] moral terms.

Your choices are absolute, and who you support, who you help, what you believe in and act in favor of, is absolute. 

Our actions aren’t relative; they are absolute, and you can’t undo anything. And so, instead of using relative terms, use absolute terms for your beliefs, and they come closer to being useful knowledge:



- You don’t believe in the goodness of the human race, you act consistently and unilaterally in favor of what you view as the goodness of the human race, and you are irrevocably antagonistic towards what you view as the immorality of the human race.



- You act consistently and unilaterally towards intelligence, thought and progress benefitting everyone, whilst being irrevocably antagonistic towards the same being used for exploitation of the few on the many.



And lastly, you are consistently and unilaterally in your support of a humanity that pursues ever-increasing understanding and application of [a good] morality, and you are irrevocably antagonistic towards a humanity that is fine with the morals of the dark ages.



Well, reading that, how do you feel?

Are you unaware of the opposite side, or are you simply so black and white in your thinking that you don’t acknowledge the opposite of your beliefs as a possibility? People that would want nothing more than to finally have a world without police or jails to think about. Are you just ignorant of this?



Now, of course, an argument might be that, yes, humanity can be both good and bad, and it is just mental health disease or lack of education that makes it so. Well, again, just look at reality. Are we different, or are we the same?


By measuring morals relatively, you are ignoring the absolute nature of our lives, our actions and our morals.

If everyone is on the same page, working towards the same goals, just from different angles, your moral arguments are fine, as they are applicable with reality, but that isn’t present reality, and has never been.

Don’t you understand the consequences of actually finding a moral theory that is true? Use it for selfish gains, and we are completely screwed.
You can’t be like; oh, this powder, if mixed with water will cure all known diseases, but be careful, mix it with milk and people will be your complete, mindless slaves forever. That isn’t progress, that is a perversion of morals. Unless you can make 100% sure that it isn’t used for ‘evil’, it is an abomination of the absolute worst sort.



So to talk about physics like it is neutral, is simply forgetting history. If science is so great, it wouldn’t be used for so much trash. The atom bomb is much worse than an arrow, in scope, effect and evil, and science has enabled that.

And so, if your measure of good moral is science, I assume this might be as far as we go Philosophim.

Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes, but this is exactly the problem. If God were to exist, you'd have to agree that God Willed our existence, and that since God is Absolute, whatever it wants, is by definition, the absolute 'Good' — Caerulea-Lawrence

As of now, I'm not claiming that. All I've claimed at this point is that there is a fundamental logical truth to any objective morality. When presented with the idea of existence vs total non-existence, "existence being good" is necessary if an objective morality exists. In no way am I measuring good relatively among existence itself. I start building that in the next post. — Philosophim

The issue I have with this, @Philosophim, is that I find the whole concept revolting. The idea that existence is good and objectively moral - is abhorrent. To claim, even subtly or hypothetically, that existence is 'good', and make any claims whatsoever about truths that so incredibly awfully are contradicted by our lived experiences, is... horrible.

I'm not saying, "I have found and proven an objective morality". What I am noting is if (means its not necessarily true) that an objective morality exists, logically, the answer to "some existence vs non-existence" must result that "existence should be". So at a very basic level, existence is good, complete non-existence is not. There is nothing else more being stated than this at this time. — Philosophim

If you make 'moral statements' like this, apply your moral sense to them.
This isn't a logical claim. When you are making ANY kind of claim that has ANY kind of moral implications, it is a personal expression of your moral truths. It can be nothing else. That is what Moral means, what should be. And since you are writing this, it means what should be,To you. And if what 'Should be' to you is an objective morality, which legitimized all the horrors of our existence, and dissolves all the complexities of our existence into being 'objectively good', then I am rejecting it with my whole moral self.

When you make moral statements, or build a moral theory, you have to take moral responsibility, and you don't seem to understand the implications of how objective morality FEELS.

And I wouldn't care if you discarded my objections. I am horrified by the moral picture you paint of the world. Maybe I am more sensitive to moral arguments, but maybe you should be much more sensitive yourself if you are to step into the world of morals?

Every thought, every action, every idea, every concept in the vicinity of morals, Is your morals. There is simply 0 way we can 'discuss' a moral theory, when I find your primary tenants abhorrent. And I don't think I am off about this, I believe you are. By a mile. Seriously.

Take your moral theory and see if it alleviates any suffering, any grief or helps make sense of our helplessness and lack of understanding of the world. If we are going to talk about a foundation, add in that the worldly rules are fundamentally amoral, there is plenty of immorality, and morality isn't doing great. If you want to make any, ANY claim that makes abuse, violence, depravity, entropy, sadism, overwhelm, disease, weakness, trauma, war etc. GOOD, which is what you ARE doing by calling this a moral theory, and with a title saying:
"In any objective morality existence is inherently good", there is simply no way forward. There is no fucking way I am coming close to agreeing with that or discussing it further. Any moral is based on True, personal values - What should be, in actuality, not theoretically, what you actually, fundamentally and tirelessly work towards with every fiber of your moral being.

Logic isn't morality, morality is the faculty of you that make moral Choices. It isn't theory, it is your values.
Any moral statements have moral implications, and potentially intense emotional, physical and relational consequences - whereas logic does not. If we are to 'discuss' morals, we need to share our deeply help values, and be transparent about our actual actions, and see if there are kinks in our moral senses somewhere.

It has nothing to do with jumping ahead or reading anything into this; moral statements and logical arguments are simply incompatible, like the sun and an ice-cream.

I sincerely hope you take this reply seriously, because I'm very close to ending our long-standing inquiry over this. Which is really sad to say, to be honest, but your replies and these posts about morals have so far been quite appalling to me.

Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Hello again @Philosophim,

I can't prove that "Existence is good" based on pointing to a God or some law of nature that we've discovered. I only note that if an objective morality exists, any objective morality must logically include 'existence vs nothing' as 'good'. — Philosophim

Yes, but this is exactly the problem. If God were to exist, you'd have to agree that God Willed our existence, and that since God is Absolute, whatever it wants, is by definition, the absolute 'Good'.

You wrote about belief being necessary for knowledge, but also about the usefulness of gaining applicable knowledge:

An indirect contradiction is an inability to experience one’s belief in reality. For example, if I believe in an invisible and unsensible unicorn, there is nothing in reality with which I may apply this belief. — Philosophim

If you start to believe in an unprovable and unsensible Objective morality, you start off with an indirect contradiction of your own belief by reality. What is then the applicable use of the rest of the 'Knowledge' you create, when it is indirectly contradicted to begin with?

The moral foundation I've established does not require people. It would be a logical conclusion whether we exist or not. Just like the laws of physics would still exist without us. — Philosophim

Yes, but 'logical conclusions' aren't fundamental to reality. Neither does 'proving the laws of physics' mean the results are the 'truth' of reality, it is just our 'human' understanding of the matter. Without the human element, any practical and useful understanding of 'what is good' breaks down completely, as you simultaneously argue that we don't need humans to evaluate morals, and that we as humans can understand fundamental morals. This is contradictory.
We are human, and as long as we are, we can only make 'human' claims about reality, not 'objective claims'.

True, without a moral foundation, we cannot judge. But with a moral foundation, we can. And if that moral foundation is sound, we can shape the universe around us to be better than it is as a non-conscious force. Just like we take rocks and turn them into statues, we can take the universe as it is and mold it into something greater than its mere existence. — Philosophim

We don't know if we can mold the universe or not, and believing we can, just because we believe in Objective Morality, seems no different from any other fundamental beliefs that start off indirectly contradicted by reality.
This seems to be an obvious categorical error of reasoning on your part. It is fine if you are post-hoc arguing, but that is a known fallacy, and it doesn't make any sense to me to build a theory that prefaces by making a known error of reasoning.

If you can remedy this, and apply your own theory of Knowledge to your beliefs about morals, maybe we can continue this conversation, but I am very put off by the dismissal of my objections, as there is nothing for me to add, and I don't want to build on such a shaky foundation.

If this is your faith, that there is an objective morality, and so existence must be good, I can respect that - but then it is Faith, and should be presented as such.

Faith doesn't have to be 'Logical' to make sense, after all.

Regards,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Greetings again @Philosophim,



Is there an objective morality? If there is, it hasn't been found yet. But maybe we don't need to have found it to determine fundamental claims it would necessarily make.

The point I will make below: If there is an objective morality, the most logical fundamental aspect of that morality is that existence is good.

Definitions:
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — Philosophim

I will continue our conversation here, till we are ready to circle back. I have been so busy with looking at morals now, that I totally forgot what you wrote in your last message, and zoomed in on this.

My ideas work more in the realm of hypothetical and possibilities, whereas your foundation is spot on when it comes to what is currently known. I do believe I have something to add here, and hopefully you can work with it.



I’ll start with the connection between objective morality, and existence being good. Wouldn’t your argument work even if you changed ‘objective morality’ with ‘objective amorality/immorality/‘? Adding to this, there might be inherent conflict between the various objective moralities pertaining to the necessity for existence.



Secondly, the connection between objective morality and existence. This simplifies what I see as a rather complicated line of connected assumptions. The reason why I assume many prefer the human-centric moral reasoning, is probably that it is hard to disprove that people with consciousness and moral ability exist, but harder to causally link existence and morality.


Here are some issues that I see:

- The possibility that this universe, and life, operate on different morals altogether. Even when we are conditioned to the rules of the Universe, that does not necessitate that we agree. Similarly, growing up we are conditioned to our parental figures, but when we have the ability, skill, courage and wisdom to question them, we might strongly disagree with them. 
And yes, our lives and conflicts are very local in time and space, but is it safe to assume, based on life so far, that the Universe will ever change?



Secondly, ‘objective’ and ‘Fundamental’. These words can mean very different things in this context. Are you talking in ‘absolute’ terms, or in relative? If we look at the present universe, and us, we can talk about ‘Objective’ in the context of the rules in our world, and what seems to be moral in this world.

In absolute terms, we are talking about some absolute force capable of sustaining itself regardless of any laws, and would seem to be more like a God. 
The question you are asking; «Should there be existence at all?» doesn’t seem to be the one you are answering. The question seems to be «Does ‘conscious and moral’ existences contribute to the «moral» impetus of the Universe?

 However, arguing that since ‘conscious and moral’ entities contribute, it must be moral, is definitely a possibility, but not the most prudent one. Or am I misreading this?



Well, with all these things said, let me try to remedy and build on what you have already written. Firstly, I don’t find it objectionable to say that ‘within’ the confines of this Universe that there are certain possibilities that are infinitely more ‘moral’ to life than others. However, I find it very hard to argue that the Universe is moral. My hard stance on this is that the rules of the Universe are Amoral. And as such, a much more moral action than trying to be moral as an individual, would be to change the laws of the Universe perpetuating immorality by default. 

We are cogs in a bigger machine, and are made of stardust, and so going against the rules of the Universe is folly. Which aren’t to say that it is wrong to do, or that we agree just because all our actions, if we are to live, go according to the rules of some grand fate.

For the reasons above, I prefer a more open approach when it comes to the Universe and beings capable of moral action. We might not be the same, similarly to how you aren’t your video-game character, even when you play it. This is an important point to me, because I do see a lot of «I love the earth» written many places, directly or indirectly. But all the 'accidents' that happen, that we are not protected from, why don’t people blame the Universe? To me, this seems more like a serious bout of Stockholm Syndrome, where you make all sorts of excuses out of extreme fear, confusion and hopelessness.
And is our moral relationship with the Universe any different from the one children have with abusive parents? 

If anything, Existence the way it is structured, is inherently immoral to us. Our moral rules are constantly violated simply by the foundational rules that operate on us. None of the things a human being, in as much capacity as they are able to, views as sacred, by virtue of that action, is protected from sacrilege, devastation and/or entropy. Which is morally depraved, is it not?


The only difference is the lack of communication with the universe. If anything, panpsychism aside, the Universe is passive, and never 'intentional' in its actions. And so it is our imagination that gives rise to a personification of nature, the sun, the stars and the rules of the Universe.


Hope this is useful feedback on this, and it is a contribution to the efforts you have put into this.



Hear from you when you’re ready, and as always, appreciate the interactions.



Kindly,

Caerulea-Lawrence

Hello again @Philosophim, and good to have you back. Needed some time to gather my thoughts for my answer.


Well stated. While the theory above does give us a stable foundation to build off of, once we start looking beyond that base the amount that ca be built is stories high. The interesting thing, is we can build several types of buildings. Some may fit certain situations better than others. And in society that's what we find. Different cultures and subcultures with their own emphasis on truth vs relative, subjective vs objective. — Philosophim


As you might have surmised so far, my approach to Knowledge is from the humanities, social work, psychology, more than philosophy. I 'acknowledge' social/individual hierarchies as similarly real to mountains and trees, as despite their relative nature, humans are themselves a big context for other humans and part of the world at large.


My disagreement isn't with individuals/groups building using your foundation, but that the foundation doesn't seem as 'universally stable' as you make it sound, and it is also directly unwanted by many types of Knowledge structures.
 This is to me a bit paradoxical.

They key for me is that it is fine that we have these multiple scaffolds. The part we should be doing is to define what it means to build something, and why we should build it based on the situation. Just like you want a bendable building in an earthquake, you might want a knowledge structure that is flexible when exploring new ideas and themes. — Philosophim



And I like to add this quote, which you might remember:

Knowledge does not capture the truth, but is a tool to arrive at the most reasonable assessment of reality for survival and desired goals. — Philosophim





Is 'survival and desired goals' a neutral, all encompassing, by-all-agreed-upon purpose? From my perspective, and I hope this comes across in the right way, your values, your truths, are some I view as far from universally held. What we have in nature, and amongst humans, isn't only applicable knowledge and desired goals; it is the recurring question and decisions around whose survival, and for how long. 

If anything, humans and animals alike follow a rather peculiar impulse to diversify for the sake of 'something', but not for the inherent sake of Knowledge or complementary desired goals. At least this is how it looks to me.

There is no 'one right way', because we are not computers that have infinite time and energy to truly establish, "X is applicably known." What is right is knowing the guidelines themselves. Knowing what a floor, walls, and ceiling are. This will let us create or improve upon contexts of different peoples based on people's needs and desires with some type of foundational rules. — Philosophim

I'm not saying there is a right way, necessarily. My thoughts on the matter are that many of our human 'ways' are incompatible with each other. 
An example would be how people generate applicable knowledge, not for survival and "desired goals", but for destruction and obliteration.


Knowledge is therefore power, a good and a tool, and never neutral.

And, You might want a bendable building in an Earthquake, but what if the builder was cutting corners to save costs, and so your house falls down?

Correct. Your understanding of this and of people is impressive! Just like any person can fish, any person can think. But the person who understands the rules of fishing is going to do better overall in the long term than an amateur who fishes for fun. Of course, the amateur may not care to do more than fishing for fun, and there is nothing we can, or should do, to change this. It is up to the professionals to push the boundaries of and refine the established rules of the game. Some of that leaks down and is emulated by people who only dabble into it. So I think those who want to take knowledge seriously should have a solid foundation to work with. How they use it is up to them and the needs of the people involved. — Philosophim

Not only do I think a lot of amateur fishers would disagree, a professional's opinion that fishing too much now will ruin fishing long-term, doesn't mean that 'Knowledge' gives you the power, right and justification to enforce your knowledge, does it?
Because isn't it circular reasoning, if you argue that Knowledge is for the sake of survival and desired goals, and therefore it is justified having a hierarchy based on who has the best knowledge? 

In other words, I question where the justification built into your model is based on.

Of course, you shortened the model, and maybe some of these axiomatic arguments were left out, and so now their absence means these questions prop up. Whatever it is, if you have an answer, I'd like to hear it.

Thanks for the compliments, appreciate the interactions.

Hi again @Philosophim,





You're welcome! And I got the alert that you replied this time. :D — Philosophim





We both did great this time :)





Despite the apparent success of our intelligence, and the importance of efficiency, I believe focusing on that might conflate cause and effect. We don’t have intelligence because it is ‘necessary’, we have intelligence as it coincides with the survival and procreation in the specific niche we humans fill. 
I’m not saying that as an expert at evolutionary biology, it is just that if you look at your argument, viruses, bacteria, amoeba and parasites achieve the same goals; survival and procreation, as us humans, despite having far, far lower intelligence. In a way, for what they achieve, they are miles ahead of us in efficiency, but they do not beat us at complexity in organization.
— Caerulea-Lawrence


Very true. It has been argued that our intelligence evolved out of our social nature. The understanding of complex and dynamic situations has spilled into other areas of our brains allowing us to analyze complex relationships outside of social situations. — Philosophim


Another way to look at paradigms is to look at timescale. How much of time can you ‘imagine’ and see patterns and solutions for. As the timescale increases, so does complexity, and the complexity of social situations increases a lot as well.

The thing is, some people Do fight for the truth, despite the cost to their own lives. Humans as a species is very diverse, and I do not believe cost vs benefit alone fits the diversity we see in paradigms. 
What I believe fits better is that we are born with a predisposition to different paradigms, and are drawn to them like moths to the flame.
— Caerulea-Lawrence


I don't disagree with your assessment. I think its an equally valid viewpoint. I could sit here and say, "Yes, but fulfilling that predisposition is for their personal benefit," but that's unnecessary. There is a compulsion among individuals and groups that certain viewpoints of the world this fit our outlook better. And I do believe some outlooks are better by fact, only because they lead to less contradictions and overall benefits for the society. A society that relies on logic, science, and fairness is going to be better off than a society that relies more on wishful thinking, superstition, and abuse of others. — Philosophim

Yes, you could argue that, and depending on your own paradigm might find it useful and good to do so. If you look at your last sentence, that are the kinds of value statement that usually differentiates paradigms. 
From my perspective, both societies work equally well. The first finds usefulness in dissolving some of their inner wishful thinking, replace superstition with science and ‘abuse of others’ with fairness. The second relies on logic only if it helps their wishful thinking, adds superstition naturally to science and finds ‘abuse of others’ a useful ‘othering’ skill to have in a worldview that is more black or white.

 If we look at timescale, both societies survive and adapt, and to add in good/bad is a value-statement, not an absolute one. Of course, you might say that the later, more modern paradigm is "better", but that is an oversimplification. As many Green activists will tell you, our modern way of thinking/being is ushering in the next extinction event. Is it good to gamble the whole survival of countless species, even our own, and to name it ‘progress and development’ and an absolute good?

 But business as usual doesn’t care about ‘afterwards’, as there is 'rational' faith in logic and rationality; and the sum of that - the market.

So why do we have different paradigms when you can be perfectly happy in a small hunter-gatherer ‘family’, or in a bigger tribe? And if the explanation is «We developed new paradigms to make sense of problems that no longer made sense with the explanations available», doesn’t the argument itself clash with reality.
— Caerulea-Lawrence


I believe that is one reason people change paradigms, but there can be others. I find religion to be an interesting paradigm that can persist in the modern day world. While religions often have logical holes or contradictions purely from a rational viewpoint, as I've mentioned earlier, they provide a sense of community, purpose, and guide that are often invaluable and not easily replaced by abandoning the precepts. Even though the modern day world can explain multiple things in ways that do no require divinity, a divine interpretation of the world can largely co-exist beside it in a truce of sorts if societal rules are established properly. Separation of church and state for example.

I believe the greatest motivator is, to your point, a paradigm that fits within what an individual or group is most inclined towards. As long as reality does not outright contradict the goals of the group, it is acceptable and often times protected from outside criticism. — Philosophim

From a 'paradigmic' perspective, the goal of changing your paradigm is not to discard the past, but to integrate it in a way that lets both coexist in a more harmonious way. Usually this is not what happens, as integration of contrasts is hard and tumultuous. 

I see a lot of dangers in lack of integration of the past lessons, and I agree that religion's transition to science and modernity, has been a pretty brutal one. Still, from what I can gather, the modern paradigm is the one dominating, but that doesn’t mean most people are truly in it.

Seems like we are diverging from the original point you have made about Knowledge and Induction.
— Caerulea-Lawrence


No, I believe we are building upon it into the next steps. I wrote a follow up on the third post that includes societal context if you have not read it yet. The original post did not include societal context, as the initial post about the knowledge process of a singular individual is enough to wrap one's head around initially. If you haven't read that section yet, feel free as it might help with the current subject matter we're discussing at this moment. Fantastic points and thought Caerulea! — Philosophim



Thank you, I appreciate it.

Yes, I was not aware you had written a third post on this OP, which is in great part what made me take a while to finish my reply; as I wanted to at least mildly digest it. Still, even with the time added, my understanding is standing on very shaky legs. One reason being I am ‘overwhelmed’ by the various permutations and contexts each of us have. When I elaborate on paradigms above, I guess that would fit with a certain propensity for understanding something from a certain vantage-point. A context informing and even changing language, sometimes from within, which reflexively changes how much distinctive agreement there is between people.


I’m not dismissing the application on the social context, I am trying to point out that paradigms are, possibly, more fixed deductive filters that either sort and organize communication and knowledge, or distorts and disorganizes. 
An example would be to look at language itself. For some people, words can be ‘true’, whilst to others, words are always ‘relative’, in that you add in context, meaning etc. These two ‘groups’ will butt heads on many subjects, and will often feel they aren't 'speaking the same language'. A third would be the variant that not only sees the relative in written texts, but that also sees itself, the discrete experiencer, as part of various contexts, and therefore naturally adds in a self-understanding of itself in its understanding of others, a meta-self. 

To tie that together with the prior part about induction, each paradigm have certain parts of reality that, despite the continuous lack of applicable knowledge, continues to use the least probable way to gain more knowledge about that field, or when forced, reduces the findings to mesh with already known knowledge. Consistently.

While optimally, we should use distinctive contexts that lead to clear deductive beliefs, deduction takes time and energy, and is not always practical. When a well-designed context runs into limits, there is no recourse but induction. Fortunately, we have the hierarchy of induction once again. As long as we agree on the definitions involved, we can practice contextual applicable knowledge. — Philosophim


Whereas you here (third post) argue that the premise for using induction is ‘hitting a roadblock’, my argument is that the use of induction is reasonably fixed according to the given context/paradigm (further differentiated by culture, personality upbringing, genes etc.) and as such in any given paradigm there will be no further self-directed inquires into the lack of clear deductive beliefs. Within any given distinctive context there will be those that question it, but those are also the ones possibly changing paradigm, and seeing many things in a new light and gaining traction on the fields where there were a lack.

However, the 'dominant' paradigm will have an influence on most things, and so 'science/technology, and some type of market-capitalism' is something most paradigms will have to deal with somehow. This isn't what I would consider 'being' on a paradigm, it is a more forced shift in behavior of outward appearance to avoid, or elicit, certain benefits/risks, not from an adherence and self-governed understanding of the underlying principles governing the structures, as well as general agreement with the underlying focus.

This is more devil's advocate, but I hope you are able to make use of it and that it sparks a continued interest in exploring knowledge and induction.

Again, thanks for your replies and sincerity so far. This conversation does not fit the stereotypical experience of being on the internet, and I mean that in a very good way.

Hello @Philosophim



I appreciate the extensive elaboration on the various philosophical problems I mentioned. I won’t delve into them too much, just want to give a thanks for the thought and effort, and say that it was a useful read.



And you also seem to 'misunderstand' me to such a degree, that I wonder if you are able to see me as someone who actually does something very similar to you, in a very rigorous manner, but through a process I might call Indiscrete experience/Inferring. — Caerulea-Lawrence

We are two people with different outlooks in the world. Hopefully through discussion we'll reach a common understanding. Please don't take my disagreement or my viewpoint as looking down or disrespecting yours. You are obviously an intelligent person trying to communicate a world view you see very clearly. Most people think it is simple to convey this experience to others until you have to write it down in a cohesive way. Its much more difficult then we expect! — Philosophim


No worries, words and feelings won’t hinder me in diving deep. It is true that I am much more skilled at other ways of understanding and knowledge than methodical conveyance of my experience, but I find these interactions with you useful.






The human brain is amazing not just for its intelligence, but its efficiency. A computer can do more processing for example, but its energy cost shoots through the roof. The fact we can think at the level we do without overheating ourselves or using more energy than we do, cannot be beat. Its easy to forget, but we thinking things that had to evolve in a world where danger and scarcity once existed at much greater levels.

This means we are not innately beings who are situated to think deeply about new experiences, or reorganize thought patterns. Doing so is inefficient. Thinking heavily about something takes concentration, energy, and time. Reprocessing your entire structure of thinking is even more difficult. So when we think about human intelligence, we shouldn't that its a font of reason, but a font of efficient processing.

So then, what does an efficient thinker focus on? Getting a result with as little thought as possible. Too little thought, and you fail to understand the situation and make a potentially lethal or tragic mistake. Too much thought, and you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on a situation and are isolated from social groups, starve, or miss the window to act.

As such, humans are not wired for excellence, or the ideal. We are wires for, "Just enough". As a quick aside, doing more than "Just enough" is an expression of status. To do more than "Just enough" you must have excessive resources, be remarkably more efficient than others, or in a place of immense privilege. To spend time on inefficient matters and demonstrate mastery over them is an expression of one's status in society. — Philosophim




These are some very good points, so I’ll just go directly into bouncing off them.

 Despite the apparent success of our intelligence, and the importance of efficiency, I believe focusing on that might conflate cause and effect. We don’t have intelligence because it is ‘necessary’, we have intelligence as it coincides with the survival and procreation in the specific niche we humans fill. 
I’m not saying that as an expert at evolutionary biology, it is just that if you look at your argument, viruses, bacteria, amoeba and parasites achieve the same goals; survival and procreation, as us humans, despite having far, far lower intelligence. In a way, for what they achieve, they are miles ahead of us in efficiency, but they do not beat us at complexity in organization.

So then back to your point. One person has a paradigm, or set of distinctive and applicable knowledge that works for their life. They come across another person or group of people that a set of distinctive and applicable knowledge that works for their context. Why should one bother with the other paradigm?

My hypothesis is its about cost vs benefit. Maybe paradigm A is more accurate, but less efficient.[...] — Philosophim

If they decided to take the atheistic standpoint, sure, it might be more accurate. But at what cost? A loss of community and purpose? A loss of motivation to care about others? People do not fight for the truth. They fight for the good that a certain viewpoint provides for their lives. If reality lets them have this viewpoint and benefits with few contradictions, why change?

Perhaps this is part of the 'intuition' you speak about. It is a mistake to think that our thought processes are for logic and truth. They are for efficient benefits to ourselves and society. And sometimes we can't voice that, but its there, under the surface — Philosophim



I’ll try to weave this together as best I can. To bring back the word you talked about in your elaborations from earlier, ‘culture’( as a contrast to ‘natural’ and ‘reality’). But, to modern humans, our ‘reality’ is now influenced heavily by other humans. And so, reducing ‘culture’ to being only something abstract, I believe, will might make it harder to understand why there are paradigms, and what role they play.

 The thing is, some people Do fight for the truth, despite the cost to their own lives. Humans as a species is very diverse, and I do not believe cost vs benefit alone fits the diversity we see in paradigms. 
What I believe fits better is that we are born with a predisposition to different paradigms, and are drawn to them like moths to the flame.

I find your description of ‘efficiency’ very relevant too. Efficiency is the metric by which you measure success by, but What success Is, in other words, what you measure, is defined by your paradigm. 
So why do we have different paradigms when you can be perfectly happy in a small hunter-gatherer ‘family’, or in a bigger tribe? And if the explanation is «We developed new paradigms to make sense of problems that no longer made sense with the explanations available», doesn’t the argument itself clash with reality. «We» have also worked tirelessly to avoid changing paradigms, to fight against it, to go so far as to murder, imprison or silence those that think differently. Moreover «we» still live and die as hunter-gatherers. 
One view of paradigms is a kind of trait that differentiates humans in what specific problems they see, try to fix, with which tools, how, why and with whom. 



—



Knowledge-generation and creation itself doesn’t seem random, and paradigms are the overaching theme that fill in part of the void of why people consistently choose different types of inductions when it comes to some part of reality/culture, but do not apply that elsewhere. And abundance of resources does explain how people are able to focus so much energy on that, but abundance in itself doesn’t lead to paradigm-creation, or to people choosing a new paradigm. There are other forces at play.

—



Seems like we are diverging from the original point you have made about Knowledge and Induction. This is something I see as the backdrop to your method, and why it works much more specifically than I would prefer it to. And I'm not that much closer to inference, either. Maybe it is because it is a 'relational' method, and fuels on interaction with others, and not on introspection or reflection alone. Hm, that is an important point. Will add it to my repository.
How does this land with you/comes up in you?

Hello @Wayfarer,

They're all "just letters", right? What distinguishes that paragraph from the rest of the text on this page is that, absent the organisation imposed by language-using agents, it conveys no meaning.

isn't it more reasonable to say it is Atoms and matter having a living experience — Caerulea-Lawrence


But there's nothing in the theory of 'atoms and matter' which account for the nature of experience. That is the subject of the well-known David Chalmer's paper Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness, a perennial topic on this forum, and which spawned an entire academic industry of 'consciousness studies'. — Wayfarer

Thanks for reading and commenting. I do not disagree with your point, for as I wrote in my middle paragraph of the same comment:

Isn't it therefore reasonable to say that what our minds do is exploring, understanding and parsing the inherent 'purpose' and 'meaning' in our bodies and from the world around us? Like small, hard to read text-files that we make a bigger and more complex story about? — Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes, we are language-using agents, but what are we reading? Yes, we can read letters, but we can also read landscapes, speed, color as well as faces (Many of us, and to varying degrees and to certain points). Moreover, we can also 'read' our own bodies.

The problem I see with saying that things convey "no meaning" is that you are adding 'organization' post-hoc. If you have a book, but you can't read, the letters there also don't convey any meaning to you, despite the book being both intentionally and purposefully written and bound. So, if you learned how to read, you would say "oh, this is meaningful". But the meaning was already inherent in the book, you only learned how to read.

Which I don't see clash with your argument at all. I'm not arguing that atoms and matter account for the nature of experience, but that treating atoms and matter as inconsequential to our understanding of purpose and meaning, seems arbitrary at best.

The questions here are, then, what is purpose (in itself), where does it come from, what is its ground? Or, what exactly gives it all meaning, makes it all worthwhile? — tim wood

When I skim-read some of the answers here, I wonder why there is such a strict divide between biological (alive) and inanimate. If we look at our bodies, the well-known expression "We are all stardust" isn't an euphemism, it is reality. Our bodies and our minds are made of the matter in the universe, and the only change is the complexity of the structures that 'life' "creates".

Isn't it therefore reasonable to say that what our minds do are exploring, understanding and parsing the inherent 'purpose' and 'meaning' in our bodies and from the world around us? Like small, hard to read text-files that we make a bigger and more complex story about?

I am curious what counter-arguments there are to this, and why people here create this divide between life and non-life, when so much of what we are is non-life - and so our thoughts, feelings, purpose, drive - isn't it more reasonable to say it is Atoms and matter having a living experience, and we are simply translators and archeologists?

Hi and thanks for reaching out again,

seems I forgot to add @Philosophim to my last message, sorry about that too. *it is what it is, I guess.*

It is fine that it has taken some time, as it isn't really something that is easy to grasp in any way. When I reread my post, and I think about the system you have created, I still notice the hesitation in me, like a hindrance to clarity, simplicity and understanding - so how do I describe it?

In a way, instead of going from 'everything' to 'something', inference is creating a self-evolving association network. And the problem that stumps me even now, but that I am more able to express, is how to put to words a system which, the second you describe it as something, will add that association to its network, which in turn will change, morph and self-reference the system you are trying to describe?

So in a way I want to supersede intuition, but I'm not able to. I am not able to fully understand intuition and inference, as it evolves side-by-side with my own understanding. Which is also one part of what is so fascinating about what you wrote, that it is in some way fixed, but also stable. Whereas in my view there are only various 'tiers' of associations - varying in complexity, intensity and connections - but I find this explanation, even though it does fit to a certain extent - and could work as a starting point - to still be wholly unsatisfactory.

I'll do take kindly to your input on this, if you have any - and I don't mind things taking a lot of time. I am just assuming getting anywhere on this will take a while, and I am not in a hurry.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Hello Philosophim,

Good. So, to clarify something first - I'm not looking for anything un-philosophical. I might use words, expression, jargon and terminology from elsewhere, and talk about that - But in your reply you said 'this isn't philosphy'.
To that I hope you can remind yourself in our interactions that 'nothing' of what I'm looking for 'is/should' be outside the realm of Philosophy. It is about piecing together something that I believe is, or should be there, either as bits and pieces; or we will simply have to indiscretely experience some knowledge about it.

So if something I write or say isn't quite meaningful, remember that I am not trying to bridge a gap between philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, social sciences etc. Yes, this complementary way of looking at things should be able to help with understanding things, but it is more of a general pursuit, than a 'theory of everything'. And it must compliment your model, and not diverge from it.

Since I'm not well-versed in philosophy, I went to the library and looked up some of the famous problems or questions in Philosophy, to see if I could come closer to understanding my own intuitions about this.

There is of course so much more I could delve into, but to me it's a start, and I wanted, again, to reply to you before weighing everything too much. I'm better at solving singular problems - I have a hunch, and will find it if I have enough materials before me.

From reading the very short introduction to many famous problems, there were several that seemed relevant.
Sorites Paradox,, Hume's problem of induction, Karl Poppers critique of Freud/psychoanalysis, Thomas Kuhn's paradigms, Ship of Theseus, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Hegel's Dialectics and a quote from the Bible for good measure. (Luke 11;47-52)

Of course, I have only skimmed this, but they all seem to point at the same things - I just struggle to spell it out - even when to me it is 'obvious'. As I might have mentioned before, intuition 'feels' like that, and so when I am right about certain things over time - I increase my trust in my intuition, even when I haven't been able to explain how it works directly.

I'll do my best here, but it is of course not exhaustive enough to fit perfectly, but here goes.

First and foremost, all the pieces above are mutually connected. There are of course many, many more, too.

Sorites Paradox. To me it speaks to the point that things can 'read' in two different directions. The first one, that a heap can become smaller/bigger, the second that a single grain of sand can point towards the existence of a heap.

Hume's problem is relevant in that I like the word infer. I believe this is very relevant somehow for what we are looking at with intuition/indiscrete experience. I just don't think focusing on 'why/how' we can infer something is that relevant.

Karl Poppers Falsification. Especially how he distanced himself from Psychoanalysis. To me, this is a very, very important thing. Karl Popper didn't find a way to better explain human actions - he did something that I find curiously reductionist - namely to dismiss the thought process of Adler, and brand it as unscientific.
Which I find quite sad, in a way. I hope we might have more luck bridging the gap than they did.

Thomas Kuhn's paradigms. There is a bit of a paradox in this. To me it seems like Thomas Kuhn is talking about 'paradigms' as only applying in Science. Similar to Popper, I find this curious. The theory of spiral dynamics, I would argue, at least doesn't look at knowledge through such a reductionist lens as such. But it is still relevant here. The point is that 'Knowledge' is not one, linear thing. It isn't like measuring a tree with a ruler, and when you got every spec, you know 'everything' about the tree. You will never understand photosynthesis from measuring the leaves - but you might 'infer' that there is something going beyond your current paradigm of Measurement.

Ship of Theseus. I'm not sure why I added this. I believe it is relevant, but not why quite yet.

Plato's allegory of the cave. Now, this allegory is simple, in that it only talks about one 'type' of cave, a binary choice of being 'blind' or 'seeing' freely. When I first heard about Plato's cave, it was presented in the context of 'Knowing what is true'. That all knowledge we humans have, might simply be shadows on the wall. In other words, not the 'truth'.
A similar example down this lane is the brain in the vat.. It is presented as an 'either/or' of truth.

But, as might be seen in Hegel's Dialectics, progress it is more of a process towards sophistication, than finding the 'one' door to 'omniscience'. It is a step-by-step process that gradually includes and solves paradoxes and inconsistencies, to reach a higher level of complexity.

Luke 11:47-52. Jesus compares the current situation he is in, with that of the Prophets. The Pharisees are the ones doing 'real science', but he points out the paradigmatic irony that even whilst they are honoring the old Prophets by building them graves - they are themselves acting in the exact same ways that killed the Prophets in the first place.

Now, I guess I need to clarify some things. Firstly, paradigms are interesting, but the model I'm looking at should match yours, and not try to 'understand' progress in general. At the same time, the ability to infer seems to link with making the kinds of discoveries and asking the kinds of questions that might lead to this kind of progress.
Thirdly, there are abilities that seem to match more with applying the current worldview to further its use.
One side cares about increase in complexity - to elevate the possible venues of things/ways to explore and see the world. The other cares about increasing the amount of knowledge that is gained through applying the methodology rigorously.

This has implications for the model. I found what you wrote very fascinating, but also incredibly hard to read. And you also seem to 'misunderstand' me to such a degree, that I wonder if you are able to see me as someone who actually does something very similar to you, in a very rigorous manner, but through a process I might call Indiscrete experience/Inferring.

One interesting thing about Jesus and Platon's cave is 'why would they try to change people's minds?' However, when we look at the interactions, at least between Jesus and the Pharisees, it doesn't look like he understood that they didn't 'get it'. If one person went out of the cave, and had their life changed, why 'wouldn't' the second one do it once told about it? But it seems neither of them were aware of the Typical Mind Fallacy

To me, this is more of a question of inferring, than deduction or induction. It is of course possible to induct in these instances, but you need some kind of 'weighing' process. Similarly to how you gain distinctive knowledge and applicable knowledge through different kinds of actions, the same should be true for the complementary piece I intuit.

You say that in philosophy you can't know if something is true, and I agree with that. But in the inferring realm, it doesn't matter if things are 'true'. What is important is if they are more 'complete' and 'complex'. That means that people might be right about things, right about there being something like a God - but their description is less complete and complex than someone describing a view that can incorporate different beliefs, and so on.
The brain in the vat might be seen like a binary choice, but it is less complete and complex than a view that incorporates the possibility that we are real and imaginary simultaneously, for example.

I'll stop here for now. It is hard to stay coherent, and focus on things. Maybe it would have been better if we texted/chatted, but I'm not sure. Delving into this is hard - not because I am unsure of the direction, but simply because 'pointing at' inference is like trying to freeze time. You might show a person in the Cave 1000 pictures, but similarly to Zenos Paradoxes, you can't, you explain 'movement', 'time' and 'space' from the pictures alone? There is no movement, you can't 'see' time and there is no space (it is 2D).
I know that I am doing something that works, and points to reality, and that gains me knowledge - I just find it incredibly elusive - and it doesn't help that there seems to be this odd rift between intuition and 'science'. That really needs to go.

Hopefully you can bounce off this somehow.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

I am not sure it can be made more accessible, though, without losing its inherent strength. At least that is something I am pondering whilst reading my earlier comment. It made an impact on me, but I imagine that was also due to it being outside my regular way of thinking, but also because of the specific instructions about how to go about reading it. Without both, it might just end up being mislabeled and added to other categories, without the growth in mindset it can have (More at the end). — Caerulea-Lawrence


Thank you for the valuable feedback. I have written and rewritten this over a long period of time. The first iteration was 200+ pages, more like a rough draft of ideas. Slowly I pared it down to what I felt was absolutely essential due to feedback from other people. It is nice to hear from someone else that it seems like there's not much else that could be cut without losing something.

To your point about the instructions, those came about because of responses in previous attempts to post this. You are correct. Without those, many people do not understand how to approach a discussion like this. To your point, tackling something outside of your normal line of thinking is difficult. It can be fun with the right mindset, but without that, its easy to let our emotions get the better of us and we look for surface level reasons to escape having to read it.

If there is a small nit-pick I can mention, I do not like the word Irrational... It has some bad connotations, and made it harder to focus on the content and remember it. — Caerulea-Lawrence


I appreciate this feedback as well. My intent was to use inductive terminology that was positive at best, neutral at worst. All four of the induction types have value in certain situations in life. Originally I used the word 'faith', but later stepped back from it because I was worried it would evoke an undue response from some people. I wanted people to focus on the logic first, so eventually I settled on a logic word. However, I agree with you that "irrational" still has more of a negative connotation. Any suggestions on what word you would rather it be named?

God-damn, I am so pleased about understanding the "secret" to the Evil Demon example. Well played by you, too, on that one. There were some hints there that made me question it a bit more, not sure how you did it. Like you subtly 'forced' the meaning or something, not sure. — Caerulea-Lawrence


It wasn't a secret or a trick, you simply used the internal logic of the argument and came to the correct conclusion! It makes me happy to hear that you concluded this yourself, as it lends credence to the internal consistency of the system.

The growth from reading this — Caerulea-Lawrence


That's the greatest compliment I could receive. Good philosophy should enable a person to enhance their life. If you feel you are better able to comprehend the world of ideas, then I am very glad. I use this theory myself in my daily life, so it is gratifying to see it help another.

And in that sense, maybe it is true to say that science is underestimating consciousness a bit too much, and talking about NDE's this way is a kind of backlash to a certain unwillingness, on the flip side, to bother with acknowledging Distinctive Knowledge at all. — Caerulea-Lawrence


Consciousness is sort of the hot topic of the boards recently. I highly encourage people to look to neuroscience over philosophy first, as I believe it is more up to date and necessary to know modern facts about the brain to have a discussion of any validity.

Thank you again for reading and contributing! — Philosophim

Hello again @Philosophim,

my take on self-understanding is more based on intuition, and as such I have had a keen interest in differentiation, questioning and reflecting upon our 'experiences, evaluations and judgements'. Instead of neuroscience, I have read psychology, social sciences, and consequently done a lot of interrelational and intrarelational work, as well as looked at concepts like having inner "parts", how different cognitive functions might affect what/how we see, and also the biological aspects of our consciousness. 'We' "are" a lot of different fungi, bacteria, virus and parasites, after all.

I do believe that there is a place for what I care about in the theory you have devised, but I must admit that I find it quite the daunting task to combine the two outlooks, or to just push them a tiny bit closer to each other.

So, instead of waiting way longer till I circle back, I wanted to at least try my hand at something. And instead of a big and filling response, what if it is more of a dialectic process where we sharpen things and cooperate to see if there is any way to bridge the gap?


I'll start with this one:

1.

I see, hear, smell, taste and touch. And yet this is still not basic enough. I sense. But even if I did not sense, “I” would be different from “everything else”. In recognizing a self, I am able to create two “experiences”. That is the self-recognized thinker, and everything else.

Why should I have this capability? I cannot answer this. What I can realize is I may sense, but I find I can focus on different parts of that sensation. I can see a field of grass. Now I create the identity of a blade of grass. Now a piece of that blade of grass. I part and parcel my sensations as I wish. I do not know what “I am”, or “everything else” is, but I do know that reality cannot contradict my ability to focus, create identities where I wish, and essentially “discretely experience”. — Philosophim

In the first paragraph, I want to recognize that there was a time the 'I' felt indistinguishable from the rest, for example when we were children. And if we add in the time we were a fetus, and even the history and time before that; all the forces that have shaped our DNA to be what it is, to the positions of the planets in our Solar system and the building blocks of our bodies, to me it makes sense to acknowledge this. The measurable 'time' when we felt 'indistinguishable' from the rest, is a much bigger part of our history than the time of the conscious, self-recognized thinker.

Your claim works well as it is, so why 'complicate it'? Well, like I postulate, our 'lives' have been spent mostly as simple consciousnesses or impulses. And so I wonder if this basic tenant of these two experiences would do better if contrasted with their opposites: The 'simple, interconnected subconscious' and the 'indistinguishable whole'.

I do not argue against these experiences being 'personal', just that these 'experiences' might not be directed and differentiated in the same way as with the 'discretely experiencer'.

Damn, I feel a bit overwhelmed already... How did you do this? :)

Somehow I see that there could be an 'indiscrete experience' as a complementary piece here. And this circles back to what I said about the category "irrational". I guess the reason is that the most 'out there' beliefs, border or cross the border to the 'indiscrete experience'. When they bleed into our conscious mind, they aren't fully 'translated', so to speak.

To me it seems to fit better to look at the irrational beliefs as echos of unconscious 'beliefs'. And even when they are seemingly erroneously or 'irrationally' applied in the discrete experience realm of reality, that is also not the realm of reality they are usually applied to, and as such to understand them would need a different set of parameters and procedures to be able to accrue useful knowledge.

I'll stop here for now. Understanding how hard this is by how long I have used to be able to write these scarce sentences, I further appreciate and am humbled by the work you have put into your original post. Even when it is not my modus operandi, I still want to see if maybe I can contribute something, even when it might be more on the sporadic side.

Let me know how this lands with you.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Maybe it is in notifications settings, but I didn't find out that I had gotten any comments on this, so a bit rueful about the late response.

The arena of psychology posits many ideas that are the imaginations of a group of a certain type of speculative theorist who don't engage in a scientific project, proper, but has the flaw of word and picture artistry more than scientific proof, which makes it pseudo science no matter how many books and people sign up to the idea, it only make it a form of literary art — Alexander Hine

Hello @Alexander Hine,
and thanks for the distinction. I do like poetry, and I also care a lot about the connotations of words. Moreover, to me, forming maps of how words, meanings etc. are associated in various ways in the world, has been a useful way of understanding how things work.
One meaning of the word pseudo is 'sham', and another is 'insincere'. Whereas in general the term was meant to mean, I assume, something that didn't follow proper the Scientific gold standard. But, as far as I know, Spiral Dynamics, or MBTI for that matter, is not a sham, nor is it insincere that I am familiar with.

Art is powerful, and in many ways, much more so than scientific results. Moreover, some literary art, I believe, can also be used to further scientific advances, and also, hopefully, improve the scope of scientific inquiry. And some art must be better than others, even when it sometimes depends more on its proponents.

I haven't found anywhere where the two are mixed though, or are artistically scrutinized the way you mentioned, both of which I would be quite interested in.

Even if you don't have anything, or isn't really keen on finding anything, thanks for stopping by and commenting.

He used testing like Myers-Briggs a lot. He and I sometimes argued about the way it organized and characterized people. So - pragmatism.

I think the main reason I dislike Myers-Briggs is that it is just a way of labelling people without ever having to see them. Lao Tzu is one of my favorite philosophers. As he wrote (Tao Te Ching, Verse 1, Stephen Mitchell translation): — T Clark

Greetings @T CIark,
I agree very much with your comment, and most of the reason I have combined the two, is because of the issue with the'outside view'. I am looking more at the form from the inside, and I only use theories and models as reference points, as opposed to guidelines. Categorizing things using Language brings about limitations, but I still see it as useful to have a couple of categories and sub-categories to put experiences in, especially when there seems to be somewhat of a general sense of applicable, conversational value to it.
And by using both MBTI and Spiral Dynamics, certain categories emerge that are a much better fit than words and expressions alone, simply because the exact same words, can more predictably have various different categories of meanings, instead of just 'anything'.

And I will have to reflect a bit about the philosophical part. Similar to the response from Alexander above, my choices do not seem to stand out as being that "useful", at least from you two.
Of the two, Spiral Dynamics is the more philosophical, but it is still better to call it cultural evolution/evolutionary consciousness psychology, than philosophy. That is also the one you weren't that familiar with.
I do believe there are some slivers of truth in how the cognitive functions operate, but that the image is further complicated/distorted by the interactions between functions. Furthermore, to me, that hasn't really been an image that reflects the inner reality in a substantial enough way, and as such Spiral Dynamics found its place There are others, but I have focused on these two, as these two produce a more overarching theme.
Reification... I mean, maps are more than just images of the world. They contain all sorts of symbols to guide you, and provide information that isn't apparent... But mapping a world that is simultaneously moving and changing, is a different challenge from mapping the Earth, which generally moves on a much, much slower timescale.
Maps over human development might, in many instances, be very fluid and short-lived. MBTI doesn't really add the Transcendent Function from Jung. I do believe it is commonly understood that the cognitive stacks aren't fixed, in that you can't use other functions. But refer more to predispositions in temperament, which usually changes for many people, apparently, later in life.
However, adding in Spiral Dynamics, is something I would find interesting. It is quite an abstract concept, but one thing that should be doable, is to somewhat map how different personalities express themselves, primarily, in different paradigms.

However, conversationally and for self-growth especially, even with an unclear image of something, it does become easier to talk about and have a more conscious connection to what is going on. As such, we have found it useful so far to mix the two, and even when it is mostly exploration and not putting in the finishing touches to established imagery.

I am wholly unfamiliar with engineering, but reading your post, maybe I am quite the engineer in my own right. :) I have found this philosophy post by @Philosophim useful. With regard to MBTI and SD, however, it seems of more general applicability. I see it more as a specific skill learned using one or two cognitive functions at a certain level, than I see it as something that complements the former two... Could that be what I am looking for? I mean, improving something is relatively hard...

Maybe I am missing the point here somehow, and my post is fairly short, so if you have any questions of sorts, I would gladly answer. Moreover, I'll see if I can change notification settings, but I'll be sure to see it if you mention my nickname somehow.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Yes, I got the notification, and I am glad I heard from you, as there was this little part of me that thought that my answer was totally off the mark.

Congratulations on achieving your goal of more accessibility, and yes, I am also thoroughly pleased that I got this, and that even the summary is on point. That makes me happy, and I share your enthusiasm and happiness too.
I am not sure it can be made more accessible, though, without losing its inherent strength. At least that is something I am pondering whilst reading my earlier comment. It made an impact on me, but I imagine that was also due to it being outside my regular way of thinking, but also because of the specific instructions about how to go about reading it. Without both, it might just end up being mislabeled and added to other categories, without the growth in mindset it can have (More at the end).

To be fair, I haven't come back to this yet, but at least I reread my summary now. Still, I must admit that your post is still a bit daunting, as I did have to focus very extensively and intensively, and follow your guide to the tee. I did manage to not get lost, and consequently I am still in a state of Relief after achieving something that looked to be too steep a climb, than I am quite ready to take a look at how the **** I did it :)
I mean, the reason isn't only because it was 'difficult' to do, of course. I tend to do this with regard to new knowledge or ideas, that even when I am very satisfied with them, and like them very much, and I even start to apply them a little bit in my cognitive space, I ease things in, slowly.

In due time, I will circle back, and if you do talk more about this, I would be very pleased if you would notify me somehow.

If there is a small nit-pick I can mention,

God-damn, I am so pleased about understanding the "secret" to the Evil Demon example. Well played by you, too, on that one. There were some hints there that made me question it a bit more, not sure how you did it. Like you subtly 'forced' the meaning or something, not sure.


The growth from reading this:
I remember reading a post here.
And just noticing that I wasn't very bothered with claims, and could just look at it more relaxed. They write about the experiences NDE survivors have, and I noticed I could add it to a long list of "Possible human experiences/abilities". I also noticed, that I can start formulating why, that it became quite clear that there isn't really any evidence for the Consciousness surviving the body there, and there are quite numerous reasons for that being the case.

But I also found that I could say that it seems quite plausible that we humans might have abilities and can have experiences that most of us are unaware of. For example, the ability to see others from a distance, is something argued in a documentary about Anna Breitenbach, where they link it to some kind of tracking-skill.
That doesn't mean that we literally see from a distance, but that we are underestimating the amount of information our brain can process, and what kinds of conclusions it can draw. And in that sense, maybe it is true to say that science is underestimating consciousness a bit too much, and talking about NDE's this way is a kind of backlash to a certain unwillingness, on the flip side, to bother with acknowledging Distinctive Knowledge at all.

If you find an answer to the question of subconsciousness, I'll be back for that. It will be a while before I circle back for a round 2, but I'll let you know more then.

KIndly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Hello Jamal and co,

I did get one, but none afterwards. And haven't changed any settings.

Not sure this is relevant, but I also forward all mails from rhephilosophyforum to a named folder, but this specific mail landed in rhe junk-mail, and somehow it got deleted when I tried to move it. :scream:
Paranornal activity... :scream:
I'm a subscriber, so I demand you save me first! :*fidget fidget fidget --- panic!* :scream:

NB: The facts are true.

Jokingly and kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

So that's not what I meant. To rephrase it, I would say: fighting emotional responses would mitigate cognitive biases, because it's fighting the cause. But fighting cognitive biases directly seems pointless as they're unconscious and are very difficult (impossible?) to perceive with certainty. So fighting cognitive biases directly doesn't help mitigate them!

And my main point is that when you fight the emotional responses, it prevents cognitive biases so naming them and finding "tools" to detect it seems useless and extremely complex compared to just assessing emotions. — Skalidris

Hello Skalidris,

I am grateful you clarified this for me.

In my own experience, what you say is very true. Biases in different forms mask themselves behind a pretty rationale or with 'sound' logic. The clearest sign to me is not the logic, but the off-tune emotions it is expressed with.

There is also something else that works for me, and that is to be asked open questions - directed towards exploring gaps in my conclusions or my motivations. It is important to me to follow my inner logic, a logic which also includes its own sets of parameters. Good questions help me engage my inner troubleshooting tool, and lets me more easily spot inconsistencies.

This kind of troubleshooting is often part of the first half of a process to get closer to the jagged feelings underneath. It's like dusting or cleaning to get a better look at what's the issue, with the added bonus of softening the edges as well. Doing this is a complementary route for me, and it helps a lot in reducing direct reactivity with regard to issues I find difficult, even when I am not ready to process the emotionality directly.

And getting care and attention from my partner is also something essential for me in delving into these things - or I might have just opted to ignore some of them. There is only so much self-compassion and self-understanding I am capable of. Getting compassion, space and understanding makes it a lot easier to take a closer look at the dangerous splinters, lest I keep projecting them onto other people in the form of beams of wood for the rest of my life.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

The first thing that comes to mind would be that we or other conscious beings, have the potential to become gods in this world. — Caerulea-Lawrence


What does this mean? How might we become gods? What is your definition of a god in such a case? — Tom Storm

Hi again Tom,

this is not an argument for gods, but simply a hypothetical idea with regard to the first OP's two assumptions.

When I didn't read the Bible every day, the intensity in my desire to find a quick solution dwindled. Instead, I could feel my sadness, pain, confusion and numbness. And since it was there, real, and actually spoke to me directly, I tried to listen more.
A few years later, as I was walking out from the Student library, I became aware of the wool that had been there, as I felt it evaporate. I could sense the cold, hostile space outside our atmosphere, and I felt alone and vulnerable. — Caerulea-Lawrence


Can you clarify this? The wool evaporated? Are you saying that the wool which had been pulled over your eyes by religion was removed and you saw clearly without religion?

Seems to me you are describing an emotional state, but how useful is this to understanding reality such as it is? Seems to me that confusion and vulnerability or, conversely, feelings of wellbeing and invulnerability are usually tied to beliefs and these beliefs need not be true. — Tom Storm

Yes, it is the latter, an emotional state.

From my post earlier:

I'll do both, as your OP is both theoretical and mentions your concrete fear as well. It therefore makes sense to me to acknowledge both. I hope this is in tune with your intentions for this thread. — Caerulea-Lawrence

This was the reason for writing this. If you want to look at the personal/emotional part of my answer, it would only make sense to me if you are a bit personal/emotional as well, as I believe that is in tune with the intentions of the thread.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

What does this mean? How might we become gods? What is your definition of a god in such a case? — Tom Storm

Can you clarify this? The wool evaporated? Are you saying that the wool which had been pulled over your eyes by religion was removed and you saw clearly without religion?

Seems to me you are describing an emotional state, but how useful is this to understanding reality such as it is? Seems to me that confusion and vulnerability or, conversely, feelings of wellbeing and invulnerability are usually tied to beliefs and these beliefs need not be true. — Tom Storm

Hello Tom,

I'll give it a bit of thought and see if I can find some good answers for you. If I can't find any good answers after giving it a bit of thought, I'll just forgo answering, in case you might be wondering.

Thank you in advance.

Caerulea-Lawrence

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I think the claims 1-3 are a fair assessment of what Ive offered in the OP.
Claim 4 was actually an example for some of the claims 1-3 and shouldn't be taken as a claim unto itself. Im not sure it adds anything claims 1-3 do not cover.

Im not sure what context claims 5-7 are for. What are the gaps you mention? If I understand those then perhaps claims 5-7 will make more sense to me.
Also, I take it you disagree with one or more of my premisses? — DingoJones

Hi again DingoJones,

You are welcome. Then let us ignore claim 4 as a claim.

And to answer that first, for the sake of the argument, I was not trying to disagree with your premises or your conclusion. But for your interest I added that below my answers to your questions; see The disagree option

I see that using the word claims might seem like I disagree, or want to add additional premises. That was not my intention. My intention was to try to answer questions that I found reasonable to ask given your premises. Here is the reasoning behind the "claims/answers" I made. Hope that clears it up for you.

First, I assume claim 1-3 are true. "We can judge Moral/immoral, by balancing moral against immoral, and furthermore are able to do an ethical cost/benefit analysis of every situation."

The gaps I mentioned are the parameters you haven't specified. So I started by looking at one of these. The parameter differentiation of, how many does it take to pass moral judgment? You mentioned we specifically, and not I, meaning it could be between 1 and everyone, and I chose to interpret the we as a community.
Did you have another specification in mind? If so, which?

Another parameter, a follow-up to the first, is how skewed the ability to make accurate cost/benefit analyses are between the individual and the community.
I chose to make the community collectively responsible, meaning that if an individual does a "10" immoral act, it affects the total score of the community by -10.

Which is answer/claim 5:
"Every community is collectively responsible for the immoral acts of every member."

The next answer/claim, claim 6, is an answer to the following parameters: Is the ability to make an analysis absolute? You haven't mentioned any limitations to your claim 1-3, so I assumed yes. We can make judgment of each and every action, and our cost/benefit analysis are always accurate.
Which opens up the following parameter: If we, the community, know the consequence of every action and its moral cost, are we in not acting upon this knowledge ourselves committing immoral acts? To which I arbitrarily chose the answer yes.

Which is where claim/answer 6 comes in:
"It is a collective immoral act not to stop immoral acts."

My answer/claim 7 is a response to this situation: If the community, being fully aware of the consequences of moral/immoral actions and with more power than the individual as well, is unable to have a moral surplus, are they immoral or morally incompetent? I'm not assuming the community is perfect, but if they know the consequences of every situation, and they end up immoral aka morally bankrupt, shouldn't that have much bigger implications than the half blind individual not seeing the full extent of his/her immorality?

And to that I answered:
A community, that collectively has moral debt, becomes morally bankrupt.

And when a community becomes morally bankrupt, I just assumed it lost every power and privilege it had with regard to claim 1 through 3. The reason for this being the simple idea that with great power comes great responsibility. So, if you can do claim 1-3, but you fail, the consequences should be big as well. In this case, I chose that they turn morally blind. I stopped there, as I wanted to hear your thoughts.

The disagree option:
If you want to argue that your premises are fundamental or indispensable in some way, I would love to see that. But you haven't argued much for your claims, and there are numerous ways the claims conflict as well. Since your claims and their connection is not well-proven in my opinion, and therefore the conclusion is not solid. I said you could just change the premises. If you find the premises compelling, then for someone to disprove it, shouldn't it first be proven?

One thing I would like proof of, is why Claim 1, 2 and 3 are connected? I would also like proof of the individual claims, and proof of them being better than the alternatives - or at least why you chose these over other options.

Here is one example of different options to your initial claims:
Another option to claim 1, is that we judge people just because we want to. Moreover, we can also judge people without adhering to claim 2. We can also judge people as immoral/moral without using an ethical cost/benefit analyses.

If we add in the parameters, there are a lot of questions too, even without undoing your premises. In each of the questions, I make a choice regarding a parameter. What is your choice of parameters, and why. What is your proof, or ideas, around why this is the right choice?

What if claim 1-3 is true, but we forget the score after a month?
What if claim 1-3 is true, but only groups of 10 can make accurate judgments?
What if claim 1-3 is true, but we can only judge actions that happened in the past week?
What if claim 1-3 is true, but different groups use a different basis for their ethical analysis?
What if claim 1-3 is true, but we choose to pass the debt on?

Kindly but in debate-mode,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Im interested in some thoughts concerning how moral/immoral actions balance out.
When we judge a person as moral or immoral, it seems to me that we are measuring his moral actions against his immoral ones. We consider the act, its consequences, collateral benefit or damage and how it all fits morally speaking. An ethical cost/benefit analysis if you will.
If a person commits theft but regrets in it for some reason and spends the rest of their life giving most of what they have to charity (not necessarily a formal one, could just be to people he meets who are in need or whatever) then he has worked off some kind of moral debt. We might even say the person has paid their moral debt and has a surplus, moral credit, if they ended up with a huge imbalance of moral acts over immoral ones. (For example, stole a pack of gum but saved millions of lives and donated billions of dollars to charity)
If we can measure the moral balance in this way, I dont see any reason why even heinous acts of immorality couldnt be balanced out in the same way as my stick of gum example above. This is where Id like to be challenged, as Im not very comfortable with that conclusion.

The most obvious objection to that line of reasoning is principal based, that breaking the rules is breaking the rules and no action can justifiably balance another. Thats a more fundamental issue, I dont really buy into principle based ethics. For every principal, its trivially easy to show an instance where adhering to that principal is the act of a moral monster. For example, its wrong to lie. Well, what if the lie saves a billion people? The person who refuses to lie in that instance, is a moral monster. The only way to get around that contradiction is to make yet another appeal to principal, or commit semantic fallacy where the acts are considered separately (the lie was still wrong, the saving was right).

Id most like to discuss the first bit, but I recognise that it relies on a non-principal based approach to ethics. Perhaps someone would be sporting enough to consider this thread in the context of a non-principal based approach, even if they do not normally do so.

Anyway, what Im not interested in discussing is the objectivity/subjectivity of morality. This discussion doesnt require it and if you think it does then Im sorry to say Im not talking to you. (By which I mean, ignore this thread as its not addressed to you.)

So, can we pay off moral debt? Are we moral simply by having our moral acts (and all the good they do) outweigh the immoral acts (and all the bad they do)?
(Also, I realise good acts can have bad results and vice versa, I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it, which we very well may not have to) — DingoJones

Hello DingoJones,

I'll start with breaking down what you want into claims, to simplify it for myself. Below that I propose my idea of a solution, before continuing by elaboration upon it.

Claim 1: We judge people as Moral/immoral. Claim 2: We do this by measuring their immoral acts up against their moral. Claim 3: We use an ethical cost/benefit analysis, where we consider the act, its consequences, collateral benefit or damage and how it all fits morally speaking.
Hypothetical example of how this should/could work. "Commits theft (Moral debt), spends life giving to charity and people they meet. (Pays debt) At one point achieves Moral Surplus, goes from Moral Debt to Moral Credit."

Claim 4: Refusing to lie to save billions of people makes you a moral monster.

Conclusion: Given the above claims, further elaborated upon by the hypothetical example, any act should be repayable. I'm not very comfortable with that conclusion.

- Do not use a principle based approach and do not refer to Objectivity of morality or subjectivity of morality. -

How I view this.
You say you are not very comfortable with the fact that your conclusion shows that any act is repayable, and you wish to disprove the conclusion to resolve the feeling. I propose a different solution, namely to fill in the gaps by adding claims, so that your conclusion is more fleshed out. The reason for this is that your conclusion makes sense given the premises, so it makes sense to look at it as it is. Another solution to resolve the issue would of course be to change the premises, but that is not a solution in the context of you having written this OP.

Here are some claims that might fill some gaps. There are still things missing though, and I haven't continued that far as I want to know if this fulfills your criteria.

Claim 5:
Every community is collectively responsible for the immoral acts of every member.

Claim 6:
It is a collective immoral act not to stop immoral acts.

Claim 7:
A community, that collectively has moral debt, becomes morally bankrupt.

With these claims in mind, let's look at the conclusion again.
Any act is repayable, yes, but not unconditionally. If an individual racks up debt, and is not stopped, the community might turn bankrupt. A morally bankrupt community loses it ability to discern whether individuals have moral debt, to measure moral against immoral acts, and also to analyze their moral economy.

I'll stop there, and ask what you think about this line of thinking?

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Quoted from the OP:

Assume there is no creator/purpose to the world:
Then why does this world even exist? You would assume that no God and no purpose implies no universe, nothing. No creator implies nothingness. Therefore, our world and our lives just sort of "dangle" without any rationale or justification. Life and the universe are then just some sort of anomaly. In other words, Occam's Razor dictates that without a God, nothing should exist, and yet here we are alive, in existence, discussing this very issue.. Something therefore seems wrong with this notion...

OTOH, assume life does have meaning:
Then what do our experiences mean? We all have one fleeting moment after another and then we simply die. Each moment exists for only a fraction of a second. Even a long 'chain' of moments disappears into nothingness. Therefore, under these circumstances, how do our lives have meaning, as whatever we find meaningful is fleeting and only exists for a fraction of a second? Even for yourself, look down the road at what the future holds; at some point, every single one of those moments will be gone and you will be gone as well. This is of course true for all of us. This implies that life is meaningless and seems like a scary proposition to me... — jasonm

Hello jasonm,
I would like to answer. One part of my answer will be to give different perspectives. The other will be a story from my life. I'll do both, as your OP is both theoretical and mentions your concrete fear as well. It therefore makes sense to me to acknowledge both. I hope this is in tune with your intentions for this thread.

1. Assume there is no creator/purpose to the world.
Different perspectives:
You ask why this world even exists without a creator or a purpose. The first thing that comes to mind would be that we or other conscious beings, have the potential to become gods in this world. Then we/conscious beings would fulfill your criteria for a justification for this world existing. It is still a potential, so on the road towards that end, living existences will still not be able to satisfy the criteria of giving the world purpose completely.
With regard to the purpose of the world, what I can mention is the possibility that the purpose for the world to exist, and the purpose for existences like us to exist, might not be the same.


2. OTOH, assume life does have meaning:
Similarly to the perspective above, if we open up to the possibility of there being a different purpose to our existence and to the world respectively, it would solve the issue as follows:
That part of our existence, which is connected to the Universe, might get broken down and in time be indistinguishable from any other form of matter/energy left - OTOH this might not be true for our existence. It is therefore fully possible to see our existence and the workings of the world as functioning under different premises. Life could be inherently meaningful and important.
The other perspective would be to just follow the claim you have already made. We assume that life has meaning, period. We might be able to add meaning to life, as well as subtract added meaning, but It will never reach zero. Life is meaningful, regardless of if you are personally able to add additional meaning to it or not.

Now the personal bit:
I grew up in churches, and for many years I would call myself a Christian. One aspect of it, that I realized much later, was that danger and also outer space, had this kind of safety-wool around it, which I wasn't consciously aware of.
When I got bouts of depression, and after a very hard and intense one, I struggled hard to make sense of it. I tried really hard to find a solution, reading books by Christian mystics and believing I was in a similar situation as Job (From the Old Testament - He lost everything, but got everything and more back.) but when people around me mentioned that I was becoming prodromal (meaning I might develop a psychosis) I was urged to stop reading the books as well as the Bible.

When I didn't read the Bible every day, the intensity in my desire to find a quick solution dwindled. Instead, I could feel my sadness, pain, confusion and numbness. And since it was there, real, and actually spoke to me directly, I tried to listen more.
A few years later, as I was walking out from the Student library, I became aware of the wool that had been there, as I felt it evaporate. I could sense the cold, hostile space outside our atmosphere, and I felt alone and vulnerable.

Closing words:
The way I understood your post, was neither a full deep-dive into what we feel about the meaning of life, nor an intense philosophy major into the topic, so I opted for a down scaling on both sides, mostly on the personal side. Therefore, I do not dive into my personal perspectives or evaluations, but use your premise as a springboard into the big subject "The meaning of life".

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

There’s abundant food for the ego in places like this. Meaning, on the other hand, is found in purpose and losing oneself in places and peoples larger than oneself. But don’t take my word for it, you’ll see for yourself soon enough. — praxis

Yes.

Welcome!

Hope you have fun here, it's a great place to deepen one's knowledge on many topics in the field.

Don't be afraid to express your opinions, because, ultimately all of us may be wrong. :cool: — Manuel

Thank you, Manuel. I'll see what I can unearth as time goes by. I also have my own theories, but as of now I find it more helpful to practice rigorousness and to discernment. So no worries, I do not doubt myself or am afraid to express my opinion, I am however conscious about being truthful to my inner standards.

Alas, I am 50 years out from my early 20s. — T Clark

;) Yes, statistically that would make a lot of sense then, that it isn't a word you are very familiar with. Moreover, there are a lot of similar expression I have no idea the meaning of either, so no worries.

I am not going to lie: Kappa is a word that excites me. It is a troll from Japanese mythology, yes. But this is also used by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa in the title of one of his books. The story is about a mentally ill person who joins the world of Kappa and lives together. Akutagawa is considered one of the most relevant Japanese writers, and his second name is the label of a literature prize in Japan. Kenzaburo Oe won one of the contests.

Kappa means "child of river" because it is made of the kanjis: kawa (川), river; and tarō (太郎), child. Kappa is like the diminutive of the word. — javi2541997

Then it is only fair that Kappa gets some attention.

Thank you, I will have a look. :) Kappa is from japanese, but it is an expression from Twitch I believe, and in use in the westernly digital hemisphere For a better description, you can check it out on the Urban Dictionary. I assosciate it with people in their teens and early twenties.

Cognitive bias: tool for critical thinking or ego trap?


Skalidris
78
What I would like to know is how and why people think it can help with critical thinking.

I'll explain why I think it's an ego trap with an example of the survivorship bias:
If we ask a lottery winner to talk to a group of people about how amazing his life has become, that group will be more likely to buy lottery tickets then a second group of people who would have listened to the story of a homeless man who lost all his money on lottery tickets. My guess is, if we tell people who bought tickets from the first group that they were biased, they might just say “oh but even if the chance is low, it’s still there, maybe it’s my lucky day”. So in the end, even given that info, I still think the first group would have more buyers than the second one. It could even be worse, they could fool themselves into thinking they’re critical: “I’m aware there is the survivorship bias, I’m aware the chance of winning is low but I’m rationally deciding to buy a ticket because I’m willing to risk losing small amounts of money to win big”. Is it really rational though? They’re mostly driven by the emotions that were triggered by the story of the winner…

How can we ever be sure that the decision we’re making isn’t biased? Biases are unconscious…
I see a lot of people using cognitive bias as some kind of superiority: “I know about cognitive bias and I try to avoid it, and you don’t, so I’m closer to the truth than you are”… And this is exactly the kind of behaviour that kills critical thinking… Or people who use it to take down someone’s defense: “you’re saying that because you’re biased, therefore it doesn’t have any value”… — Skalidris

Hello Skalidris,

The way I understand your OP is as follows.

These are your claims:
Cognitive biases effect both the uncritical as well as the critical thinker.
Knowledge of biases doesn’t hinder the formation of ego traps in the critical thinker nor the uncritical one.
And finally, biases are unconscious, and can influence you regardless of your conscious knowledge of them.

Did I get that right?

Title question:
The answer you give in your OP is you saying you know a lot of people that do not use cognitive biases as a tool for critical thinking, but turn them into an ego trap. Which I see as concluding that critical thinking doesn't immunize against biases.

Did I get that right?

Now, I would have to assume a lot more if I were to induce how I could prove the usefulness of critical thinking given your claims and even your conclusion. So, instead I would prefer if you could tell me what, specifically, would be valid examples, arguments or experiences to you. Moreover, it would also be great if you had a kind of baseline with regards to what it would take for you to change your mind.

I hope that is useful to you, as I would like to answer if I can understand better what it is you want.

Caerulea-Lawrence

The application suggests that the forum should not be let loose on someone so hungry for meaning, actually. You will not find it here. — praxis

Thanks praxis. Obelix had it rough from the get-go, but even he managed to eat his fill in the unlikeliest of situations, so no worries, I'll fill my belly here as well.

Welcome aboard ↪Caerulea-Lawrence
It would be interesting if members would speak more about their life experiences as they argue philosophical points. Sometimes they do. — jgill

Hi jgill,
I would like that. To me that is an essential source of knowledge and understanding, and a deep heart-to-heart/mind-to-mind can in many cases solve an issue lightning quick compared to lengthy discussions.

Still, with regards to this kind of openness, there still needs to be precision and accuracy for it to work, so I see parallels worthy of exploration as well.

↪Caerulea-Lawrence
thanks for the very thoughtful introduction! I hope the community lives up to the rather exalted standards you have laid out, and welcome. — Wayfarer

Thank you. Lets see how it goes, and whatever option prevails, I hope me and you all get something useful, knowledgable and heartwarming out of it.

↪Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello! Welcome to the forum. :up: — javi2541997

Thank you for the thumbs up.

The only way we might be able to tell you aren't a native English speaker is that your vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and clarity are all better than 90% of the members. — T Clark

The downfall of the Commonwealth is nigh... Sad times Clark, sad times indeed.

Yes, Wayfarer is great, keeping in mind he is one of only seven pleasant people here on the forum. No, I am not one of those seven. This is what we in English call a "joke." Which isn't the same as saying it isn't true. — T Clark

I see philosophy not as a subject, but as a practice, much like meditation. For me, the goal of that practice is to become more self-aware of how my intellect works. I'm especially interested in ontology and epistemology and I will try to force you to talk about them. The philosophers who mean the most to me are Lao Tzu, Emerson, and Collingwood.

I look forward to talking with you. — T Clark

*Oh snap, I can't write this out loud:" I'm sorry Clark, I do not believe in the magic properties of "the holy THREE" or "The magical SEVEN". I was expecting a bit more from a philosophy forum... Even giving codenames to three of the four HORSEMEN, that is really not what I was expecting. So, Clark I AM NOT INTERESTED IN BEING CONVERTED TO THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, I AM SORRY!"*

Thank you Clark, you are such a cheesecake!! I would love to know more about your view on philosophy!!

PS: I warn you though, I'm a stubborn cat, so gotta feed me those good pieces first if you want my attention. If I'm happy you can pursue your goal of reviving the Commonwealth one member at a time. And just so you don't forget, the good pieces Yeah?.
https://imgur.com/EO4BU

And this Clark, is good ol' trolling. Which isn't to say it isn't true, kappa. (I never knew my passive knowledge of that word would ever come to use, I am truly Grateful Clark. I feel like I have learned so much about ontology and epistemology already! You are the BEST!) :wink:

Hello, and welcome to our little community. Thank you for your fulsome introduction. I feel we might be friends, but I am old and bound for recycling in the near future, so my contribution to anyone's creation can only be very small. Never mind, you are young and can do more. Dive in, say some stuff, and see what happens! — unenlightened

Thank you, I will do that. And I appreciate the recognition. Sure, let's see what happens indeed.

Hello Philosophim,

This is my first real post, when leaving my introduction. I am not well versed in philosophy, so it took me a couple of hours to read and understand this, and I am still far from actively grasping it, but I am also eager to respond as well. It was very captivating, and I have enjoyed it so far, as I believe I will further when I delve more into it.

Since you welcome all background levels, I assumed that includes me. I have read the paper, and have tried to keep a correct mindset. When I strayed into my own ideas or patterns, I went back to understanding and ‘deduction’ ;)

It was a challenge to understand, and it felt like starting to grapple with puzzles in Riven (Myst games)… Like how does this work, what is all this information etc., but as I am starting to get it, I must say I am honestly positively surprised at how well I liked this, even though I have a very different approach.

I decided to show you my summary. It is very short compared to what was written there originally, but written more in my own words. I thought it would be helpful to get a grasp on how I structure things. But I do not want any comments on the summary, except for with regard to what I wrote under Plausibility. I am curious about your view on what I wrote there.

After the summary, I will write some of my thoughts. In line with your intent for this thread, I will try to keep it focused.

Hope you like it.

Forming applicable knowledge takes time and careful reason, something the world does not always afford an individual before a decision must be made. With the understanding of distinctive and applicable knowledge, just like I can shape our discrete experiences into better expressions and tools for greater success, I can manage and shape my inductions as well. — Philosophim

Belief and Knowledge

Beliefs are intentions that are congruous with reality.

Gaining knowledge is finding out if beliefs are contradicted by reality.

Belief, without the potential to be contradicted, cannot increase knowledge.

The deductive axiom - The self-recognized thinker and everything else. My ability to focus, create identities and to discretely experience.


The beginning of knowledge - Discrete Experiences

“I am a discrete experiencer.”
Discretely experience is to give form meaning in one’s inner world. Since it actually happens, it is a congruous belief, and becomes ‘knowledge’.

Memories are true in that they are form given to experiences.


Distinctive Knowledge and Applicable Knowledge

Distinctive Knowledge is that which you are aware of in one’s inner world.

Applicable Knowledge is beliefs that are compared with reality.


The Formation of Distinctions

Distinctions are individually made, and means to create a form in the mind different from another. Some factors are defining of the form, essential properties, others are optional, accidental properties.

Since these are still experience, it doesn’t necessitate that what I find essential, is what differentiates an object in reality from another.


Applying Those Distinctions to Reality

Applicable knowledge is when a form I have created in my mind, fits reality. The simpler the properties in the distinctive knowledge, the simpler the applicable knowledge accrued. If the essential properties of sheep are curly fur and hooves, this would be indistinguishably from for example a goat.


Considering Issues with Knowledge

Memories can both apply, or neither can, or one of them.

I choose if new properties are added as essential or accidental. But as I add more, I would also need to check more to be certain of the applicable knowledge.

Properties can create a new form separate from another, depending on how the properties are understood, or even noticed.

Knowledge of Applicable Limits

Deductible beliefs need direct affirmations to become applicable knowledge.

Induction

Induction, seen parallel to the process of deduction - as a mean to differentiate different inductive beliefs and their closeness to ‘the knowledge process’.


Probability

Predictions about the future are inherently inductive, and probability means to limit error by knowing all available options that could occur, to increase the likelihood of said induction being applicable.

So, when the factors are known, induction is used mathematically to improve the chance of the induction being applicable.

It is also possible to circumvent this reasoning by simplifying the distinctive knowledge.

Possibility

Possible induction refers to situations that have happened, which we have applicable knowledge about, but where the probability is unknown. The similarity lies in the belief that the knowledge could happen again.


Plausibility

Plausibilities are untested distinctive knowledge, that has not happened to the I before, and furthermore classified as either applicable or inapplicable. The difference between the subgroups is in if it possible to test it, which also means an inapplicable belief can become an applicable if you find a way to test it?

Descartes stated that perhaps his entire view of reality was flawed because an Evil Demon tricked him into believing a false reality. I find this example interesting. Even though it makes sense that the undetectable Evil Demon is in itself an inapplicable plausibility example, I see something else as well.

This sentence speaks to me differently. If we break it down into parts:
Is it possible that his entire view of reality is flawed? Yes, if at one point he changed his view of reality, and he viewed the former view as limited or flawed. Then it would be possible.
Is it possible he was tricked? I do not know Descartes very well, but I assume that is something he would have had experience with. Moreover, he could have applicable knowledge with tricking someone without them knowing, and therefore it is possible that he has been tricked without his knowledge as well.
Believing something false should be something he has ample experience with as well, which makes it something possible.

So if we remove the Evil Demon, I see the statement more as an assertion. He believes it is possible that he could view his current worldview as flawed and based on a false reality.


Irrational

Irrational beliefs do not rely on applicable knowledge. They are in direct opposition to applicable knowledge, but there is still the possibility that it might be true.
Irrational beliefs are contrary to the surmiseable options available.


Hierarchy of Inductions Summary
The hierarchy makes comparing beliefs possible, and where there is direct competition between a possibility and a probability, to apply the knowledge of induction hierarchy to heighten the relative success these inductions will have in relation to reality.

With regard to different beliefs on the same hierarchy level, it is not possible to argue for one over the other.
Summary ends here.

Ok, that finishes my summary, and some of my thoughts whilst reading this. I still find it curious how well I enjoyed reading this, even though it took a lot of conscious effort. Again, thank you for writing this, and thank you more for opening up to feedback from everyone. I wanted to post this, and I will think more on it over time, but I wanted to get out something. I will have to let it sink in, at it might be some time till I circle back, but I will read your response.

Maybe I am missing some obvious point, but I was wondering if it is also possible to include the subconscious with regard to the discrete experiencer, or see it as a parallel axis or something? As I am very much more fluent in intuition, emotions and feelings, I am trying hard to focus on the task at hand and not dive into that. Still, I thought this feedback could fit the bill without digressing.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence

Hello everyone,

as this seemed the correct place to introduce myself, here goes. I decided just to post my 'application' to become a member here - with some small edits.

Firstly a short introduction, then why I want to join the forum and then about my interests.

I'm in my mid-thirties, from Norway (the country) and in a long-term relationship. My formal experience with philosophy is from the mandatory course we go through in University, where I studied German language. I have also (almost) finished a bachelor in Social Work, which is more focused on the intersection between psychology, physical health and social problems.

Why I'd like to join is a bit similar to what Wayfarer writes in this post.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14024/meta-philosophy-types-and-orientations

My perspective on it would be to find others that want to harmonize not only different perspectives and insights, but also experiences, moral and everyday life as well. In that sense, my objective aligns with the concept of Intentional Community, but I am more focused on finding people that have a meta-vision with regards to their life, and have a longing for co-creating with others as well.

To go into this more would become very long, so I will try and shorten it to two outcomes I'd like.

1. I join this forum, and through thoughtful and honest interactions, sharing my perspectives and inner life, and interacting with the posts I find interesting, find someone that wants to co-create something similar to what me and my partner want.

2. The second outcome would be that I do not find someone, but have intelligent and caring interactions, which are also important to me. And I can take what I read and learn and choose to apply it to my goals and aspirations, and maybe something new comes out of it.

Hm, what I am interested in.. The way I understand myself I am not very attached to any 'interests'. Even though my personality lets me get interested quickly, self-understanding has shown me it all ties back to a much bigger jigsaw of meaning. So, meaning is the horse, and interest is the cart, so to actually answer, I would have to explain what is meaningful to me. So let me try.

Meaning is to create something 'satisfactory' at the highest complexity level I, together with others, am/are able to achieve. And meaning is to achieve higher integration between the different types of being, both internally and externally.

Something refers to abstract thoughts, as well as abstract goals, visions and feelings. Furthermore it refers to everyday life and living, relationships and health, including also the metaphysical as well as the practical.

Satisfactory means that which aligns the best with how well we are able to mesh things together with the different resources, life-situations and so forth we have available, and balancing that with our different limitations and weaknesses.

With regards to the site guidelines, I feel totally confident with regards to tone, and if I should miss something with regards to context matters, I will quickly fix it. With regards to English, it is my second language, and even though I believe I have a decent grasp on the language, it should be relatively apparent in these kinds of high-level conversations that I am a non-native speaker. I am good at form and structure, but not excellent. And to write this as well I used a simple spelling program to fix the glaringly obvious mistakes. But it is of course not a cure all.

Are there follow up questions as well, or is this application good enough to get a grasp of if I should be let loose on the innocent lambs in The philosophy forum or not?

I am actually grateful you have this sort of criterion, and it seems the forum has benefitted from it as well. I agree with the sentiment, even if it means I would not be accepted. *Big puppy eyes - Yes, I am a good person, please believe me* <-This worked btw, protip.

Thanks for having me, and you'll see me around answering some posts, to grow and get a feel for what is here. When I feel comfortable, I might start my own posts, but as of now I am more into just having a discourse with a set topic.

All the best,
Caerulea-Lawrence