What does this quote mean to you, and how would you phrase it otherwise into more ordinary language, if you had to? — Wallows

"Philosophy encompasses psychology. I said it so it must be so. Help Mummy!"

I think [ego depletion] a reasonable idea that's fraught with problems when trying to experimentally verify it. — fdrake

People who are experimental subjects in this area of study are often asked to use their not-best hand for routine tasks such as opening doors, for a week or two. Then when asked to perform some task in the lab they usually show far less patience than a control group. Experimental psychologists are ingenious.

I will accept that one could justify various purposes in terms of optimisation of some objective quantity. I might even concede there is only one candidate quantity. I can't say it excites me though.

However, possible worlds are conceived as discrete entities — Mentalusion

And who conceives them - us!

Wilson claims his book is readable by non mathematicians. They could skip lots out but still get an appreciation.

Zone filling games on phones lend themselves to a nodal description. Graph theory can be used creatively to describe what's going on.

So @Dan84 how did you get on?

I would love to set those exercises to the adult population at large to see what percentage get it. I'm thinking 10-20% at a guess. And then, could it be intensively and successively taught? I tend to think not. But I would love to know. The results should be used to determine curriculum policy in schools. "No getty no mathsy" ... I'm not being elitist, I just think many young people could spend their time more productively. Also they may "get" it later in life, especially if they haven't been cruelly put off when younger.

I interpret "purpose" to mean an externally directed goal; whereas a "goal" per se is self driven.

Thus God can give purpose (if you believe in her). But humankind can set its own goal.

So I am saying I can go along with your notion of "purpose" if you really mean "goal". But not if you really mean "purpose", in the sense that I use those words.

Yes, one just needs to translate
"Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artificial general intelligence?"
to
"Why the goal of the human species could feasibly be to create artificial general intelligence."

scientists need to stick to science and stop trying to think of themselves as philosophers. — Mentalusion

Thinking about the purpose of life does not require any philosophical training. Anybody can bring to bear their interests and enthusiasms on the topic. But there will never be a purpose to existence. There might be goals, however.

Consider the OP. — Banno

The OP expressed an interest in finding out about the "beauty" of maths as well as maths itself.

Graph theory might be a branch of maths that might be interesting to a novice - R J Wilson's book is a very readable introduction (he is Harold Wilson's son don't you know...)

Fittest in that sense, was anything but dog eat dog. Something Nietzsche got wrong to catastrophic effect. — karl stone

We have "tribal" loyalty yet fear of "others" so "sheep eat goat" perhaps sums us up better. These are hard wired tendencies, but not necessarily overpowering of the intellect.

Fair enough, there are steps to take and blind alleys to go down. It's not so much that one "sees" the solution but that one arrives at it - albeit with insights on the way. My point is that most solutions to most maths problems are not intuitive overall, and geometry is no "beautiful" exception!

the joy of seeing the solution. — Banno

Without algebraic/written proof, you could be seeing a mirage ....

OK here goes .. hope I've not made many mistakes (easily done if you lose concentration!)

a) M+5 = J+5+3

(equivalent to M = J+3, making explicit the fact that once 3 years older, always 3 years older!
not so with respect to ratios though . You are only twice as old as your younger sibling once in your life)

b) M+5 = 2 * (J+5)

c) M-4 = J-4-3

d) M-4 = 2 * (J-4)

e1) M+7 = J+20

e2) M+7 =J-7+20

f1) E-2 = X-3

f2) E = X-2-3
in case you are having difficulty at this point , that equation was generated by breaking down the information as follows
2)2 years ago EEE was aged E
2)2 years'ago XXX was aged X-2

f3) E-2 = X-2-3

f4) E = X -3

f5) E+2 = X-11+2

g1) A-5 = 3 * (B+2)

g2) A = 3 * B

OK!
All one equation only and let's cut straight to algebraic "names" as follows. A person's name isXXX. Some assumed/stated value about them will appear as X . So if I say XXX is one year older than YYY, and X and Y represent the current ages of XXX and YYY, then the equation is

X = Y + 1.

Note that the exact form of the equation will depend upon the assumed meaning of the algebraic letter. Sorry about that little complication but you need to know that you need to be clear what each variable represents before using it to declare information.

a)
assume M is MMM's age now
assume J is JJJ's age now
In 5 years' time MMM will be three years older than JJJ

b)
assume M is MMM's age now
assume J is JJJ's age now
In 5 years' time MMM will be twice as old as JJJ


c)
assume M is MMM's age now
assume J is JJJ's age now
4 years' ago MMM was 3 years' younger than JJJ

d)
assume M is MMM's age now
assume J is JJJ's age now
4 years' ago MMM was twice as old as JJJ

e1)
assume M is MMM's age now
assume J is JJJ's age now
In 7 years' time MMM will be 20 years older than JJJ is now

e2)
assume M is MMM's age now
assume J is JJJ's age in 7 years' time
In 7 years' time MMM will be 20 years older than JJJ is now


f1)
assume E is EEE's age now
assume X is XXX's age now
2 years' ago EEE was 3 years younger than XXX is now

f2)
assume EEE is EEE's age now
assume X is XXX's age 2 years' ago
2 years' ago EEE was 3 years younger than XXX is now

f3)
assume E is EEE's age 2 years' ago
assume X is XXX's age now
2 years' ago EEE was 3 years younger than XXX is now

f4)
assume E is EEE's age 2 years' ago
assume X is XXX's age 2 years' ago
2 years' ago EEE was 3 years younger than XXX is now

f5)
assume E is EEE's age 4 years' ago
assume X is XXX's age 11 years' in the future (yeah I know wtf??!!!!!)
2 years' ago EEE was 3 years older than XXX is now

g1)
assume A is AAA's age now
assume B is BBB's age now
5 years ago AAA was 3 times older than BBB will be in 2 years' time

g2)
assume A is AAA's age 5 years ago
assume B is BBB's age in two years' time
5 years ago AAA was 3 times older than BBB will be in 2 years' time

Answers in next post, Good luck!

Is studying Euclid the answer as Banno suggests? — Dan84

Whatever you "get" and enjoy!

60- ? Then trying to add up
Bernice’ fat arse. — Dan84

B-60 = S will do just as well for the second equation (second piece of information)!

B-60 = S is the same information as B = S+60.

Notice how you can take -60 to the "other side" as long as you change its sign (in this case from minus to plus). But that is all about the rules of manipulating equations, which become intuitive after a while. The fun is to be had in generating the information in a mathematical form in the first place. I personally don't think it is worth putting people through learning how to manipulate and solve equations if they can't generate this information from situations; also I suspect they would struggle with manipulation anyway.

Ok. It’s not about the athrimetic is it, almost, it’s similiar to deductive logic. — Dan84

Yes, I think you're right. Let me know if you would like to see some more examples similar to the first :)

Thanks @Wallows!

B = 3 * S
B = S + 60

Nobody knows the extent to which a population of consenting and willing people can be taught mathematics. It's a mystery! However, I do feel that a person's response to the exercise below might be a good indicator of whether they will get on well with maths. If you can't do it then it might be that you just need to be shown the answers to a few examples. If you still don't "get" it then maths is not for you right now!

Exercise: Bernice is three times as heavy as Sandip, but if Sandip was 60 kg heavier then they would be of equal weight. Write down two equations that express this information (no need to solve them even!)

A correct answer is in the next post....














.

The nature of schooling across the world seems to be something that people everywhere don't question to any significant degree. I think it has a lot to do with the "successfully" educated being defensive about it, and the "lower orders" clamouring for some "success" or assuming their "betters" know best. It's thoroughly rotten when you think how dismal the whole thing is compared to what could be.

the only way to defend our democracy is in the classroom. — Athena

But the lessons are hollow if students are not taught how to be free thinkers. And how can they be free thinkers if the purpose of schooling is competitive, not personal?

I'm not sure many people are tuned in to "beauty". Most people fill their houses with things even they don't find beautiful.

So it is rare that they remember "nationally" what "they did to others", you agree?

And people do remember what has happened to them. — ssu

Do they remember what they did to others?

If you argue that countries are competitors at the economic level because of capitalism, well, that's part of capitalism. — ssu

No I'm not saying that countries operate like capitalist concerns. If you think about it they clearly don't. Capitalism is supposed to be about competing for business and winning because you can sell the most. In theory everyone benefits because the best product wins. And capitalist concerns prefer to do away with national borders as much as possible.

Awareness of your identity is seldom something you seek or you invent, but something that your surroundings give you. — ssu

"National identity" has to be culturally imparted - history, myths, hurts, triumphs, strengths, and so forth. I can understand your confusion though because we tend to think that we as individuals have the national mythology embedded in us intrinsically - this is what gives rise to the sense of superiority and entitlement that nationalist leaning people have.

Mixed bag, of course, but how are they an impediment to fairness? — ssu

Because the nation state tends to promote itself as a competitor with other nations. With competition there are winners and losers, and in the case of adherence to nation states, winners don't care if the playing fields are not level (Within a nation state however, there is usually much more effort made to make things egalitarian between geographic areas). A person born into a wealthy nation state has a much better chance of a bter life than a person born into a poor one.

They have no interaction, don't know each other, so what on Earth bonds them together so well, that the minority would accept to be dominated by the majority living somewhere else? — ssu

People who make up "minorities" and " majorities" require a cultural context to be given to them in order for them to accept the classification. In order to accept belonging to some groups even. They have to be told that they are group X because of Y. This is not true of language, admittedly, whereby you automatically identify with those who speak your language. It is partially true though even for appearance - it is others who may make a big deal of how you appear - you wouldn't even know how you look without a mirror! Also a shared language is no guarantee of all speakers belonging to a single block of interest - think civil war; N Korean inoctrination....

We go one better. You raped my wife? I'll rape yours AND your daughter...and now we're even. — gloaming

Well to be fair to the bible I think the quote (not that you were quoting) is rather more egailtarian as it were - "an eye for an eye" etc. In evolutionary terms revenge acts as a deterrent - particularly in small communities where reputation is going to be known. What counts in evolutionary terms is the reputation of the offended - "don't mess - it aint't worth it". But in modern society revenge is only an exercise of the emotion that was so useful in past times.Nowadays it can make you feel good for a while I guess, but is ultimately futile in most cases. Also revenge tramples on forgiveness and willingness to engage with the offending party - though that is not always a viable concept.

Trump reminds me of "the Mule" in Asimov's foundation trilogy - though surely not as clever he has certainly bypassed status quo predictions for the errmmm galaxy. For "Seldon plan" read globalisation lol!

So you think that being fans of sport teams can replace the nation state? — ssu

Yes, in terms of bringing people together. A certain psychological need for togetherness and belonging is fulfilled. Obviously I'm not suggesting that Manchester United raises taxes or invades Poland.

To view the nation states as inherently evil and worthless simply doesn't at all think about how our societies are and have been formed and takes every positive aspect as simply given. — ssu

I mentioned previously how nation states have historically brought about much "good" - though it is a mixed bag of course. But are they not really as parochial as modern tribes and an impediment to attaining fairness for all regardless of where you are born?

Would you assume the World would be better if basically the Han Chinese and Indians and their politicians, if only they could get together, would decide how much taxes you have to pay to them? — ssu

I don't get where you are coming from here with respect to nations not existing.

How do you approach democracy then? — ssu

You mean in a "united world?". I guess there would be levels of increasing geographic scales of government with voters choosing. (Not unlike the USA, which in some ways is not a typical nation state becasue it was a huge space sparsely populated and then filled with people from all round the world.)

I was referencing a moral value judgment -- and just saying from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no way to tell that the left-leaning values are better than the right-leaning ones. — LD Saunders

I wasn't making any "moral" judgement by pointing out that the right wing mentality served us well over the time scale of evolution. A good dose of sceptism, pessimism distrust and so forth are potions that can still usefully protect. However, there is a journey to be made in modifying our emotional intuitions which served us well in the past. because of the explosive nature of human technology and culture which require the "journey" to be made to make the most of them. This journey is evident historically in the sense that what was once deemed "liberal" is now accepted by "mainstream" conservative. But as world politics clearly demonstrates, it is still an ongoing battle.

Some people are able to embark on the journey more easily than others.

It's certainly not the case that one set of political beliefs is more evolved than others, or less evolved. — LD Saunders

There is no such thing as "more" evolved! Honest. (OK I suppose you are saying that yourself).

There is however emergence.....

I think the biggest factor that shakes out "left" and "right" is psychological profile. Rightwingers are not as trusting as leftwingers. Rightwingers are more inclined to pessimism. I think it's well documented by psychological research. I would say that rightwing thinking reflects our evolutionary past more than leftwing thinking, with the latter involving more novel intellectualisation and risk taking.

As regards opinions on taxation, it all depends on how issues are phrased. One thing everyone has in common is a strong sense of fairness - alas coupled with a generous dose of hypocrisy self delusion.

I think I'd prefer to be in flow!

I don't fullly agree with your descriptions of left/right thinking because I think the true picture is more nuanced and mixed up.

"1. Tribalism: The left likes foreigners and minorities, while people on the right, don't."

Isn't it more of a case that the left accept others for what they are - or indeed reject them for what they are..? (should be anyhow)

"2. Inequality. People on the right are unconcerned about inequality, while people on the left are greatly concerned about it."

Ordinary not well off right wingers turn a blind eye to billionaires' wealth but are angry that salaried middle class earn twice as much as them (reflecting an envy bias towards people who are in the same ball park).

Leftwing people make lots of statements about redistributing wealth and yet ......

"3. Human nature. People on the right view a person's wealth or poverty as being due to their own efforts in life, while people on the left look at institutional causes, outside the person's control."

People on the left tend to be meritocrats, and strongly advocate the competitive nature of education (while also claiming that education is really all about the love of learning).

If you attribute "rational" economic motives to individuals, where rationality = maximising money, then it is possible to generate all sorts of theoretical equations as to how people should behave economically. Strange as it may seem, it has only recently been recognised that people do not behave in such a "rational" way. They have all sorts of motives, some hidden some explicit.

So maybe economics has been overblown as a science. But as an art form, with the aid of some faiirly basic stats and logical analysis in conjunction with an inquisitive mind, freakonomics is the way to go!

I think that's a decent statement.

Yeah good luck with that — Wayfarer

If marijuana legalisation continues apace throughout the world and it is seen as "successful" on its own terms then cocaine legalisation will be more likely to be considered. But it would have to follow a very different model - one of harm and use reduction, with just enough supply available to eliminate the motive for criminal production. There is an awful lot to be gained if the appropriate model of legalisation based on expert advice and scientific data can be passed. Not only would many Latin American areas become viable to live in again, I think there would be a drop in cocaine use and addiction. This is what the experts tend to suggest, I believe.

The problem - or one problem - seems to be that the benefits of globalisation and neo-liberal economics have been very unevenly spread, even in that bastion of capitalism, the United States, not to mention many other nations. — Wayfarer

Yes I agree. the "liberal elite" have been congratualting themselves on the rights revoultions that have come about in recent decades, while holding on to all the cash for themselves. I think Universal Basic Income is the only way to make globalisation work for everyone. It's such a shame that Nixon never quite got it onto the statute book!

Obama was also pretty strict about border control, but he didn’t showboat it for votes the way Trump does. — Wayfarer

Border controls are seen as shameful by many progressive leaning people; some accept the need but are still wary of admitting it. Maybe such policies need to be publicly explained so that the likes of Trump can't exploit people's fears. The "left" needs to be savvy.

Regarding Latin America, there is one single act that would reduce the urge to migrate - eliminate the money to be made through illegal drugs - a lot of which is bought in the US and other western countries. This can be done by making cocaine etc legal to buy. It would have to be preceded by a massive program of public awareness to discourage using these drugs - which are far more damaging than cannabis.

Yes indeed it is a difficult situation (to think about), especially for anyone who has empathy for others. There are masses of people wanting to migrate for a host of reasons ranging from life threatening persecution and poverty to seeking Shangri La and everything in between. The age of communication has increased the appetite for migration and also enabled a variety of methods of migration, such as trafficking and now the walking train of Guatemala. On the other hand, the age of communication has done little to increase empathy for migrants - dead toddlers washed up on the beach doesn't cut it with most of the prosperous populations of the target nations, where the age of communications has seen a huge rise in hostility to "others" and defensiveness against a perceived invasive threat.

On the other hand, I really do think that there are far too many impoverished people from poorer regions of the world wishing to seek a better life in richer nations for uncontrolled migration to be allowed. It is unsustainable and would lead to chaos. And yes resentment from large sections of the host populations when change happens too fast and on too large a scale. This might be an unpleasant realisation, but it is a fact that will not change. And while extra provision has to be made for people fleeing from opression and danger, it is clear the asylum system is being sorely tested by economic migrants.

So what to do? Firstly, I think we ought to recognise that countries targeted for migration have something in common. They are generally speaking "liberal democracies". People want to move to liberal democracies, ideally. They like what they see. In the long term the current batch of liberal democracies need to "export" their political system to the world and not do the opposite for selfish reasons - e.g arms sales and trade that enhances the elites of despotic states who are never going to allow trade to soften them like what eventually happened in the west throughout the course of the industrial revolution and in to the twentieth century. This exporting of liberal democracy should not be seen as patronising or colonialism - it is a vital mission, and one that should not be driven by material benefit for the exporters.

In the shorter term -but linking in with the idea of the liberal democracies jointly selling their philosophy to the rest of the world - they need to pick out countries for privileged treatment that are going to respond best to massive aid and then accept migrants as citizens. The developed world can still have its quotas for migration.