Though, if I understand correctly, that “homosexual” gene can always be passed on by a heterosexual couple, correct? — Brett

At least, by heterosexual action as I understand sexuality, yes. Male sperm needs to impregnate a female. Not taking into account some weird developments of modern technology.

Sure, I understand that. I think where I might be tripping up is that you mean ‘an interest in other men’, that the gene creates. But doesn’t that mean he would not be homosexual, but only have an interest in men? — Brett

Well, all I can answer for that is that nothing seems black and white in psychology. Is any homosexual purely homosexual? We know that many men have true disgust for sexual relations with women. And the same but opposite for women. Can we pinpoint the exact genes or learned reasons for those? probably not. But we can say that a sexual interest for the same sex is inevitably increased by this quirk of evolution.

Just realized: forcing homosexual people to act heterosexual increases the amount of "homosexual genes" in the gene pool. Maybe the widespreadness of homosexuality is not because of this small inevitability of evolution, but because of our historical cultures that have forced homosexuals to act heterosexual.

But the start of homosexuality is probably because of this quirk of evolution.

Okay, I think I get it. But if a man had a sexual interest in other men and only other men how would that gene be passed on? — Brett

If this was genetic and not learned, then according to this theory, the genes that made him be like that would increase the changes of the other sex to reproduce even more than it decreased his.

Ironically forcing that man to act heterosexual would increase the amount of those genes in the gene pool.

But I'm not saying that this is the only reason for homosexuality - I'm just saying that this makes it practically a necessity of evolution.

There are no inevitabilities in evolution, sans death. — StreetlightX

With evolution nothing is certain, but many things are almost inevitable. — Qmeri

So, it's besides the point. Hard to say these things efficiently without compromises, but technically you are right. Sans death ;)

I just added to the text:

even if it increases the sexual interest of a man to men. — Qmeri

So, sorry for that. But evolution in the long term takes pretty much all "easy" mutations into account. What we know of evolution seems to imply that psychological mutations that do not need a major increase of things like processing power or something else seemingly large physical change in the brains, seem to be relatively easy mutations. So, things like mental interests most likely happen very quickly. With evolution nothing is certain, but many things are almost inevitable.

thx for you too... don't know how long it would have taken me to realize what I just realized without this conversation :)

Assigning equal probabilities to all possible world with zero information seems like an baseless assumption. Why are we assigning equal probability to all possible worlds? We just don't know. — ChatteringMonkey

I kind of agree with this... while we can clearly see in nature in quantum mechanics that there doesn't seem to be any bias towards certain possibilities over others - so it is very well confirmed empirically. But have a hunch this is something that can also be proven logically. Alas, my theory of limitation information is not yet complete, but I will keep working on it.

Right now, the best reason for it is: some possibilities being more probable than others without a reason just doesn't work like we experience the world to work. And also - when we consider every possibility without prior information about its probability we end up with all of them having the same expected probability since we know nothing about everyone of them. Hey! Huzzah! Just solved it logically! Take that Shannon!

In my view no new information can be gained by logic alone, that are just tautologies or repackaging of the same information.

Like, Socrates is unmarried, therefor Socrates is a bachelor... no new information is gained, your are just using other words to say the same thing. — ChatteringMonkey

Then we agree - logic gives no new information. It is just a tool to analyze and understand information. But since there are many unintuitive or philosophically relevant tautologies and logical necessities (like "i think, therefore I am." or that "since there are infinitely many different logically possible gods in logically possible worlds and also worlds with no gods, the probability for any particular god without information is infinitely low.") it is useful to understand even the zero information state with logic.

That's kind of supposing a false dichotomy. Intuition and emotion are not separate from logic. In order to be convinced of a logical proof, you must be moved emotionally and intuitively in several ways first. For example, you have to care about truth and logic. You also have to be able to see logical connections, which I think happens to some degree at an intuitive level. If you have no intuition of why A->B means that if A the conclusion is B, and you also don't care, logic means nothing. — Artemis

I do agree that emotions are part of everything that means anything to us, but that is not universally accepted and is not the point of this thread, so I said it in the way that gets my point understood. One can use our irrational emotions to manipulate us. Intuition is not necessary at all for logic (although, it can of course be used to support logic). Every logical step can be made consciously. If you think intuition is necessary, please demonstrate.

And I did not make a false dichotomy about logic, intuition and emotions since that was just an example, not a claim of an absolute rule.

It is still founded on the work ethic. When we do not work, what distinguishes rich from poor in a way that is remotely justifiable? That there should be a small group that owns the world and lets us live is no longer thinkable. — unenlightened

Well, as I said in the foreseeable future. If everything gets automated and no one has to work justifying anything would be quite hard. Still, technically the Nordic system might work and more would be given to certain people simply because of historical ownership. In practice, I don't think it would work in that extreme situation. But to say that the owning class would simply kill others off would also be unthinkable... human nature dictates that our pleasure and status is greatly defined by those lower than us. Even the poor of many western countries have objectively better lives than many kings of the past, but they don't feel it. The rich need the poor to feel wealthy.

Ok, I see we have different definitions of information. For me, information is a limitation of the possible worlds we are in. Like if a number is between one and infinity, we have less information about it than when a number is between one and two. And when we make an empirical observation, that limits off the possible worlds where that observation would not happen. In my definition all my prior claims are correct.

What is your definition of information?

You do not start from zero information there though, you start from an idea of what humans are, and the improbability of such a creature having a golden fist up their ass. — ChatteringMonkey

I did start with zero information. I said that even without information we can see that most humans in most possible worlds don't have golden fists in their asses. The fact that one can practically use that realization in the case they end up being a random human has no relevance on the the fact that the starting claim is true even with zero information.

Likewise with God and simulations, they are not of this universe, and so we know nothing of that place... therefor no sensible probabilities can be made. You need some information to start with. — ChatteringMonkey

Logic does not care what universe something is from. The whole idea of logically possible worlds is about taking into account every possible universe - and we can derive useful realizations from that. Like: "I think, therefore I am." That is not related to our universe - it is true in all logically possible universes even without any information.

What are you going to base those probabilities on if you have no possible way of veryfying anything about them? If probabilities are based on nothing, then what's the point of those probabilities? — ChatteringMonkey

We can always start from zero information - a state where every logically possible world is equally possible. We can for example immediately see that in no world a bachelor is married or a thinking being not existing or any other logical necessity. We can also evaluate probabilities. Almost in no possible world do most humans have a golden fist in their ass - therefore even without any information you can say that if you are a random human, you probably don't have a golden fist in your ass. And therefore you can give probabilities to pretty much anything even without information - you just have to be able to consider all logically possible worlds.

Any one god being the only existing god is also extremely unlikely even without any information since there is an infinite number of logically possible gods in logically possible worlds.

Not everything can sensibly be assigned probabilities, some things are beyond our ability to verify either way, like say if we are living in a simulation or not, or God.

And yes, I'd say mental health or sanity can be a rational reason for choosing a belief beyond probabilities. We are not machines and have emotional needs... some beliefs concerning identity, free will and the like, possibly are better believing in for your sanity, whether they are true or not. — ChatteringMonkey

The psychological reasons I agree with, but not with that there are things we can't give probabilities for. The idea of a simulation or any given god are both things one can consider probable or improbable. There are many ways to argue for the probability of a god or simulation. They don't have to be absolute beliefs. If you think they have to be or just can't be given sensible probabilities, please demonstrate.

I'm looking for a model that doesn't entail most of us dying. — unenlightened

Well, we have the welfare system of the Nordic countries. They have been taxing the rich to give the poor the certainty in life to take risks and innovate and create private business for decades and they have not seen the widening of the gap between the owners of the machines and the working force that most of the western world has. And they have been economically very successful. Why would that not work for the foreseeable future of automation? Just tax the rich more to make the poor more educated and able to take risks according to the level of automation.

An AI that can automate human innovation in most applications would of course change everything.

There are non-rational factors in communication, but it is not necessarily contra rationality to employ them to make your communication more successful. The analogy I like is a medicinal pill: people are more likely to swallow a pill that tastes good and goes down smooth, regardless of its medicinal content. So flavor and texture can be used to get people to swallow placebos or even poison. But that does not mean that flavor and texture should be disregarded by doctors or pharmacists, and people should be berated for not taking pills based solely on their medicinal value. It means that doctors and pharmacists should ensure that their medicine does not take the form of a bitter jagged pill, but instead one that’s easier to swallow. — Pfhorrest

I agree, but the problem I have in the special case of "truth" is that our own reliability (the actual effectiveness of the pill) is not ever certain. The road of assuming yourself as reliable and starting to manipulate others in methods that don't test your veracity (making your pills easy to swallow irregardless of their effectiveness) is a reliable road to falsehood.

So you are saying that you do not know what rational means are? Or that you do? Or that you do not know whether you do or not? Perhaps it was irrational of me to presume you at least thought you knew whereof you spoke. — unenlightened

Saying that someone needs to be the arbiter of rationality for an idea to have merit is a big claim. This is not true about someone starting a discussion about a topic saying he has a problem to solve in the topic and giving a singular example without absolute definitions to give "feel" of the topic in order for people to be able give their ideas without being restrained to criticizing what I said.

I very clearly didn't give very specific ideas in the text and just gave questions since I truly want more ideas for me to consider since I'm personally somewhat stuck on this issue. Pretty much the opposite of having strong attitudes or something like that on the issue, which weirdly is the most talked about part of the text. People seem to read too much between the lines.

And that proposal only makes sense if you are the arbiter of rationality. — unenlightened

No. I haven't even given a definition of rationality. I consider that very open to discussion. The biggest proposition I have made about rationality is a singular example of a stereotypical creationist being hard to convince through rational means. None of what I have said are easily interpretable as me needing to be the arbiter of rationality.

You can't manipulate irrational people. You can only manipulate rational people. — Harry Hindu

Please, demonstrate. Do you mean that that it is sometimes easy to manipulate people who think they are rational?

Let me manipulate you into having the right attitude to this problem.

It is irrational to suppose that other people are irrational and that I am rational. So let's presume that we are all irrational and all open to manipulation by other irrational people. — unenlightened

My text never assumed anything about me being rational or someone being irrational. It proposed that if someone is irrational, they seem to be hard to convince trough rational means. There is very little information about my attitude or me being a reliable source.

These are my thoughts. I'm curious to hear yours. — Tzeentch

Well, I don't have a very complex stance on this problem. Personally, I think it's a general problem in the world that we concentrate on what people believe in over how they end up with their beliefs. And I also have found out that the more I try to use manipulation techniques to be more convincing, the more they come into my mind and influence my beliefs even when I'm thinking alone.

I started this thread very clearly with very few arguments in one way or another. It is clearly a thread to start a discussion and it clearly is about hearing other peoples perspectives about this issue. If there is no active thread about this, there is no problem starting one whether or not the issue has been talked about for centuries. Such is for most philosophical issues and threads.

You are promoting a question that is the main thrust behind every moral decision, since Immanuel Kant has walked the Earth. Is the means more important than the outcome, or the other way around? — god must be atheist

This thread is not just about whether outcome justifies the means. Maybe you read wrong. In the special case of truth, means also test what is truth, so it is not generally applicable to every "whether outcome justifies the means"-question.

So I wasn't dissing you or your topic, although it certainly looked like it. I just wanted to point out to you that this is an udecidable question, once someone paraphrased it and pared it down to its bare bones. — god must be atheist

Ah, ok... You just claim that the subject is not solvable. Please demonstrate it. Although, my text clearly doesn't try to solve the problem of ethics in this thread - just to start a discussion about influencing people by methods that don't test the veracity of our influence.

You are asking the same question, and ask us to help you in deciding it. — god must be atheist

Yes, I acknowledge that I started this thread to help me in solving this issue... Is there a problem with it?

There are appreoximately 21345 forum threads dealing precisely with that. Making one more when there are tons out there is morally insane Not morally deplorable, or morally commendable, just morally insane. — god must be atheist

Not that I have been very active in these kinds of forums for very long, but I have not yet seen a single active discussion about this precise issue: is manipulation right, when it seems to be for truth even though it stops testing us whether our manipulation is for truth?

Maybe I just haven't gone trough enough threads, but calling this thread morally insane is almost certainly a failure in your judgement.

I read the statement that logic and reason are the only way to advance Philosophy. Do you consider that to be true?
The reason I ask is that I also study insight... what would be considered the pattern recognition function of both the human and mechanical neural net. I was wondering if insight was considered a valid way to advance philosophy or is it somehow excluded as a tool? I've written about insight some and I do describe how insight must be converted into cultural tools such as language or math which logic can be applied to so it could be a moot point, but I was wondering where does insight fit in? — Mikey

Fundamentally, I don't think that most philosophers care where an idea came from. Even if it came from intuition, it will still be evaluated if it seems intriguing for a philosopher. Remember: logic was first invented without logic. And for example in ethics, many philosophers seem to consider our moral intuition an important demonstration of the philosophical reality of a moral dimension in reality even when they don't have a logical proof of a moral dimension.

While logic seems to be the demonstrably best tool for philosophy, that doesn't mean intuition and other things can't be used even if they end up being ultimately judged by logic.

In this way, I would certainly caution against dichotomizing higher intelligence and basic existential/human hierarchical needs as them being opposing values. Maybe think about how one can integrate both values of living. — 3017amen

Well, of course the human condition should be taken into account, since we are seemingly unable to completely control it. And I personally emphasize knowing my own unchangeable properties since they are so important for my performance and happiness. But since my logical mind disagrees on so many goals and properties of my human nature, it always ends up being a compromise no matter how much I try to integrate them together.

But this is a little bit off topic, since the main point of the text is that people, who don't perceive themselves being in the in-group of intelligentsia seem to distrust the intelligentsia even in subjects where they are clearly a very trustworthy source. And while I give evolutionary reasons for this, I'm not trying to say that intelligence and human nature are necessarily always opposing forces, although that would be an interesting topic for a discussion.

Well, you seem to disregard any point I make about intelligence until I give a robust definition for intelligence, which I can't do. Understandable, I guess. But irregardless of what general intelligence is, we do test people in very specific skills, like most major areas of science. Yet people who haven't done very well when tested in these specific skills often disregard the demonstrated expertise of other people from clear bias against their status of being part of the "intelligentsia". I'm not saying that there aren't any good reasons to distrust someone from this perceived "intelligentsia", but this is a major one and a very bad one.

This bias is demonstrated not only by the evolutionary reason for such intuitions, but also by the kind of behavior and language one must use to most effectively gain the trust of "non-intelligentsia", which usually includes repetition of how simple and easy to understand your methods and motivations are and mainly speaking on the level of intuition without giving anything well enough defined to be demonstrated false through logical data-analysis. The bad part is that such behavior is relatively easy to fake and it ends up with the masses being relatively easy to manipulate into trusting the very least trustworthy people on the planet: dishonest intelligent manipulators.

There are countless examples of a persons trustworthiness exponentially rising when he demonstrates his distance from the intelligentsia even when it's through his lack of important knowledge, but on the top of my head Henry Ford's 1919 trial against Chicago Tribune comes to mind. Ford lacked elementary school level knowledge of US history and many other things very relevant to things he had been very outspoken about for years, but instead of it being a humiliation, it raised his status within the common folk to new heights.

Human intuition seems to prioritize trustworthiness of someone from the same perceived in-group as you are even over demonstrated knowledge, lack of knowledge or systems that have built in mechanisms against corruption.

There is an even bigger problem: how can you tell if you are truly intelligent, or if you simply believe you are because you aren’t truly intelligent? — leo

This is an interesting point. And I somewhat agree with it. Although, we do have guite a lot of ways to measure things associated with intelligence objectively, like math, different forms of memory, and countless other things. And while the measurements will never be a perfect assessment of general intelligence (not least because we don't have an objective definition for general intelligence) they are good clues of what one can functionally do with their intelligence. And people who in their lives do badly in these measurable things, seem to distrust intelligence more.

Whereas the elitist mentality is counterproductive, it is stuck in dogma, spreads them forcefully, and arbitrarily dismisses important insights or discoveries that other people attempt to communicate. — leo

Acknowledging the phenomenon of distrust in intelligence by people who perform worse on measurable things associated with intelligence requires no elitism or dogma. While, humans being humans, such things will always produce some elitism, not acknowledging a meaningful phenomenon like this would be even worse. In a way, people who because of this phenomenon distrust the intelligentsia are the ones stuck in dogma, since they arbitrarily dismiss or distrust discoveries because of the particular group communicating them even when this particular group has demonstrated itself particularly trustworthy in that particular subject.

And you talk of trustworthy information, what is trustworthy information? In another thread you weren’t even willing to agree that “something exists” is trustworthy information, that it is truth, so if you won’t agree to that why do you expect people to blindly believe what others say simply because they pretend to be intelligent, simply because they pretend to be somehow more able, to be providers of truth? — leo

I do agree that a person who is not that intelligent is in a precarious situation. An intelligent person can identify true intelligence with his intelligence. What can someone without that skill do to distinguish between a person who actually understands something and someone who who just pretends? I really don't have an answer for that. Make basic education better? Make everyone more intelligent? People being aware of their intuitions against intelligence couldn't hurt? It's a complex problem, but acknowledging it as a problem is the start.

Okay, yes I agree that there can be a distrust of people who seem intelligent, but more generally there can be a distrust of people who seem more able in some way, for instance of people who have a greater physical force, or people who have more power for some reason. And the reason for that is easy to see, when we don’t know someone well we don’t know whether they have good or ill intentions with respect to ourselves, so not blindly trusting that they have good intentions is a necessary way to protect oneself. Especially if the other person or group of people is seen to be powerful in some way. — leo

Agreed... There are many things that evolution makes us distrustful of. But intelligence is peculiar in that practically all the systems we use to achieve trustworthy information require intelligence. So if we distrust intelligence, we also distance ourselves from much of the trustworthy information available.

But someone who loved Bush and was skeptical about Obama, and based this distrust in part on Obama's clearly more complicated and well organized speech, I think would be very unlikely to say that Obama is more intelligent, especially where it counts: policies and ideas that are good for us and in relation to those that are bad for us. — Coben

I do agree that no one ever says it out aloud or even thinks consciously that he distrusts someone because that person is intelligent. But the distrustful feelings and intuitions people have seem to be caused of things associated with intelligence.

And when I think about it... even I found Bush to be quite honest because he seemed to be so simple that he probably wasn't able to create complicated lies even if he tried to... unless he was next level and that was all for show.

Well, the point of the text isn't to venerate science specifically, but to consider the fact that people have a natural distrust of intelligence. I'll correct the part of the text that implies that science is specifically the only intelligent thing that is wrongly distrusted because of this intuition.

There is something special about it. “Something exists” is about our world. It is not necessarily true, because in principle it is possible than in the future it stops being true, that in the future everything ceases to exist. But now it is true.

Whereas “all white unicorns are white” is logically necessary, is true by definition but it doesn’t say anything about our world. We can also say “if there is nothing then there is nothing”, yes sure, awesome, but that doesn’t deal with our world. “Something exists” is a true fact about our world, now, and that’s important. — leo

I do agree that functionally "Something exists" is a useful realization. But when we don't consider it's utility for us and just consider whether being mistaken about it when you accept it is somehow more logically impossible than with any other logical necessity, we are wrong.

"Prediction" seems a wrong concept to apply to language. I thought that was an astrologer's domain. Language is about information isn't it and while that maybe useful to make predictions, language itself is solely about transmitting information and so your version of "mirroring" seems a bit off the mark. Perhaps you'll enlighten me. — TheMadFool

When writing "predict", I actually thought of using the word "evaluate", but it simply felt a little off. I agree that I probably should have used "evaluate" or "judge" instead. What I meant was: "If you consider something to be someway, because you are someway, you are using mirroring." In our communication we need a way to evaluate what someone means with their language and we usually use a lot of mirroring to make our evaluations.

But the particularity of “something exists” is that even if you believe you are mistaken about it, it still implies that “something exists” is true because in order for something to be mistaken something has to exist — leo

You seem to think there is something particular about "something exists" as a logical necessity since being mistaken about it is also a logical impossibility. Try the same thing with any logical necessity. They are all like that. "All bachelors are unmarried." Is that true in all possible worlds? Yes! Therefore it's a logical necessity. "Someone thinks that "all bachelors are unmarried" and is mistaken." Is that untrue in all possible worlds? Yes! Therefore it's a logical impossibility.

There is nothing special about "something exists" as a logical necessity. The logical impossibility of being mistaken about it is just so in your face that people get that intuition.

Again, even if you evaluate everything incorrectly, there is still an evaluation occurring. If you think things that don’t represent anything, there are still things that are thought. However you twist it, there is something occurring. — leo

Think of it this way: you are using logic against an argument where the whole point is that we can always fail at logic. Logical necessity of existence is a good logical necessity. But like with all logical conclusions - whether they are about a logical necessity or anything else - we could always just be mistaken. People make mistakes about logical necessities quite often.

You find it very difficult to accept philosophically that you exist? — ovdtogt

No, I do accept it philosophically, since I do consider logical necessities the highest form of proof. I just don't think even showing something to be a logical necessity is absolute proof, since we could just have made a mistake. Making a mistake about something being a logical necessity happens quite often.

So it is impossible that you have just evaluated all of your experiences, thoughts, definitions of certainty and existence and proofs and everything else incorrectly and that you are just thinking things that don't represent anything?

btw I don't think you are thinking about nothing since I do trust in logic, but I just don't think we can absolutely prove anything.

Well, this is starting to repeat itself since I would counterargue with the exact same argument and your counterarguments also seem very similar.

Something has to exist to be mistaken. — ovdtogt

If one is mistaken then one exists, if an evaluation is made then that evaluation exists, if that evaluation is incorrect it is still an evaluation, if the evaluation of the evaluation is incorrect it is still an evaluation, if it is incorrect that it is an evaluation it is still something, ... — leo

Okay, you clearly don't get the point of my argument. Your derivations are logically valid, but our evaluations that they are logically valid, including the evaluation of the derivation that even failed derivations need to exist to fail, can all be fallible. We might always be just talking words that don't represent any kind of truth and no one just realizing it.