Philosophy

A PHILOSOPHER LEFT HIS CORPSE ON PUBLIC DISPLAY TO SHATTER SOCIETAL DELUSIONS ABOUT DEATH

https://quartzy.qz.com/1127967/jeremy-benthams-auto-icon-and-head-a-philosopher-shows-how-we-should-all-face-death/

Philosophers are building ethical algorithms to help control self-driving cars

https://qz.com/1204395/self-driving-cars-trolley-problem-philosophers-are-building-ethical-algorithms-to-solve-the-problem/

Nootropics aren't anything new. I am sure the promise of increasing your intelligence is tempting but does it undermine the value of hard work? Could this - if it works - lead to an intelligence arms race where the need to compete means you would feel forced through necessity to take the drug? I feel that this really undermines education if you think that the ability to think clearly and ethically is simply a matter of problem-solving. Nootropics aren't anything new. I am sure the promise of increasing your intelligence is tempting but does it undermine the value of hard work? Could this - if it works - lead to an intelligence arms race where the need to compete means you would feel forced through necessity to take the drug? I feel that this really undermines education if you think that the ability to think clearly and ethically is simply a matter of problem-solving. People mistaking intelligence for thinking, perhaps they should take up philosophy. Obviously, I define 'intelligence' as an ability and 'thinking' as an act.

This “Smart Drug” Could Hack Your Brain Chemistry to Increase Your Intelligence

https://futurism.com/this-smart-drug-could-hack-your-brain-chemistry-to-increase-your-intelligence/

Chimpanzees have been taught sign language but never asked a question? Is that what stops them from doing philosophy?

Woe! This wistfully desolate thread! Woe!

I'm not interested in most of these thought experiments, I never watched 'VSauce' or 'TEDTalks' or the like because it always gave the impression of pseudo-intellectualism, both in construction and appeal. My pseudo-intellectualism is on a higher level than that.

On Nootropics, that I am aware of - they work mostly as placebos and those that have been tested aren't actually effective. Yet the 'Arms Race' you speak of is already happening in a lot of universities, there's a Netflix documentary on it called 'Take Your Pills'.

I would say that the virtue of 'Hard Work' is misguided anyway. You can work hard and achieve nothing, it's more a question of how you work. Being that intelligence is generally considered largely an attribute of genetics, and a more intelligent people will already have an easier time understanding or finding a more efficient route to a given outcome - the 'playing field' is already uneven. The same with any other ‘talents’.

That said, nobody understands well what 'intelligence' is, which may be why Nootropics have thus far been ineffective. I think I have a good idea, but of course I do.

Otherwise, one’s ability to think clearly IS a matter of problem solving. That’s what thinking is. Ethically not so much, because ethics are rooted in emotion and bias. In truth, I would think that higher intelligence would be the death of ethics, and would make society unsustainable.

I hate typing in these tiny boxes

If you who don't think moral facts exist is it because you're not convinced by the foundational logic presented by moral realism or is it because you intuit that activities, slavery, for example, is not inherently wrong?

My personal belief is that if there is a property of moral truth then what apparatus could we or should we have access to in order to detect it? Are we dealing with an epistemological or a metaphysical problem when trying to ascertain the truth of an assertion?

I am interested in the role self-delusion would play. I don't think it's error-theory I am thinking of, but if we self-deceive then under what circumstances do we do it? The idea that in moments of anxiety, order to self-soothe we self-deceive but only when the stakes aren't that great, interests me, although it's probably nonsense. So if you were rejected by a potential partner you might think she was playing hard to get so you had to prove yourself to her, whereas, you couldn't self-deceive yourself that you could swim if you were jumping off a sinking ship, that would be a fairly calculated action given the circumstances.

Problem-solving is great but conversational partners seem so often to be on a different wavelength that it really inhibits a lot of conversation online. Plus the time constraints of the rushed modern world seem to have eroded a lot of people's desire for reflection.

I would say that the virtue of 'Hard Work' is misguided anyway. You can work hard and achieve nothing, it's more a question of how you work. Being that intelligence is generally considered largely an attribute of genetics, and a more intelligent people will already have an easier time understanding or finding a more efficient route to a given outcome - the 'playing field' is already uneven. The same with any other ‘talents’.

Would you agree that if you don’t work then you want make anything of yourself regardless of how intelligent you are? I struggle to think of many intelligent but bone idle people hitting it big unless they inherited, and then it would be more of a matter of falling out of the right womb?

Otherwise, one’s ability to think clearly IS a matter of problem-solving. That’s what thinking is. Ethically not so much, because ethics are rooted in emotion and bias. In truth, I would think that higher intelligence would be the death of ethics, and would make society unsustainable.

Could you elucidate on that last sentence, I don't quite follow.

Mr. Happy wrote:I hate typing in these tiny boxes

If you who don't think moral facts exist is it because you're not convinced by the foundational logic presented by moral realism or is it because you intuit that activities, slavery, for example, is not inherently wrong?

My personal belief is that if there is a property of moral truth then what apparatus could we or should we have access to in order to detect it? Are we dealing with an epistemological or a metaphysical problem when trying to ascertain the truth of an assertoric claim?

I will admit I don’t read much Philosophy, largely by choice – I prefer to produce my own theories, where inspiration from others is ‘cheating’. If you wish to present any Philosophical ideas I may thus be ignorant of, then be my guest.

I would propound that morality, as is ethics, is the product of the human ability to reason coupled with emotional biases derived from our evolution.
To declare something as ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ requires a judge, that is a conscious mind. The problem with this is that there is and could not be such a mind that has sufficient authority to make their judgement absolute. That it contradicts itself where a universal law would be unable to be defied – which would render the non-existence of good and evil – yet anything less would not be absolute.
Further, we could not easily explain ad hoc from whence a meta-human or more accurately meta-bestial morality would originate, or what it would even mean. We can easily explain ad hoc from whence a human or bestial morality would originate – through evolution.
I would also say that if we cannot perceive something, by any instrument, that such a thing fails to interact meaningfully with anything else that can be asserted to exist, and such would serve no purpose in existing – we can assert that it doesn’t exist.

Mr. Happy wrote:
I am interested in the role self-delusion would play. I don't think it's error-theory I am thinking of, but if we self-deceive then under what circumstances do we do it? The idea that in moments of anxiety, order to self-soothe we self-deceive but only when the stakes aren't that great, interests me, although it's probably nonsense. So if you were rejected by a potential partner you might think she was playing hard to get so you had to prove yourself to her, whereas, you couldn't self-deceive yourself that you could swim if you were jumping off a sinking ship, that would be a fairly calculated action given the circumstances.  
Problem-solving is great but conversational partners seem so often to be on a different wavelength that it really inhibits a lot of conversation online. Plus the time constraints of the rushed modern world seem to have eroded a lot of people's desire for reflection.

Discussing delusion would make a rather broad topic.
I would say that humans self-deceive, in a sense, whenever presented with an explicitly contradictory version of truth that appears to carry more weight than that previous. I.E: humans tend to cognitive impetus. The two contradictory ‘truths’ result in cognitive dissonance, which promotes the self-delusion. People are much more likely to discount the ‘newer truth’. From an evolutionary perspective I would say that this promotes a normalization of values and discourages aberration, to increased overall sexual fitness. For clarification I would consider the larger environment of truth to be derived from the individual’s development, especially first from their parents or major carers.
Bare in mind that the basis of this theory is that human behaviour is explicitly inherited from evolution, or rather that psychological structures evolve in a comparable manner to physical features. I think this obvious. But yes, it would not be advantageous to self-deceive where it damages the fitness of a species – your ‘sinking ship’ analogy is fair. Yet, there are some delusions that disadvantage the individual, but benefit the species – and further, many aspects of human psychology that don’t work at all in the context of an advanced society: of course, evolution couldn’t ‘predict’ that.
I can’t address everything you’ve raised because it would simply take too long.

Mr. Happy wrote:
Would you agree that if you don’t work then you want make anything of yourself regardless of how intelligent you are? I struggle to think of many intelligent but bone idle people hitting it big unless they inherited, and then it would be more of a matter of falling out of the right womb?

Well yes if you fail to work at all, or perform negligible work, the upper-bound of human intelligence would be unlikely to solve your problems – but it certainly makes it easier.
I don’t personally buy the concept that intelligence is largely genetic. I would say that it is, in part, inherited ‘structures’ that predispose you to greater efficiency. But yet, intelligence in reduction is largely just a collection of skills. I see no reason why they couldn’t be learned as can any other skills, and it can be affirmed that childhood development does play a role in future intelligence – implying that these skills can be are not static by birth. I would assume that in childhood there is more cognitive fluidity, and that this fluidity is in part rejected at adulthood – though perhaps not irrevocably.
It would actually relate to the earlier part of what I said of the development of truth – that the adult impetus is encouraged and intelligence is an image of that.

So yes, I would say that it is likewise possible that ‘bone idle’ children, who refuse to ‘work’ in school: are actually damaging their intellectual development. And that many intelligent adults are perhaps the produce of their earlier work.

As to what extent, then, intelligence is inherited – I cannot say. I would lean to it being more developmental, but this isn’t the common conception. There are, of course, other talents that are explicitly genetic – in sports for instance.

Mr. Happy wrote:
Could you elucidate on that last sentence, I don't quite follow.

I meant it somewhat vague. I figure that it’s a personal philosophy that would be hard to explain.

I vaguely remember something being discussed in a psychological context about people lying to themselves as a defence mechanism. Telling lies you believe makes your lies more believable which would be something we evolved to do.
I think there have also been psychological experiments that confirm we tend to find a truth early on and stick to it.

However, I don't think the idea that intelligence is solely acquired through genetics is one I agree with. I think personal interest plays a huge part. How and to what extent puzzles me though. I could specify that something has to be coherent yet complex and contrarian to be surprising and I think from an evolutionary perspective it obviously benefits us to keep learning, but I have not given it much thought beyond that.

Also, I have a book somebody recommended by Cordelia Fine called The Gender Delusion. Her argument being that neuroplasticity means that the should be no difference in gender performance in any given task, the old gender is a social construction thing. As I say I haven't read it, so can't really comment on her argument but suffice it to say I am quite sceptical.

Mr. Happy wrote:
Also, I have a book somebody recommended by Cordelia Fine called The Gender Delusion. Her argument being that neuroplasticity means that the should be no difference in gender performance in any given task, the old gender is a social construction thing. As I say I haven't read it, so can't really comment on her argument but suffice it to say I am quite sceptical.

My issue with this argument is that, though I believe in intelligence as being technically 'fluid', I don't think that we have much conscious control over it. I would say that the human mind is predominantly non-conscious, where the sub-conscious ‘mind’ is itself capable of ‘thought’ but perhaps on a lower level. Such that makes sense of the massive amount of ‘input’ both externally and internally. Yet our conscious mind is subject to that. Which thought appear, and which stay, are not – especially at a young age – under significant conscious control. As to which ideas form and stay, and which ‘pathways’ are constructed to accommodate efficient thought – such is chaotic.

Of course the environmental conditions will affect this, through input. More so would they be affected by those regulatory processes of emotion and instinct, and those basal structures inherited. We have a pre-basis to distinguish, in the visual field, between what is ‘abject’ and regular. We have a pre-basis, further, to have a particular reaction to certain shapes and sounds – think of the movement of a spider, or the cry of an infant. More complex still, we have a pre-basis to the fundaments of language – to syntax and phonetics. Men and women are ‘coded’, likewise, in slightly different ways: these rule over neural fluidity, barring exception environmental circumstances.

I would apologise if I am rambling or making little sense – my head is killing me.

Chomsky has long proposed the idea of a universal apriori grammar and I think the FoxP2 gene would bear that out. Sadly, there is also the religion gene, necessary as it may have been at one point. Your post seems very coherent to me, not much more I could or disagree with.

My concern isn't just with the snake's oils salesman of nootropics but with technological implants that may one day become ubiquitous and make people intellectually lazy. Maybe closer to a meritocracy but that would complicate things with job applications becoming a lottery possibly decided by biases, not that different from now I suppose.

Mr. Happy wrote:Chomsky has long proposed the idea of a universal apriori grammar and I think the FoxP2 gene would bear that out. Sadly, there is also the religion gene, necessary as it may have been at one point. Your post seems very coherent to me, not much more I could or disagree with.

My concern isn't just with the snake's oils salesman of nootropics but with technological implants that may one day become ubiquitous and make people intellectually lazy. Maybe closer to a meritocracy but that would complicate things with job applications becoming a lottery possibly decided by biases, not that different from now I suppose.

Though I think a UG of some interpretation is most likely, I would concur with the Chomsky's critics in that he hasn't put enough into proving his theories or seeking evidence. Of course, I am happy to speak theoretically as I have - on a forum - but if I were to publish I would feel obliged to put much more into the way of proving them. Of course, proof akin to mathematical proof is not entirely feasible within the realms of Psychology, Linguistics, often Biology etc. but there are other, weaker, ways of 'proving' something. I would also discourage one from becoming too invested into a theory which has little evidence to support it. Sigmund Freud is a good example of a very intelligent person, one with many good ideas - but one that became too entrenched in his own ideas that were supported more by personal intuition than reasoning or evidence.

On religion, I really wouldn't expect there to be a 'religion gene', but that our inclination to religion and its components arises more out of 'gaps' that are the by-product of higher consciousness restrained with animalistic emotionalism and instinct. One being a desire for council and authority, such as we have for purpose as children under parents or carers - but where we mature and 'lose' our parents or carers there is left a vacuum. A discomforting vacuum that we attempt to fill. An explicit example would be in Ancestor Worship, that they literally encourage the illusion that those family members - or as an abstraction, more ancient family members - continue to exist as an entity that can allow them the same council and authority that is otherwise absent. Of course, other more oft-cited ‘gaps’ are those of a need for answers to thus unanswerable questions.

Freud may have been an intelligent person with good ideas but I think it's worth highlighting this:

“Freud was full of horse¤¤¤¤!” the therapist Albert Ellis, arguably the progenitor of CBT, liked to say. It’s hard to deny he had a point. One big part of the problem for psychoanalysis has been the evidence that its founder was something of a charlatan, prone to distorting his findings, or worse. (In one especially eye-popping case, which only came to light in the 1990s, Freud told a patient, the American psychiatrist Horace Frink, that his misery stemmed from an inability to recognise that he was homosexual – and hinted that the solution lay in making a large financial contribution to Freud’s work.)

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/07/therapy-wars-revenge-of-freud-cognitive-behavioural-therapy

This link further elucidates:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/06/science/as-a-therapist-freud-fell-short-scholars-find.html?pagewanted=all

I may be going off on a tangent here, but I find Freud's motivations and methodology highly suspect and have no faith in him. The idea of the Oedipus complex, for example. Freud believed because we have held onto that myth then it must have significance and blah, blah, blah...

Freud is only relevant from a historical perspective and Joseph Jastrow conceived of the multi-level model of the mind in 1906 about... 15 years before Freud?

The religious gene has an evolutionary purpose for existing which is to act as a social glue, religion has been instrumental in the formation of societies, and as you say to fill gaps in knowledge.

Here is a link about the god gene if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Mr. Happy wrote:Freud may have been an intelligent person with good ideas but I think it's worth highlighting this:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/07/therapy-wars-revenge-of-freud-cognitive-behavioural-therapy

This link further elucidates:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/06/science/as-a-therapist-freud-fell-short-scholars-find.html?pagewanted=all

I may be going off on a tangent here, but I find Freud's motivations and methodology highly suspect and have no faith in him. The idea of the Oedipus complex, for example. Freud believed because we have held onto that myth then it must have significance and blah, blah, blah...

Freud is only relevant from a historical perspective and Joseph Jastrow conceived of the multi-level model of the mind in 1906 about... 15 years before Freud?

The religious gene has an evolutionary purpose for existing which is to act as a social glue, religion has been instrumental in the formation of societies, and as you say to fill gaps in knowledge.

Here is a link about the god gene if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

That was really what I was referring to under Freud. Intelligent guy, and I would say he had many ‘good’ ideas from the perspective that they were interesting and fuelled further research – but he was ruled by biases and undue faith in the unproven. The Oedipus Complex very strongly sounds as projection, as do many of his theories.

One issue with the God gene is similar to the issues people have with Chomsky’s UG, that genetic mutations of that kind take a longer time period to emerge dominant than there is room for in the evolution of Homo Sapiens. I would personally give more weight to the UG as it is something that can be easily understood to exist outside of Homo Sapiens – that most animals are capable of communication that can be assumed to have lead to the more advanced grammar of modern humans. There is no similar comparison to that of god, being that it is a concept on too high a level to compare with other animals, including earlier variants of the Homo genus. Of course, many concepts in Evolution, Psychology etc. are explained with an Ad Hoc argument which is absolutely fair when there is no better explanation or evidence against it – but for a ‘God Gene’ I think it rather fallacious. I would see it more likely that VMAT2 would be better considered a social gene of sorts, and ‘god gene’ is a misnomer.

TBH, I have never understood the fascination with trying to discover where language comes from. I agree that there is little evidence for universal grammar but perhaps it provides some sort of theoretical guidance as a model. Chomsky is very good at picking apart other people' theories but not so much with providing alternatives, but that's a common problem.

Eliminative Materialism is a concept that I think is more unsound than either UG of the God Gene. And the origins of consciousness would more interesting to me.

The social sciences are sticking their heads in the sand over a crisis of legitimacy at the moment.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/psychologys-replication-crisis-cant-be-wished-away/472272/

Hume would be laughing.

Talks about how Patreon makes money from donations to people who can't afford surgery and are profiting from government failings, among other things.

And, as predicted by the theory, these seven moral rules – love your family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to authority, be fair, and respect others’ property – appear to be universal across cultures. My colleagues and I analyzed ethnographic accounts of ethics from 60 societies (comprising over 600,000 words from over 600 sources)2. We found that these seven cooperative behaviors were always considered morally good. We found examples of most of these morals in most societies. Crucially, there were no counter-examples – no societies in which any of these behaviors were considered morally bad. And we observed these morals with equal frequency across continents; they were not the exclusive preserve of ‘the West’ or any other region.

https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-the-world/The article is quite bevolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-the-world/

Brief and not particularly detailed. I don't see this as an argument for Moral Realism. Really this is ad populum and not universal. Arguing that morals are the product of evolution has never dissuaded any Anti-Moral Realists.

Defer to authority sounds a little ominous but I think that is in conflict resolution.

"Morality is always and everywhere a cooperative phenomenon."

Rawkuss wrote:I am interested in the role self-delusion would play. I don't think it's error-theory I am thinking of, but if we self-deceive then under what circumstances do we do it? The idea that in moments of anxiety, order to self-soothe we self-deceive but only when the stakes aren't that great, interests me, although it's probably nonsense. So if you were rejected by a potential partner you might think she was playing hard to get so you had to prove yourself to her, whereas, you couldn't self-deceive yourself that you could swim if you were jumping off a sinking ship, that would be a fairly calculated action given the circumstances.

This article is interesting and seems to suggest that theory is perhaps not that far off: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/