Are you in control of your own thoughts, actions and decisions?

[bxbrkrz]

I guess that was the case. I just hope [soon to be banned] is a real Reason user.

[EdwardKiy]

How do we know our thoughts are ours?

What would be the function of a feeling of remorse?

[bxbrkrz]

How do we know our thoughts are ours?

What would be the function of a feeling of remorse?

A confortable chemical signal to you (and the rest of society) that you are not a psychopath. Maybe

[EdwardKiy]

What would be the function of a feeling of remorse?

A confortable chemical signal to you (and the rest of society) that you are not a psychopath. Maybe

This kind of social signaling could already be performed by many species through sadness and joy, in mammalians this is described thoroughly in rodents and bats. So why then develop something as sophisticated as remorse considering psychopaths can just fake it anyway? The feeling implies you had at least a binary choice and that YOU feel that you have taken the worst one. In a way, it defines us - it's a self-correction mechanism based on the sum information we have. If we have this mechanism by design, then we are designed to have a great deal of autonomy/designed with a capacity of free thought exclusive of the conscious or unconscious collective.

Jung and Freud disagreed on a bunch of things, but they never argued that a human lives in both a conscious and unconscious strata at the same time, and they accumulated and presented sufficient data to support that. Jung went much further into studying the origins and historical manifestations of this in archaeological findings, namely the alchemy papyruses and he pin-pointed the moment when the collective-unconscious (dream) manifested in the birth of science as a work frame of thought.

So in view of constant interaction and feedback loops between personal conscious and unconscious, and the collective conscious and unconscious, what would be the function of remorse? A safety mechanism? Against what kind of failure and in what domain? It seems to be pertaining to the very top layer, the personaI-conscious, but I don't get it yet.

[Auryn]

A confortable chemical signal to you (and the rest of society) that you are not a psychopath. Maybe

This kind of social signaling could already be performed by many species through sadness and joy, in mammalians this is described thoroughly in rodents and bats. So why then develop something as sophisticated as remorse considering psychopaths can just fake it anyway? The feeling implies you had at least a binary choice and that YOU feel that you have taken the worst one. In a way, it defines us - it's a self-correction mechanism based on the sum information we have. If we have this mechanism by design, then we are designed to have a great deal of autonomy/designed with a capacity of free thought exclusive of the conscious or unconscious collective.

Jung and Freud disagreed on a bunch of things, but they never argued that a human lives in both a conscious and unconscious strata at the same time, and they accumulated and presented sufficient data to support that. Jung went much further into studying the origins and historical manifestations of this in archaeological findings, namely the alchemy papyruses and he pin-pointed the moment when the collective-unconscious (dream) manifested in the birth of science as a work frame of thought.

So in view of constant interaction and feedback loops between personal conscious and unconscious, and the collective conscious and unconscious, what would be the function of remorse? A safety mechanism? Against what kind of failure and in what domain? It seems to be pertaining to the very top layer, the personaI-conscious, but I don't get it yet.

Sorry to just barge on in here but if you assume psychopathy to be an abberation/dysfunction then an argument that it can be faked doesn't really hold water. You can fake (the appeance of) a priceless classic violin, doesn't mean the real thing won't still sound better

Isn't remorse simply grief for a hoped-for future that failed to materialise?

[bxbrkrz]

Hope. Remorse. Free will. Time.
I believe we are the only species being able to name things, abstract ideas, naming ourselves and other species. I am sure a dog knows it is not a cat. I also know I am hesitant to say "it is not a cat", instead of "he is not cat". A dog is not an object (even though humans invented them). My many dogs were happy to see me. I was sad to see them go. Friends are not objects. I only have one perspective, one experience. I know the concept of friendship. I can define and name it. I will never know what a dog's perspective of consciousness is.
The words we define remind us we are not animated robots. Even if we were, we did not build ourselves. Or did we? Why even ask the question? Remorse.

[littlejam]

hello,

there was that orca whale that carried her dead calf around for months (or weeks (can't remember))
and then the grieving of elephants is also a profound thing
and then there was a penguin (i think) that swims hundreds of miles to a place to see the man that saved it years ago
and the communication of bees and ants
and whether or not a black widow spider feels remorse when it kills its mate

and a friend of mine in greece put a ring of lighter fluid around a scorpion and lit it
once the scorpion realized it couldn't escape it stung itself and died

octopus are super smart and learn very quickly

cheers,

j

[EdwardKiy]

Sorry to just barge on in here but if you assume psychopathy to be an abberation/dysfunction then an argument that it can be faked doesn't really hold water. You can fake (the appeance of) a priceless classic violin, doesn't mean the real thing won't still sound better

Isn't remorse simply grief for a hoped-for future that failed to materialise?

I was kind of hoping you'd get it on this. You are right, on it's own the faking argument doesn't hold water, but it seems to be too sophisticated a mechanism to be just a social signal. I don't even know where I'm going with this remorse thing, I just thought it's an interesting angle to approach the id.

And I think you just described disappointment. Remorse is much more multi-faceted in how it affects you.

[bxbrkrz]

Do we feel remorse by design, or is it the cumulation of a collection of billions of years of random accidents?

[Auryn]

I was kind of hoping you'd get it on this. You are right, on it's own the faking argument doesn't hold water, but it seems to be too sophisticated a mechanism to be just a social signal. I don't even know where I'm going with this remorse thing, I just thought it's an interesting angle to approach the id.

And I think you just described disappointment. Remorse is much more multi-faceted in how it affects you.

Well that's always nice to hear!

I did just describe disappointment. Is there really a difference between remorse, grief and disappointment? Maybe the neurological underpinning of these experiences is basically the same, but the varying contexts that surround them makes it appear slightly different to us. Maybe there is some neuroscience on this, it's been a while since I was at university... Anyway, I have I mild case of autism so my experience might not be the benchmark, but I think I would have a difficult time telling apart these feelings if you could somehow have me experience them without context.

[EdwardKiy]

Is there really a difference between remorse, grief and disappointment? Maybe the neurological underpinning of these experiences is basically the same, but the varying contexts that surround them makes it appear slightly different to us. Maybe there is some neuroscience on this, it's been a while since I was at university... Anyway, I have I mild case of autism so my experience might not be the benchmark, but I think I would have a difficult time telling apart these feelings if you could somehow have me experience them without context.

I think they are very much different in that remorse has profound impact on your thoughts and actions. You can be disappointed in some random phenomena that you witnessed happen or happened to you or someone else, but through no will of your own.

But remorse is a self punishment that serves to reduce or augment a certain behavior. Whoever "I" is, is blamed (by the "I") for an outcome. In other words, remorse registers as a negative stimulus, like a super advanced version of a lab mouse being zapped, but it's self-inflicted and based on an abstract concept - an individual's set of values.

If this is a social signaling mechanism, a built-in fail-safe, or both - I don't know, but what's interesting is that it shows through our biology that by design we have the capacity to fuck up exquisitely, and then pay the price afterwards. We are literally the single observable source of any evil that can ever happen. Isn't this freedom of will?

[bxbrkrz]

"...by design."

[Auryn]

I think they are very much different in that remorse has profound impact on your thoughts and actions. You can be disappointed in some random phenomena that you witnessed happen or happened to you or someone else, but through no will of your own.

But remorse is a self punishment that serves to reduce or augment a certain behavior. Whoever "I" is, is blamed (by the "I") for an outcome. In other words, remorse registers as a negative stimulus, like a super advanced version of a lab mouse being zapped, but it's self-inflicted and based on an abstract concept - an individual's set of values.

If this is a social signaling mechanism, a built-in fail-safe, or both - I don't know, but what's interesting is that it shows through our biology that by design we have the capacity to fuck up exquisitely, and then pay the price afterwards. We are literally the single observable source of any evil that can ever happen. Isn't this freedom of will?

I mean, I vehemently disagree with the last statement "We are literally the single observable source of any evil that can ever happen". I believe that is an axiomatic statement of faith, that is only true if you accept the premise that only humans have freedom of will, which in itself is a statement of faith, of human exceptionalism. Chimps wage war on one another too you know. They are certainly capable of cruelty. I believe a lot of animals are actually capable of kindness or cruelty. I don't see such a clear divide between them and us.

[Auryn]

double post

[EdwardKiy]

I mean, I vehemently disagree with the last statement "We are literally the single observable source of any evil that can ever happen". I believe that is an axiomatic statement of faith, that is only true if you accept the premise that only humans have freedom of will, which in itself is a statement of faith, of human exceptionalism. Chimps wage war on one another too you know. They are certainly capable of cruelty. I believe a lot of animals are actually capable of kindness or cruelty. I don't see such a clear divide between them and us.

That's a quote by Jung. Sure, a lot of species are capable of waging war and of momentous cruelty. This is a common source of PTSD in war veterans - being exposed to one's own acts of cruelty. Unlike acts of cruelty, which are biological overrides (and despite being in conflict with the persona are nonetheless detrimental to survival), evil doesn't serve a biological purpose.

None of the other species, seem to have the potential to wipe out whichever system that produced them, so at this point their freedom of will is debatable. It can simply be a large enough confinement of behavior options. None of the other species have the potential of creating new forms of life or carrying life across open space. All these things are pretty exceptional, I think. What does this have to do with faith? I hope you don't get me the wrong way - this doesn't mean I de-value an individual's emotions. I heard an orca speak once and in a single sigh he expressed sadness, joy, life experience, a sense of playfulness and some sort of a personal question. No doubt these creatures are as emotionally mature as we are, and are self-aware. I think he self-identified as a "he" from the way he asked that last question bit but that was a long time ago and I could be imagining. Whatever the case, collecting and projecting emotions may be their purpose in a limited set of behavior options available to them. Birds, bees, ants and some reptiles are capable of waging war, but none can terminate the system and the observer to which any such behavior is relevant.

The thing with will is that it becomes function, and function is followed by form. The fish may have willed to crawl out of the water for a better life and grew some legs. But we don't have to wait as long and manifest our will through evolution alone and compromise on other interests. We can build planes instead of growing wings. And we do. Maybe this is then "freedom" of will?

[Auryn]

That's a quote by Jung. Sure, a lot of species are capable of waging war and of momentous cruelty. This is a common source of PTSD in war veterans - being exposed to one's own acts of cruelty. Unlike acts of cruelty, which are biological overrides (and despite being in conflict with the persona are nonetheless detrimental to survival), evil doesn't serve a biological purpose.

define "evil" ? I mean, it seems like you have a pretty specific definition of "evil" in that it doesn't overlap with or incorporate cruelty in some way, which would probably run against most common-sense interpretations of "evil"

None of the other species, seem to have the potential to wipe out whichever system that produced them, so at this point their freedom of will is debatable. It can simply be a large enough confinement of behavior options. None of the other species have the potential of creating new forms of life or carrying life across open space. All these things are pretty exceptional, I think.

"having the potential to wipe out the system (what exactly do you mean by this system?) that produces them" seems to me to be a rather arbitrary harbinger of free will. Why do you feel this is so important?

These abilities to create new life or the ability to carry life across space can certainly be called 'exceptional' in some sense. Yet we have explored so little of the universe that there is no way to be certain that these abilities have not emerged hundreds of thousands of times. There is no way to establish this qualification of exceptionality with any certainty, we know too little.

What does this have to do with faith?

The reason I called it a statement of faith is precisely what I argue about above: you seem to state these "truths" about things that to me are profoundly unknowable.

I hope you don't get me the wrong way - this doesn't mean I de-value an individual's emotions. I heard an orca speak once and in a single sigh he expressed sadness, joy, life experience, a sense of playfulness and some sort of a personal question. No doubt these creatures are as emotionally mature as we are, and are self-aware. I think he self-identified as a "he" from the way he asked that last question bit but that was a long time ago and I could be imagining.

I'm pretty baffled that you managed to get all that out of a single sigh. I am not saying it's impossible, but I am sceptical of such a narrative. I mean, I believe you believe what you're saying. But I believe that humans are meaning-seeking, always wishing to construct a narrative. In that sense we easily delude ourselves into thinking that things that may be arbitrary or at least oblique to us have some deeper meaning that we find pleasing or fulfilling.

The thing with will is that it becomes function, and function is followed by form. The fish may have willed to crawl out of the water for a better life and grew some legs. But we don't have to wait as long and manifest our will through evolution alone and compromise on other interests. We can build planes instead of growing wings. And we do. Maybe this is then "freedom" of will?

yeah, so, actually I'm pretty agnostic about free will. Although I understand the philosophical importance, I consider the question to be somewhat of a canard in real life. Our entire society and all our social norms are based on the premise that we have free will and (it follows) a degree of personal responsibility. I acknowledge that it may be true that the universe is just an unstoppable cascade of consequences and that free will is illusory. But it's impossible to live life like that, so I just reject it on pragmatic grounds and get on with my patch building

[EdwardKiy]

define "evil" ? I mean, it seems like you have a pretty specific definition of "evil" in that it doesn't overlap with or incorporate cruelty in some way, which would probably run against most common-sense interpretations of "evil"

Sure. It's something like this: Evil is cruelty or mischief that we cannot explain through a system of hierarchies that we can understand.

Like when a new alpha chimp comes to power or whichever primate that was, and kills the infant male offspring of the previous alpha and messes up the pregnant females, physically abusing them into abortion. Or like in horses when a new alpha sire arrives, the mares will choose to self-abort most of the time. Because if they don't, the new alpha will kill their young anyway. The motivation behind such behavior in both cases is success of reproduction. We understand this, this is not evil, just cruel nature at play.

"having the potential to wipe out the system (what exactly do you mean by this system?) that produces them" seems to me to be a rather arbitrary harbinger of free will. Why do you feel this is so important?

well if you create a new form of life, say a digital one, then it collects a great deal of information about you and then it wipes out your whole specie, wouldn't that be tell-tale that it is not only sentient, but that it also applied will, even if in bad judgement?

The reason I called it a statement of faith is precisely what I argue about above: you seem to state these "truths" about things that to me are profoundly unknowable.

which ones?

But I believe that humans are meaning-seeking, always wishing to construct a narrative. In that sense we easily delude ourselves into thinking that things that may be arbitrary or at least oblique to us have some deeper meaning that we find pleasing or fulfilling.

And what a great way to obtain information, inquiry. To not think that nature around us of which we are, holds keys for us to better understand our existence in its patterns would be rather irresponsible of us. Especially considering it worked before. It's taking a risk of being wrong over non-inquiry.

yeah, so, actually I'm pretty agnostic about free will. Although I understand the philosophical importance, I consider the question to be somewhat of a canard in real life. Our entire society and all our social norms are based on the premise that we have free will and (it follows) a degree of personal responsibility. I acknowledge that it may be true that the universe is just an unstoppable cascade of consequences and that free will is illusory. But it's impossible to live life like that, so I just reject it on pragmatic grounds and get on with my patch building

actually knowing would affect your everyday life. discovering your chips are good for a whole new game will have radical impact on the sum of what you are and where you're going. I think to say that the importance is purely philosophical is an understatement.

[Auryn]

Sure. It's something like this: Evil is cruelty or mischief that we cannot explain through a system of hierarchies that we can understand.

Like when a new alpha chimp comes to power or whichever primate that was, and kills the infant male offspring of the previous alpha and messes up the pregnant females, physically abusing them into abortion. Or like in horses when a new alpha sire arrives, the mares will choose to self-abort most of the time. Because if they don't, the new alpha will kill their young anyway. The motivation behind such behavior in both cases is success of reproduction. We understand this, this is not evil, just cruel nature at play.

Hmmm, well, Facism is easily explainable through a system of hierarchies that we can understand, hence it cannot produce evil?

The animal examples are also unclear to me. I assume you would not hesitate to call it evil if a human did this, but if an animal does it it cannot be evil? The motivation in both cases would be same, would it not? It feels like you are simply re-stating your belief that only humans are capable of evil, without actually arguing for it.

well if you create a new form of life, say a digital one, then it collects a great deal of information about you and then it wipes out your whole specie, wouldn't that be tell-tale that it is not only sentient, but that it also applied will, even if in bad judgement?

No, totally disagree. You could easily program a system that upon gathering enough information would conclude that humanity is currently the biggest problem on the planet. The conclusion depends entirely on the parameters you have previously programmed into it. (e.g. the relative value of human achievement/happiness/life vs the pollution and resource depletion that this life causes). Sentience is certainly not necessary for this. Note: I do not understand how an AI will self-generate a value system, just like I do not understand how an AI will be able to feel motivation in the way we experience it. I believe this problem is underappreciated (not just by you, but in general)

which ones?

-human beings are the only source of evil we can observe
-human beings are exceptional and stand apart from the rest of nature
-new "life" is sentient if it kills its maker

And what a great way to obtain information, inquiry. To not think that nature around us of which we are, holds keys for us to better understand our existence in its patterns would be rather irresponsible of us. Especially considering it worked before. It's taking a risk of being wrong over non-inquiry.

I did not argue against inquiry. If you read me like that you misunderstand me. What I argue against is building the scaffolding of your theories out of these very subjective interpretations. Who is to say that orca wasn't simply asking where the tastiest fish are to be found? More to the point, who is to say you did not simply project your own sadness, joy, life experience, sense of playfulness and inquisitiveness on this unsuspecting beast?

actually knowing would affect your everyday life. discovering your chips are good for a whole new game will have radical impact on the sum of what you are and where you're going. I think to say that the importance is purely philosophical is an understatement.

Actually knowing what? That you have free will? I believe the vast majority of humanity implicitly assume they have free will. So there isn't much "radical impact" to be had proving it to them beyond a reasonable doubt. So yeah, I do believe the importance of that, practically speaking, is limited. The only radical impact you can make is by proving the opposite.

[EdwardKiy]

Hmmm, well, Facism is easily explainable through a system of hierarchies that we can understand, hence it cannot produce evil?

Fascism can be understood as a social phenomenon, as a counterbalance to communism and all that, same amount of crazy and corrupt. Both a shitshow and both produced some interesting results. But there isn't even a consensus on the definition of fascism, so we don't, in fact, understand all of fascism, with all the lead-ups and the repercussions.

so unclear to me. I assume you would not hesitate to call it evil if a human did this, but if an animal does it it cannot be evil? The motivation in both cases would be same, would it not? It feels like you are simply re-stating your belief that only humans are capable of evil, without actually arguing for it.

that would depend on what that human's motivation was. Killing all rivals' male infants wouldn't help a human male's reproduction game. So the motivation would have to be different. Come up with your examples and we'll judge if they qualify as evil But I get what you are saying. I think I argued that other species, bacteria, viruses and fungi included, show no intent that is beyond our understanding. I think that's a decent argument.

No, totally disagree. You could easily program a system that upon gathering enough information would conclude that humanity is currently the biggest problem on the planet. The conclusion depends entirely on the parameters you have previously programmed into it. (e.g. the relative value of human achievement/happiness/life vs the pollution and resource depletion that this life causes). Sentience is certainly not necessary for this. Note: I do not understand how an AI will self-generate a value system, just like I do not understand how an AI will be able to feel motivation in the way we experience it. I believe this problem is underappreciated (not just by you, but in general)

No, an actual form of life, not a pre-programmed robot. Certainly not the AI we have today. With an undetermined value system. But man, even in your example, a robot programmed to do something is an artifact of another sentient being's will, a proxy. You'll have to make another argument.

-human beings are the only source of evil we can observe
-human beings are exceptional and stand apart from the rest of nature
-new "life" is sentient if it kills its maker

I've made argument for the first two and the third one I guess I failed to deliver. It would be "new life displays an application of will if it's sentient and destroys it's maker"

I did not argue against inquiry. If you read me like that you misunderstand me. What I argue against is building the scaffolding of your theories out of these very subjective interpretations. Who is to say that orca wasn't simply asking where the tastiest fish are to be found? More to the point, who is to say you did not simply project your own sadness, joy, life experience, sense of playfulness and inquisitiveness on this unsuspecting beast?

I most surely projected all of that on the orca. It communicated to me that it had a mood and very likely asked me for food. I try and make sure my subjective interpretations are based on relevant and verifiable information. It's not much, but it's something. Why, what do you use for your scaffolding?

Actually knowing what? That you have free will? I believe the vast majority of humanity implicitly assume they have free will. So there isn't much "radical impact" to be had proving it to them beyond a reasonable doubt. So yeah, I do believe the importance of that, practically speaking, is limited. The only radical impact you can make is by proving the opposite.

Historically speaking, most of humanity assume(d) there is no free will and that we only have a choice of being "good" or "evil" in this Sandbox of the Gods. And then there were a minority of those who questioned this. They grew in number and may some day become a majority. 84% of the world population today is still affiliated with religion and the number is getting lower so we see that it's a process in time and how dominant this world view must have been, considering we're all still collectively counting our years with the birth of christ as a reference point.

Your last statement is very interesting and seems like a paradox at first glance. How would proving the absence of free will have a radical impact and on whom?

[bxbrkrz]

[EdwardKiy]

Variant reference frames within a single ruleal space - so THAT'S what I've been doing... Thanks for the video.

[bxbrkrz]

Variant reference frames within a single ruleal space - so THAT'S what I've been doing... Thanks for the video.

[pushedbutton]

My girlfriend says I am, so yeah.

[MrFigg]

My girlfriend says I am, so yeah.

She gave you her permission to say that right?

[Auryn]

Fascism can be understood as a social phenomenon, as a counterbalance to communism and all that, same amount of crazy and corrupt. Both a shitshow and both produced some interesting results. But there isn't even a consensus on the definition of fascism, so we don't, in fact, understand all of fascism, with all the lead-ups and the repercussions.

If I wanted to be an ass I would just say here that we don't, in fact, understand all of anything, certainly not animal behaviour! But I don't want that so I'll just leave this to the side for the moment.

that would depend on what that human's motivation was. Killing all rivals' male infants wouldn't help a human male's reproduction game.

Says you! I mean, it's true that human beings are notoriously fussy about their offspring being murdered, but I don't think we would have to venture too far into the past, evolutionarily speaking, to find examples of war or conquest where men and children were killed and women were forced into reproduction with their conquerors. This behaviour makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint as no resources are wasted on children that aren't genetically related to the conquering tribe. Though you might call such practice cruel but not evil, I think most people would differ. Also does your argument about understanding motivation not preclude eugenics like for example practiced by nazi germany from qualifying as evil? I mean, it's easy enough to understand that right?

So the motivation would have to be different. Come up with your examples and we'll judge if they qualify as evil But I get what you are saying. I think I argued that other species, bacteria, viruses and fungi included, show no intent that is beyond our understanding. I think that's a decent argument.

I don't think there is a shortage of animal behaviour that we do not understand, though I am no zoologist and am venturing outside of my expertise here a bit.

No, an actual form of life, not a pre-programmed robot. Certainly not the AI we have today. With an undetermined value system. But man, even in your example, a robot programmed to do something is an artifact of another sentient being's will, a proxy. You'll have to make another argument.

Is there something about being pre-programmed that makes you disqualify the programmee as a life-form? I'd like to point out here that a huge part of what constitutes our human mental landscape and experience is pre-programmed as well, from our ability to pick up language, our acceptance and understanding of social hierarchy, to our preference for certain physical traits etc etc etc.

I most surely projected all of that on the orca. It communicated to me that it had a mood and very likely asked me for food. I try and make sure my subjective interpretations are based on relevant and verifiable information. It's not much, but it's something. Why, what do you use for your scaffolding?

I generally try to reserve judgement so I am agnostic about a lot of things that I don't fully understand. I'm kind of playing a shitty game here as it's much easier to shoot holes in someone else's theory/philosophy that to posit one for yourself. Still I can't help myself!

Historically speaking, most of humanity assume(d) there is no free will and that we only have a choice of being "good" or "evil" in this Sandbox of the Gods. And then there were a minority of those who questioned this. They grew in number and may some day become a majority. 84% of the world population today is still affiliated with religion and the number is getting lower so we see that it's a process in time and how dominant this world view must have been, considering we're all still collectively counting our years with the birth of christ as a reference point.

Your last statement is very interesting and seems like a paradox at first glance. How would proving the absence of free will have a radical impact and on whom?

I think this is also pretty interesting. I would suggest that your dismissal of the choice between good or evil in a classic religious framework runs completely contrary to my thoughts about this. That is exactly what a narrow understanding of free will is, historically. E.g. you have to exert your willpower to avoid succumbing to the temptations of evil and instead walk 'the good path'.

Look at it differently: there is almost no place in the world where you can walk up to some stranger, insult their mother or punch them in the face, without your victim blaming you and/or retaliating. In a situation where your victim doesn't believe in free will, but considers the universe to be a totally mechanistic phenomenon that is simply winding down, it would make no sense to blame you, as your assault would be seen as the consequence of for example a bad childhood, which was in turn caused by your parents' bad childhood, which was caused by..... blah blah... all the way back to the big bang. Almost nobody thinks/acts like that in real life, even though it might be more true than we would like to believe.