3 ms·

Agreed! And similarly just because it isn't doing well that doesn't mean that it is doing badly.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
While that's true, if we have examples of poverty being an issue in people who shouldn't live in poverty (ie. Teachers selling plasma to make ends meet), we need to consider there's a problem with the economy or the system. It may not be the billionaires fault, but there's clearly not enough money going to some important things.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  I 100% agree with that statement. I think the nuance in my argument comes down to some core, axiomatic beliefs and metaphors that it doesn't seem are widely held. So, if we start from the foundation that there are two projects in science and philosophy and those are the descriptive project (figuring out what is) and the normative project (deciding what we ought to do), then when we are having these discussions sometimes we are simply describing what we think is the case and sometimes we stating that what we think is the case has normative implications. I think it's important to make the distinction. I have two core metaphors for how I think about the normative project. One is an "N-dimensional Quantum Entangled Rube Goldberg Cruise Liner" (perhaps Sketchy Sea Beast would be an apt name for this vehicle) and that represents the entirety of humanity and the course that we are on collectively, how we control the ship to steer it away from obstacles and what might be in front of us. The other metaphor is the same thing, but it's in car form and there are lots of them and they represent each nation state and they have the added property that they may collide with each other and that's another additional navigational challenge. The reason for the complexity of the n-dimensional quantum entangled rube goldberg description is that from a control-theoretic perspective it is a good (at least I think) ballpark estimate for how complex the control system for such machines as our global and national vehicles are. This is where people often misconstrue me as a defeatist or a nihilist in that they think because I think it's so difficult to control that we just ought to give up. This is not the case. What this metaphor serves me to do is to be ultra cautious in believing that mine or your personal conception that you have arrived at through your individual reasoning of what knob/dial/lever we should turn will result in the necessary change in direction that you believe it will. It's my belief there exists no way to actually compute the truth value of normative claims this complex a priori and that instead the resolution of such claims happens via the political process of arguing about what to set the parameters to and then we let the vehicle run enough to produce a noticeable change and sometimes we were right, sometimes we were wrong. I think people are mistaken in their level of confidence that they are correct in their assessment that the causes they are attributing to the effects they see are indeed as such, and that the parameters they think will steer us in the right direction will do so. I think people are grossly over-confident in this. I'm not confident at all that my assessment of the future is the right one, and I think dead reckoning is probably the single best tool we have to compute what the result of the trajectory we are on might be (though there are issues with this) as it relies on the most honest signals (hence why I have such a strong focus on looking at absolute wealth and seeing how far it is we have come and looking at that trajectory). Dead reckoning doesn't alert us as to whether or not there is an ice-berg up ahead (global warming, collapse of civilisation etc) that we are going to crash into and so it's necessary to employ our critical faculties to try and look ahead to those navigational challenges and I think there are some key errors we are making here too. One key error we make is that we believe that catastrophe could have been avoided when it manifests. I think in limited circumstances, yes, it can, however if we assume that my belief that it's not possible to compute the truth value of normative claims as complex as what humanity as a whole or any given nation state should do a priori and that it is necessary to employ the political process to chose an experiment to run and then check the result (lets call this the 'guess and check' dialectic)... then in that case I think it's an error to be sad or upset or outraged at the catastrophe. I personally, simply just accept it. It was a necessary part of the dialectic process of first having a thesis and then at some point encountering its antithesis and from that computing a synthesis. It doesn't mean I don't feel horrible about WWII or the holocaust or Stalin's Gulags or the Tobacco industry getting kids hooked on cigarettes, I simply accept that we don't have any other viable means with which to arrive at these answers, so it is what it is and the important thing is to learn the lessons. Another key error is over-estimating how controllable the ship is and perhaps fundamentally misunderstanding its operational envelope. It's not obvious to you, me or anyone what the operational envelope of the Sketchy Sea Beast is. Again, I think people are grossly overconfident in their personal assessments that they have arrived at through their individual reasoning are correct and thus they get outraged or upset the dials/levers/knobs aren't set to what they think they should be. Not only is the the control scheme of the Sketchy Sea Beast convoluted and obfuscatory, but every single one of it's operators (of which we are all one of them) is limited in their individual ability to reason through both 'bounded rationality' and 'narrative rationality'. A potential point of disagreement between us is that the direction we are heading in is entirely wrong. We can agree to disagree there. Another error in thinking here is that because we can see an ice-berg up ahead that we have gone the wrong way. I submit to anyone that says that that is it not possible for your to compute that if we had gone any other direction that we wouldn't eventually have run into a different ice-berg. If we simplify the metaphors, we actually all have the same goals. In this case you and I basically agree that as the driver in the seat of the car we need to make some micro-adjustments to the steering wheel to stay the course that we have agreed on and that if we start veering too far in one direction then a simple tug on the wheel will pull us back in line and this is an on-going process. We actually mostly don't differ on our goals if we are in agreement that the fundamental direction we are driving in is at least the correct one. Edit: To anyone that is confident we are heading in the absolute wrong direction I submit to you the example of the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Alexander_II_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Alexander_II_... The group of revolutionaries that assassinated him were convinced that for the change to happen that they wanted to see it was necessary to actually kill the Tsar. So, they did. Now he was actually big on reform and had implemented many and was in the process of setting up a judicial system with which to share his power. His assassination ushered in Alexander III who rolled back all the reforms and had the assassinators killed.

While that's true, if we have examples of poverty being an issue in people who shouldn't live in poverty (ie. Teachers selling plasma to make ends meet), we need to consider there's a problem with the economy or the system. It may not be the billionaires fault, but there's clearly not enough money going to some important things.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
I 100% agree with that statement. I think the nuance in my argument comes down to some core, axiomatic beliefs and metaphors that it doesn't seem are widely held. So, if we start from the foundation that there are two projects in science and philosophy and those are the descriptive project (figuring out what is) and the normative project (deciding what we ought to do), then when we are having these discussions sometimes we are simply describing what we think is the case and sometimes we stating that what we think is the case has normative implications. I think it's important to make the distinction. I have two core metaphors for how I think about the normative project. One is an "N-dimensional Quantum Entangled Rube Goldberg Cruise Liner" (perhaps Sketchy Sea Beast would be an apt name for this vehicle) and that represents the entirety of humanity and the course that we are on collectively, how we control the ship to steer it away from obstacles and what might be in front of us. The other metaphor is the same thing, but it's in car form and there are lots of them and they represent each nation state and they have the added property that they may collide with each other and that's another additional navigational challenge. The reason for the complexity of the n-dimensional quantum entangled rube goldberg description is that from a control-theoretic perspective it is a good (at least I think) ballpark estimate for how complex the control system for such machines as our global and national vehicles are. This is where people often misconstrue me as a defeatist or a nihilist in that they think because I think it's so difficult to control that we just ought to give up. This is not the case. What this metaphor serves me to do is to be ultra cautious in believing that mine or your personal conception that you have arrived at through your individual reasoning of what knob/dial/lever we should turn will result in the necessary change in direction that you believe it will. It's my belief there exists no way to actually compute the truth value of normative claims this complex a priori and that instead the resolution of such claims happens via the political process of arguing about what to set the parameters to and then we let the vehicle run enough to produce a noticeable change and sometimes we were right, sometimes we were wrong. I think people are mistaken in their level of confidence that they are correct in their assessment that the causes they are attributing to the effects they see are indeed as such, and that the parameters they think will steer us in the right direction will do so. I think people are grossly over-confident in this. I'm not confident at all that my assessment of the future is the right one, and I think dead reckoning is probably the single best tool we have to compute what the result of the trajectory we are on might be (though there are issues with this) as it relies on the most honest signals (hence why I have such a strong focus on looking at absolute wealth and seeing how far it is we have come and looking at that trajectory). Dead reckoning doesn't alert us as to whether or not there is an ice-berg up ahead (global warming, collapse of civilisation etc) that we are going to crash into and so it's necessary to employ our critical faculties to try and look ahead to those navigational challenges and I think there are some key errors we are making here too. One key error we make is that we believe that catastrophe could have been avoided when it manifests. I think in limited circumstances, yes, it can, however if we assume that my belief that it's not possible to compute the truth value of normative claims as complex as what humanity as a whole or any given nation state should do a priori and that it is necessary to employ the political process to chose an experiment to run and then check the result (lets call this the 'guess and check' dialectic)... then in that case I think it's an error to be sad or upset or outraged at the catastrophe. I personally, simply just accept it. It was a necessary part of the dialectic process of first having a thesis and then at some point encountering its antithesis and from that computing a synthesis. It doesn't mean I don't feel horrible about WWII or the holocaust or Stalin's Gulags or the Tobacco industry getting kids hooked on cigarettes, I simply accept that we don't have any other viable means with which to arrive at these answers, so it is what it is and the important thing is to learn the lessons. Another key error is over-estimating how controllable the ship is and perhaps fundamentally misunderstanding its operational envelope. It's not obvious to you, me or anyone what the operational envelope of the Sketchy Sea Beast is. Again, I think people are grossly overconfident in their personal assessments that they have arrived at through their individual reasoning are correct and thus they get outraged or upset the dials/levers/knobs aren't set to what they think they should be. Not only is the the control scheme of the Sketchy Sea Beast convoluted and obfuscatory, but every single one of it's operators (of which we are all one of them) is limited in their individual ability to reason through both 'bounded rationality' and 'narrative rationality'. A potential point of disagreement between us is that the direction we are heading in is entirely wrong. We can agree to disagree there. Another error in thinking here is that because we can see an ice-berg up ahead that we have gone the wrong way. I submit to anyone that says that that is it not possible for your to compute that if we had gone any other direction that we wouldn't eventually have run into a different ice-berg. If we simplify the metaphors, we actually all have the same goals. In this case you and I basically agree that as the driver in the seat of the car we need to make some micro-adjustments to the steering wheel to stay the course that we have agreed on and that if we start veering too far in one direction then a simple tug on the wheel will pull us back in line and this is an on-going process. We actually mostly don't differ on our goals if we are in agreement that the fundamental direction we are driving in is at least the correct one. Edit: To anyone that is confident we are heading in the absolute wrong direction I submit to you the example of the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Alexander_II_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Alexander_II_... The group of revolutionaries that assassinated him were convinced that for the change to happen that they wanted to see it was necessary to actually kill the Tsar. So, they did. Now he was actually big on reform and had implemented many and was in the process of setting up a judicial system with which to share his power. His assassination ushered in Alexander III who rolled back all the reforms and had the assassinators killed.