6 ms·

I've seen the interview in June, and was following Joscha's twitter feed since. Although a lot of good stuff, some of his views are a bit perplexing: * If his

by jagrsw 6y ago

I've seen the interview in June, and was following Joscha's twitter feed since. Although a lot of good stuff, some of his views are a bit perplexing: * If his offspring would turn homosexual, he'd be sad about them being "evolutionary dead-end" (tho, he'd still support them in any way possible) - cannot find the tweet now, he probably deleted it * He expresses a dim view of US' future (its institutions) esp. in the light of current events. It's sometimes visible in his tweets and speeches. But he's so vague in his predictions, that 10 years down the road I wouldn't be able to tell if he have been right or wrong no matter what the situation will be tangent point: the company he currently works for - AI Foundation - had some deal/interaction with our dear Deepak Chopra - who is as anti-intellectual as a public persona can be - so my question is 'why' - tho this could be before Joscha's tenure there... but still it feels bad (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191205005164/en/Deepak-Chopra-AI-Foundation-Partner-Bring-Personal https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191205005164/en/Dee...) (https://aifoundation.com/author/lars_butler/ https://aifoundation.com/author/lars_butler/) But he loves Stanislaw Lem, and according to the interview he was the first author that he felt was worth reading his books had profound impact on him when he was young, so that's nice, b/c Lem is a genius - who is also a bit underrated in the western world - as opposed to the former eastern block :)

throwaway69123 6y ago
Why do you find him expressing sadness about him not being able to pass on his genetics, perplexing? Its a primal evolutionary imperative. While possible the rate of child having is very low in same sex relationships in comparrison to the hetro relationships is higher.
- jagrsw 6y ago
  Mostly because he the object which creates the ideas and interacting with us is not his genes/body/brain but on the most abstract level it's his neural system, and the imperative you're talking about is imposed by his genes on his neural system (via brain wiring + hormones). Since Joscha says that being adult means taking control of your emotions (I guess, to a point), so they serve your goals, and you're not at their whim, I wonder why he succumbs so easily to this specific emotion. Since having offspring has nothing to do with goals of his neural system (say... discovering the nature, advancing knowledge, exchanging ideas). Goals of your genes != goals of your neural system (brain), and for the purpose of this conversation you are for me the latter.
  - dan00 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's not what Joscha meant by taking control of your emotions. His point was certainly more in the direction of not unnecessarily suffering or creating harm by following your emotions. Following your emotions regarding kids, helping them to raise and become good people, feeling fulfilled doing it, I can't see anything wrong with that. You could even see kids as advancing the knowledge through them. And if you feel that way about your kids, I can also see why someone would be sad not having grand children. I wouldn't even call this sadness to be mainstream, because I think quite a few people don't allow themselves to feel that way or even condemn themselves. So it's quite honest to be open about such a sadness and shows a good understanding of yourself.
    - jagrsw 6y ago
      Yup, I agree with 'advancing the knowledge' through your offspring esp. if you consider your neural net capable and well conditioned (but again, who doesn't?:) and genetically+behaviorally inheritable, but he was talking more about grandchildren there (i.e. lack of them), and the effects will be much more limited in the third generation
    - Kednicma 6y ago
      But children aren't obligated to pass on their genes in order to appease their parents. Parents only get to pass on genes for one generation, and get no further control over the process. To worry about having children because they might not have grandchildren is to be unfairly controlling over the future of children.
      - dan00 6y ago
        Feeling sad about it doesn't mean you're going to force your children having children. You can have feelings without acting on them, but just perceive them. When Joscha talks about controlling your emotions this certainly would go into this direction.
        jagrsw 6y ago
- Barrin92 6y ago
  something being a primal evolutionary imperative doesn't make it any more meaningful. In fact it's kind of a stupid thing to care about because reproduction in that sense is truly mindless and circular. Raising a kid is a meaningful experience, but the kids haircolor doesn't matter much.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    The fact that the kid will have another kid and bring you grandchildren is though.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      You can be gay and raise kids these days. That is to say Joscha Bach can given that he hails from Germany and the US, in some very conservative countries I guess that's an issue, but anyway that's not his point.
      - Aeolun 6y ago
        You can certainly be gay and raise children, but they’re at best half you and your partners’ biological offspring.
  - whack 6y ago
    If I told you that you can never eat chocolate again for the rest of your life, and you expressed sadness for not being able to experience the pleasures of eating chocolate, would that be equally perplexing? Just because our desire for chocolate is a primal evolutionary imperative, doesn't mean that it's wrong to develop an attachment to it. Why is it ok to express sadness over missing out on physical pleasures, but not psychological pleasures.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      because that's not the same thing. You can have the pleasure and meaningful experience of raising a child (which I remarked in my post), there is no actual pleasure or meaning to the idea of reproduction as such. The actual comparison would be for me to express sadness about the fact that I cannot pass on my desire for chocolate to the next generation, which to be honest I couldn't care less about.
- andyjohnson0 6y ago
  He did pass on his "genetics" - he had children. If he feels sad about them not having children, which is not really something a parent has a say in.
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    The game of evolution isn't to pass on your genes one generation, its to have your genes persist indefinitely. If his son chooses not to have kids then it counts as an evolutionary "failure" of the parent. It's why we choose attractive partners who will help us have evolutionarily fit children.
    - andyjohnson0 6y ago
      > The game of evolution isn't to pass on your genes one generation, its to have your genes persist indefinitely. I think that's a maladaptive way to think about this. Attaching value and emotion to the long term fate of your particular genes is odd, given that they are almost completely identical to everyone else's. Whats the point in feeling sadness about this? And evolution isn't a game. It doesn't have a point, or an outcome. It's just what happens when you have replicators in a free energy medium. Genes don't win or lose, they just make copies of themselves. It's nothing to do with _us_. Its just biochemistry.
      - hackinthebochs 6y ago
        >I think that's a maladaptive way to think about this. It's by definition very pro-adaptive. Many if not most of our emotions and behavior is merely in service to passing on our genes (at some higher-order analysis), which you seem to claim is pointless. If being concerned about your lineage is pointless, so is everything else you presumably have no objection to, e.g. feeling sadness from being rejected by a romantic interest. >And evolution isn't a game. I'm sure you've heard of a metaphor before.
      - antepodius 6y ago
        >they're almost identical to everyone else's Do you really believe this argument? It seems like a strange one to make. Our genes are almost entirely identical, so why worry about diversity, then? Besides, people like you will, all else being equal, surely get outbred by people who do care about their progeny. So why worry? The tendency to hold your point of view will wipe itself out...
honzzz 6y ago
What is perplexing about it? Genuine curiosity - where I live those views would probably be considered mundane mainstream.
- jagrsw 6y ago
  I replied on this in another subthread, a minute ago or so. But as for the 'mainstream', Joscha exactly doesn't want to be mainstream - see his TT stream: :) "In a playground where most people can neither come up with ideas of their own.." and various other tweets and presos related to the harm of conforming to societal norms of thinking.
  - antepodius 6y ago
    If your views happen to align with the mainstream, that still isn't a reason to change them in and of itself. Being ruled and controlled by the mainstream is bad, because the mainstream makes mistakes; but that doesn't mean that the right path is just to try and be as much the opposite of the mainstream as possible.
    - jagrsw 6y ago
      There's no disagreement in here.
longtom 6y ago
In one tweet he suggested the rise of social justice was in part fabricated to demolish the political left in light of Occupy Wall Street,[0] and that much of U.S. politics is about hiding who is actually in control. Funnily, he was indirectly funded by Harvey Weinstein.[1] Overall I think, he is extremely courageous and has perfected the virtue of telling the truth, like telling entire established buildings of philosophy that they are full of it. In my opinion, we need more of guys like him who simply tell the truth instead of chasing the latest political applause light. [0] http://archive.is/wip/kvjGp http://archive.is/wip/kvjGp [1] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14814 https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14814
- masterproc 6y ago
  Given my comment above, I would completely disagree in this point. I agreed however, it seemed similar to me before the funding stories were published.
  - longtom 6y ago
    Oops, I meant Jeffrey Epstein. I wrote "funny" because of the ties to that U.S. elite and because he actually dares to indirectly question them all the time (but not via the fabricated social justice angle, of course). Also, the entire Weinstein/Epstein drama is an instance of sexuality having become absurdly politicized to the degree that mainstream knowledge on it is outright false.

by jagrsw 6y ago

throwaway69123 6y ago

Why do you find him expressing sadness about him not being able to pass on his genetics, perplexing? Its a primal evolutionary imperative. While possible the rate of child having is very low in same sex relationships in comparrison to the hetro relationships is higher.

jagrsw 6y ago
Mostly because he the object which creates the ideas and interacting with us is not his genes/body/brain but on the most abstract level it's his neural system, and the imperative you're talking about is imposed by his genes on his neural system (via brain wiring + hormones). Since Joscha says that being adult means taking control of your emotions (I guess, to a point), so they serve your goals, and you're not at their whim, I wonder why he succumbs so easily to this specific emotion. Since having offspring has nothing to do with goals of his neural system (say... discovering the nature, advancing knowledge, exchanging ideas). Goals of your genes != goals of your neural system (brain), and for the purpose of this conversation you are for me the latter.
- dan00 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's not what Joscha meant by taking control of your emotions. His point was certainly more in the direction of not unnecessarily suffering or creating harm by following your emotions. Following your emotions regarding kids, helping them to raise and become good people, feeling fulfilled doing it, I can't see anything wrong with that. You could even see kids as advancing the knowledge through them. And if you feel that way about your kids, I can also see why someone would be sad not having grand children. I wouldn't even call this sadness to be mainstream, because I think quite a few people don't allow themselves to feel that way or even condemn themselves. So it's quite honest to be open about such a sadness and shows a good understanding of yourself.
  - jagrsw 6y ago
    Yup, I agree with 'advancing the knowledge' through your offspring esp. if you consider your neural net capable and well conditioned (but again, who doesn't?:) and genetically+behaviorally inheritable, but he was talking more about grandchildren there (i.e. lack of them), and the effects will be much more limited in the third generation
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    But children aren't obligated to pass on their genes in order to appease their parents. Parents only get to pass on genes for one generation, and get no further control over the process. To worry about having children because they might not have grandchildren is to be unfairly controlling over the future of children.
    - dan00 6y ago
      Feeling sad about it doesn't mean you're going to force your children having children. You can have feelings without acting on them, but just perceive them. When Joscha talks about controlling your emotions this certainly would go into this direction.
      - jagrsw 6y ago
Barrin92 6y ago
something being a primal evolutionary imperative doesn't make it any more meaningful. In fact it's kind of a stupid thing to care about because reproduction in that sense is truly mindless and circular. Raising a kid is a meaningful experience, but the kids haircolor doesn't matter much.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  The fact that the kid will have another kid and bring you grandchildren is though.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    You can be gay and raise kids these days. That is to say Joscha Bach can given that he hails from Germany and the US, in some very conservative countries I guess that's an issue, but anyway that's not his point.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      You can certainly be gay and raise children, but they’re at best half you and your partners’ biological offspring.
- whack 6y ago
  If I told you that you can never eat chocolate again for the rest of your life, and you expressed sadness for not being able to experience the pleasures of eating chocolate, would that be equally perplexing? Just because our desire for chocolate is a primal evolutionary imperative, doesn't mean that it's wrong to develop an attachment to it. Why is it ok to express sadness over missing out on physical pleasures, but not psychological pleasures.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    because that's not the same thing. You can have the pleasure and meaningful experience of raising a child (which I remarked in my post), there is no actual pleasure or meaning to the idea of reproduction as such. The actual comparison would be for me to express sadness about the fact that I cannot pass on my desire for chocolate to the next generation, which to be honest I couldn't care less about.
andyjohnson0 6y ago
He did pass on his "genetics" - he had children. If he feels sad about them not having children, which is not really something a parent has a say in.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  The game of evolution isn't to pass on your genes one generation, its to have your genes persist indefinitely. If his son chooses not to have kids then it counts as an evolutionary "failure" of the parent. It's why we choose attractive partners who will help us have evolutionarily fit children.
  - andyjohnson0 6y ago
    > The game of evolution isn't to pass on your genes one generation, its to have your genes persist indefinitely. I think that's a maladaptive way to think about this. Attaching value and emotion to the long term fate of your particular genes is odd, given that they are almost completely identical to everyone else's. Whats the point in feeling sadness about this? And evolution isn't a game. It doesn't have a point, or an outcome. It's just what happens when you have replicators in a free energy medium. Genes don't win or lose, they just make copies of themselves. It's nothing to do with _us_. Its just biochemistry.
    - hackinthebochs 6y ago
      >I think that's a maladaptive way to think about this. It's by definition very pro-adaptive. Many if not most of our emotions and behavior is merely in service to passing on our genes (at some higher-order analysis), which you seem to claim is pointless. If being concerned about your lineage is pointless, so is everything else you presumably have no objection to, e.g. feeling sadness from being rejected by a romantic interest. >And evolution isn't a game. I'm sure you've heard of a metaphor before.
    - antepodius 6y ago
      >they're almost identical to everyone else's Do you really believe this argument? It seems like a strange one to make. Our genes are almost entirely identical, so why worry about diversity, then? Besides, people like you will, all else being equal, surely get outbred by people who do care about their progeny. So why worry? The tendency to hold your point of view will wipe itself out...

honzzz 6y ago

What is perplexing about it? Genuine curiosity - where I live those views would probably be considered mundane mainstream.

jagrsw 6y ago
I replied on this in another subthread, a minute ago or so. But as for the 'mainstream', Joscha exactly doesn't want to be mainstream - see his TT stream: :) "In a playground where most people can neither come up with ideas of their own.." and various other tweets and presos related to the harm of conforming to societal norms of thinking.
- antepodius 6y ago
  If your views happen to align with the mainstream, that still isn't a reason to change them in and of itself. Being ruled and controlled by the mainstream is bad, because the mainstream makes mistakes; but that doesn't mean that the right path is just to try and be as much the opposite of the mainstream as possible.
  - jagrsw 6y ago
    There's no disagreement in here.

longtom 6y ago

In one tweet he suggested the rise of social justice was in part fabricated to demolish the political left in light of Occupy Wall Street,[0] and that much of U.S. politics is about hiding who is actually in control. Funnily, he was indirectly funded by Harvey Weinstein.[1] Overall I think, he is extremely courageous and has perfected the virtue of telling the truth, like telling entire established buildings of philosophy that they are full of it. In my opinion, we need more of guys like him who simply tell the truth instead of chasing the latest political applause light. [0] http://archive.is/wip/kvjGp http://archive.is/wip/kvjGp [1] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14814 https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14814

masterproc 6y ago
Given my comment above, I would completely disagree in this point. I agreed however, it seemed similar to me before the funding stories were published.
- longtom 6y ago
  Oops, I meant Jeffrey Epstein. I wrote "funny" because of the ties to that U.S. elite and because he actually dares to indirectly question them all the time (but not via the fabricated social justice angle, of course). Also, the entire Weinstein/Epstein drama is an instance of sexuality having become absurdly politicized to the degree that mainstream knowledge on it is outright false.