35 ms·

> What do you mean by "problems"? In David Deutsch's terminology, a problem exists when a conflict between ideas is experienced. It is worth reading his books

by dotsam 3y ago

> What do you mean by "problems"? In David Deutsch's terminology, a problem exists when a conflict between ideas is experienced. It is worth reading his books to understand more on his view. He builds on Karl Popper's work, which is also worth reading. > And whose problems? Everyone has their own particular problem situation. Here's some relevant things Popper has said about problems and solving them: > All things living are in search of a better world. Men, animals, plants, even unicellular organisms are constantly active. They are trying to improve their situation, or at least to avoid its deterioration... Every organism is constantly preoccupied with the task of solving problems. These problems arise from its own assessments of its condition and of its environment; conditions which the organism seeks to improve... We can see that life — even at the level of the unicellular organism — brings something completely new into the world, something that did not previously exist: problems and active attempts to solve them; assessments, values; trial and error. And lastly > My solution might be the source of your problem, and why should I care if it is? How to 'make you care' about you creating a problem for me is itself a problem that we can create knowledge to solve, perhaps e.g. by creating a legal system that discourages you from doing the thing that made my life worse.

tivert 3y ago
>>> Can we agree that solving problems = good? If you grant that, the rest should follow. >> My solution might be the source of your problem, and why should I care if it is? > How to 'make you care' about you creating a problem for me is itself a problem that we can create knowledge to solve, perhaps e.g. by creating a legal system that discourages you from doing the thing that made my life worse. I think your use of "we" presumes some value of universalist cooperation (I'm no philosopher, so I'm just throwing around words to express what I'm feeling), which I don't think can be assumed. I think the more accurate statement is: "how to 'make you care' about you creating a problem for me" is a problem for you. My gut feel is the only way to really to prioritize concern for others is a moral framework that says so (and offers a compelling reason to follow it), or some kind of finely-balanced anarchy where no person or group really has the power or opportunity to force problems on others (which seems impossible to maintain in practice). Also another reason I think I can't agree that "solving problems = good" is there once was a problem labeled "the Jewish Problem" and the "final" solution to it is literally the epitome of evil.
- dotsam 3y ago
  I put ‘we’ because institutions like legal systems are fundamentally collaborative, unless enacted by a total dictator. Popper’s grandparents were Jewish and he wrote one of his major works which explores these topics, The Open Society and Its Enemies, as an urgent response to the totalitarian ideologies and atrocities of WWII. Totalitarian ideologies do not permit open, critical pursuit of the truth, and so they cannot create knowledge to solve problems in an unbounded way. Free, open societies can, where ideas can be freely exchanged and people have the freedom to criticise institutions without fear of violence. The values of an open society are the values needed for knowledge growth. And the reason we want more knowledge is to solve our problems. I am wondering if it would have been better if I had written ‘solving problems is on balance a good thing’? Or do you think solving problems is on balance bad, or perhaps neutral?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I am wondering if it would have been better if I had written ‘solving problems is on balance a good thing’? Or do you think solving problems is on balance bad, or perhaps neutral? I don't think the "solving problems" angle escapes subjectivity. It seems like just obscured subjectivity.
    - dotsam 3y ago
      It sounds like we both want to say that the holocaust is objectively wrong, not merely subjectively wrong. I don't know where best to start but I do think knowledge and problem solving are key to the answer. There is objective truth about the physical world, and we work towards it by error-correcting and replacing our bad explanations with better explanations. Errors and bad explanations cause us problems, and we create knowledge to solve them. Moral problems like the holocaust also require knowledge to solve. With more knowledge, we could have stopped the holocaust sooner. We can't just embrace ignorance and unreason and hope for the best, we need to create a continuous stream of knowledge to solve the continuous stream of problems we face. You can't just commit to any subjective moral values you feel like and hope to have continual success in knowledge creation. Unbounded knowledge creation requires commitment to moral values such as tolerance, openness to criticism and change, and respect for truth. Blind obedience to authority, rigid acceptance of dogma and commitment to infallible final solutions are all morally bad and limit our ability to make continual progress.

by dotsam 3y ago

tivert 3y ago

>>> Can we agree that solving problems = good? If you grant that, the rest should follow. >> My solution might be the source of your problem, and why should I care if it is? > How to 'make you care' about you creating a problem for me is itself a problem that we can create knowledge to solve, perhaps e.g. by creating a legal system that discourages you from doing the thing that made my life worse. I think your use of "we" presumes some value of universalist cooperation (I'm no philosopher, so I'm just throwing around words to express what I'm feeling), which I don't think can be assumed. I think the more accurate statement is: "how to 'make you care' about you creating a problem for me" is a problem for you. My gut feel is the only way to really to prioritize concern for others is a moral framework that says so (and offers a compelling reason to follow it), or some kind of finely-balanced anarchy where no person or group really has the power or opportunity to force problems on others (which seems impossible to maintain in practice). Also another reason I think I can't agree that "solving problems = good" is there once was a problem labeled "the Jewish Problem" and the "final" solution to it is literally the epitome of evil.

dotsam 3y ago
I put ‘we’ because institutions like legal systems are fundamentally collaborative, unless enacted by a total dictator. Popper’s grandparents were Jewish and he wrote one of his major works which explores these topics, The Open Society and Its Enemies, as an urgent response to the totalitarian ideologies and atrocities of WWII. Totalitarian ideologies do not permit open, critical pursuit of the truth, and so they cannot create knowledge to solve problems in an unbounded way. Free, open societies can, where ideas can be freely exchanged and people have the freedom to criticise institutions without fear of violence. The values of an open society are the values needed for knowledge growth. And the reason we want more knowledge is to solve our problems. I am wondering if it would have been better if I had written ‘solving problems is on balance a good thing’? Or do you think solving problems is on balance bad, or perhaps neutral?
- tivert 3y ago
  > I am wondering if it would have been better if I had written ‘solving problems is on balance a good thing’? Or do you think solving problems is on balance bad, or perhaps neutral? I don't think the "solving problems" angle escapes subjectivity. It seems like just obscured subjectivity.
  - dotsam 3y ago
    It sounds like we both want to say that the holocaust is objectively wrong, not merely subjectively wrong. I don't know where best to start but I do think knowledge and problem solving are key to the answer. There is objective truth about the physical world, and we work towards it by error-correcting and replacing our bad explanations with better explanations. Errors and bad explanations cause us problems, and we create knowledge to solve them. Moral problems like the holocaust also require knowledge to solve. With more knowledge, we could have stopped the holocaust sooner. We can't just embrace ignorance and unreason and hope for the best, we need to create a continuous stream of knowledge to solve the continuous stream of problems we face. You can't just commit to any subjective moral values you feel like and hope to have continual success in knowledge creation. Unbounded knowledge creation requires commitment to moral values such as tolerance, openness to criticism and change, and respect for truth. Blind obedience to authority, rigid acceptance of dogma and commitment to infallible final solutions are all morally bad and limit our ability to make continual progress.