7 ms·

The Dogma of Otherness (1986)

116 points by m463 2y ago

sharkjacobs 2y ago
Plato’s Republic was more fun and engaging than other foundational philosophy texts I read as an undergraduate because the dialogue format made me want to interrupt Socrates in way that I don’t usually experience when I read things that I disagree with. It activates the conversation lobes of my brain or something I guess, it’s simultaneously frustrating and satisfying. Anyway, the introduction to this article does the same thing.
- ahazred8ta 2y ago
  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22055276-the-just-city https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22055276-the-just-city
DiscourseFan 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Have_Never_Been_Modern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Have_Never_Been_Modern A book for those who are interested in this viewpoint; though, its a bit technical, its audience is anthropologists. I agree and disagree, in that, the concept of the "other," which Brin subtly attributes to a crude reading of Hegel, is misused in contemporary academia, in contemporary culture, to create these what can't be said to be other than corruptive ideas like an infinite meakness in the face of what we cannot know about ourselves, but a meakness which is secretly all the more chauvinistic, as it claims, above all, that only we are superior who recognize our "mediocrity," in the face of all those animals, cultures, potentialities of otherness, that fail to do so themselves. But, of course, Hegel's concept of the "other" is not this way at all. As JN Findlay argued, there is no substantial difference between Godel and Hegel's logic in terms of incompleteness: it is likely that, although the only philosophy which Godel ever adopted was Phenomenology, he would himself not have had any issues with the comparison. It is the "identity of non-identity," its not that you "encounter" the other, its the recognition that the other is already contained in what is non-other; which is to say, in a manner that Godel expressed far more clearly, that all logical systems, all systematic programs, contain elements that cannot be contained in the system, and the discreteness of the world only comes when those elements come to a head, when people are forced to, for Hegel, fight in a conflict to resolve, at the level of the Idea itself, what they cannot be certain of: this is why, science, what you'd think is objective and independent, depends on massive political and social forces: and if the Israeli's, for instance, could not fight their wars, it would be the proof that ideology of faith is more powerful than the ideology of the world, of technological power. The "truth" of a missile only becomes apparent when it hits its target, just in the same way that one cannot know, here on HN especially, how others will think of their comment, until they post it.
- kbrkbr 2y ago
  > which is to say, in a manner that Godel expressed far more clearly, that all logical systems, all systematic programs, contain elements that cannot be contained in the system Wikipedia [1] summarizes better than I could: "The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency." That's seems a bit different than what you stated, to me at least. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%2527s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%2527s_incompleten...
  - moefh 2y ago
    Indeed. Godel's theorem is very technical, and any use outside the very technical realm of its immediate application should be viewed with great suspicion. For example, if you take the statement you quoted from Wikipedia and replace "natural number" with "real number", it doesn't work anymore: it's been proven that the arithmetic of real numbers is decidable[1]. That means that the sentence you quoted from OP's comment is not true. Anyone inclined to use Godel's theorem in these philosophical contexts should maybe read the great little book "Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse" by Torkel Franzén. I'll leave here a quote from a review[2]: In addition to obvious nonsense, there are among the nonmathematical ideas inspired by Gödel’s theorem many that by no means represent postmodernist excesses, but rather come to mind naturally to many people with very different backgrounds when they think about the theorem. It is especially such naturally occurring misunderstandings that Franzén intends to correct. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_of_first-order_theories_of_the_real_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_of_first-order_th... [2] https://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf https://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf
    - DiscourseFan 2y ago
js8 2y ago
I think that humanistic moral universalism (or simply humanism) - a moral philosophy which is a basis for e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - requires the moral axiom that "not hurting humans is above all else". This obviously begs a question "who is considered a human?" in this moral philosophy. For this to work as intended, things like human cells (we can kill cells to save a human being) or societies like nation states (we can destroy or mutilate states to save a human being) have to be considered lesser than individual humans. But it gives rise to Russell-type paradox of how to include as many humans as possible without creating contradictions. (A similar problem is with democracy, it cannot be instituted or destroyed democratically.) These logical problems seem to come from the fact that you need some axioms at all. In the same way, you can be "dogmatic in your non-dogmatism". I also think if you accept the universalist moral position above, the questioning and distrust towards experts (authorities) becomes obvious conclusion. Authorities asking for humans to be killed or harmed (for example, going to a war) need to provide a strong justification. I also consider it very doubtful that the moral universalism was first invented by "Western civilization" or "enlightenment". Yeah, somebody was first, but it's not that a difficult idea. What might be new is the universal acceptance of it, but I am not so sure when I look around. However, in practice, the Russell-style paradox is rarely a problem. Yeah, there are edge cases like dolphins, or intellectually disabled people, but mostly we can figure it out.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  > [moral relativism is] not that a difficult idea Eg Aristotle (ca 300BC): Some people think that all rules of justice are merely conventional, because whereas a law of nature is immutable and has the same validity everywhere, as fire burns both here and in Persia, rules of justice are seen to vary. I'd guess it was common over the last 10k years for educated and/or travelled people to be aware that their neighbours had different* dogmas, and in pre-colonial times (when it was far more likely that these neighbours were similarly located on the tech tree) the parochialism of colonialists ("Whatever happens, we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not.") would not have been as facile. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1134b http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... * Tacitus seems to have written De origine et situ Germanorum partly as an objective description of germans, and partly as a subjective reproach of his Roman compatriots; during the XIX (which established many of the tropes we've inherited as "common knowledge") the germans flipped this around: germans and french were in superpower conflict, and as the french —with a significant advantage in language— had laid claim to inheriting the (centralised) Roman tradition, the germans retorted by digging up all the old arguments the (decentralised) greeks had made along the lines of "maybe the Romans have all the money, but we've got all the culture". (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter ; τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει )
Freak_NL 2y ago
David Brin is a great sci-fi author too by the way. One of the few who've written about dolphins flying a spaceship.
- trompetenaccoun 2y ago
  He's an expert in dolphin cognition, he's said so himself. Also notice the "Ph.D." he put after his name? Don't look up what that's in though, else you might wonder what astronomy and electrical engineering have to do with dolphins.
  - yownie 2y ago
    >"I'm not a real expert," I tell them. "But the data are pretty easy to interpret. I'm afraid real dolphins simply aren't all that smart.
    - trompetenaccoun 2y ago
      >"Look how you all leaped up to refute me. Even though I'm the supposed 'dolphin expert' here, that hardly matters, since you all assume that any expert can still be wrong! No matter how prestigious his credentials, no expert can know all the answers." Believing things simply because supposed experts say them is a well-known logical fallacy. So the people were right to be skeptical. He also contradicts himself as shown, there is no reason to listen to him on this topic to begin with. The tale is utterly confused. There may well have been people in that audience who knew more about dolphins than he did. "The data is easy to interpret" is a sentence I've heard from idiots so many times, that's Dunning-Kruger in full force. Dumb people generally assume the world is easy to understand and they have it all figured out. Who in the world would think intelligence is a field that we know everything about and there can't be any further debate.
- KineticLensman 2y ago
  I really liked Startide Rising for its spacefaring dolphins, particularly how their attitudes contrasted with Humans' and the other uplifted or alien species – great concept overall, playful and sometimes poetic. And ‘Earth’ also had some great concepts and predictions, if you discount the global war against Switzerland. I didn’t like ‘Existence’, because (to me) the structure and characters seemed primarily to be a vehicle for Brin to make impassioned points about humanity. They may be good thought-provoking points, but they killed any suspense. YMMV
Simon_ORourke 2y ago
This seems quite appropriate listening to half wits like Joe Rogan giving equal weight to an expert in a given topic and then cutting away unashamedly to some fruitloop with a theory that would make a sane person blush.
- jasonvorhe 2y ago
  I'll never get accustomed to the arrogance of people hating on the intelligence of some of the most successful people in their field. I don't have to like JR and I'd be surprised if he wasn't a CIA asset to influence public perception, but outright calling him a half wit is more telling about you and than him. Your reliance on titles and certified experts just exposes what's wrong in a post-COVID and post-truth world.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    I think it comes from a long experience of just how stupid people often are despite all of their success. While many certified experts are also often quite idiotic, particularly when talking even slightly outside their fields, or when parroting dogma within their field, there really seems to be almost no correlation between public success and what we'd normally call being smart.
    - PaulHoule 2y ago
      See Pauling, Shockley and Josephson for scientists who did fantastic work to win a Nobel prize who then went crazy with alt health, racism and psionics. Appallingly to me there are people taking Penrose's "I can do math because I am a thetan" seriously in another discussion running now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41696434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41696434
- m463 2y ago
  I like the variety of Joe Rogan guests. I think being able to listen to crazy viewpoints can help you untangle the fluff and propaganda in not only other speakers, but your own thinking. also, it prevents the echo chamber effect.
schoen 2y ago
(1986)
avazhi 2y ago
“Answer truthfully. You all believe that widely diverse points of view have merit, right?" Nope.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Not all orderings are total: just as {A} is a subset of {A,B} and {A,C} but neither {A,B} nor {A,C} are subsets of the other, one can consistently hold the position that point of view A is inferior in merit to points of view AB and AC while neither of AB or AC are inferior to the other.
  - avazhi 2y ago
    Sure. In many cases {A} isn’t a subset of anything else, though, and is merely what we might call standalone bullshit, and unfortunately it’s pretty prevalent these days.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      {A} is always a subset, by definition, of the power set.
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure avazhi just meant to observe that in these cases {A} is a facet (maximal face) of its memeplex.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
winwang 2y ago
Mostly tangential, but in mathematics, there are sometimes "canonical" objects, typically a 'natural' viewpoint which is proven to be unique and sometimes also 'universal' in a sense. So, in many cases, you can rigorously prove "this is the one 'best' way" (in some sense of best (in some theory)). A top-of-mind example is how a tuple `(A, B)` is "obviously" the (minimal) way you would have both objects A and B within one object: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(category_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(category_theory) I find it interesting that the author mentions "nonscientists", as those seem less likely to be equipped with the experiences of simple/well-defined problems with "global optima". And in mathematics, the "what if there were another way" questions get followed by "suppose there were another way _W_...".
- Galanwe 2y ago
  > A top-of-mind example is how a tuple `(A, B)` is "obviously" the (minimal) way you would have both objects A and B within one object I am confused as to what that means. A and B are most likely one of the thousands of possible modelisations for an abstract concept I am trying to model. Say I want to model a point on a plane, I could decide to model it as carthesian coordinates in an (A, B) tuple, or a single complex number as a scalar. The _best_ representation depending on how I plan to use that point later on.
  - ordu 2y ago
    Complex numbers are just tuples of real numbers with some rules how to add and multiply them.
    - MarkusQ 2y ago
      Not quite. They can be _represented_ that way (but not uniquely, e.g. c=(a+bi) vs abs(c)=r, arg(c)=Θ) or they can be treated as fundamental (defined by axioms), or as a sub-field of the quaternions, etc. If this seems counterintuitive, think of how the claim that "words are just sequences of letters" breaks down when you examine it closely. Also, I'm not seeing why a tuple (A,B) (with order) is simpler than a set {A,B} or a bag [A,B].
EnigmaFlare 2y ago
[dead]
trompetenaccoun 2y ago
The idea that people in e.g. Asia don't tend to consider outside viewpoints as much as Americans is so absurd I'm not even sure what to say. If anything it's the opposite, but Westerners are too full of themselves to notice. It would require a genuine interest and to a degree immersion in foreign cultures. Prevailing Western ideology does not permit for that. To give just one example, people in China know much more about the US and its culture than vice versa. If America were really a questioning culture, it would be reversed.
- mc32 2y ago
  Do you mean some city folk or people in the hinterlands who’ve never seen any kind of foreigner ever in their lives?
  - benfortuna 2y ago
    I would think most are familiar with American television, or other cultural symbols like Coca Cola. Regardless of where they live. Whether or not that equates to understanding American culture I can't say..
    - gus_massa 2y ago
      My daughter [in Argentina] knows more about Halloween than about the local Independence Day. Every kids show in Netflix has a special episode about Halloween.
      - mc32 2y ago
        This not an apt comparison. Else we could say American kids know more about Anime than about our Independence Day. Kids like kid things. I doubt people in the Podunks of interior China have much awareness of what the US is about other than what their official propaganda tells them.
        082349872349872 2y ago
fedeb95 2y ago
I think this is more abstractly expressed by Lewis' Convention book. "Dogmas" as fulfilled expectation about other's expectation's expectation (and so on recursively ad infinitum). Necessary, in Lewis opinion, to solve coordination problems.
rendall 2y ago
This was a common view back then. By 1986, Americans had long been culturally and geographically insulated from other cultures and nations. Post-modern philosophy was in full flower, promoting the idea that no world view nor cultural practice is inferior to any other. It was quite easy for the liberal wing of the American intelligentsia of the time to adopt a paternalistic universalist outlook, given that there were no immediate challenges to this perspective. In fact, examples of conservative-driven imposition of American ideals abroad were actively punished: Viet Nam, Iranian Revolution, Korea, etc. The Soviet Union appeared to be going strong. I'd argue that the rise of the internet, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, fears of disinformation and misinformation and foreign influence, bot-farms, the rise to prominance of China, all put the lie to this idea that all ideas have merit. It's an idea that is held by few American intellectuals these days, conservative or liberal.
DavidPiper 2y ago
> to look, as a species, into the mirror and see neither Lord of Creation nor Worldbane, but merely the first of many in the world to rise to the role of caretaker. I came to the same conclusion recently. As a species we have almost total control over earth. Caretaker - or BDFL if you prefer - seems to be the only viable long-term role for our species at this scale. Whether or not we're heading in that direction is another question. But it's interesting to watch nations, societies, businesses, etc, attempt to build sustainable structures and lives for their constituents using the power structures they believe best. A microcosm of the same problem on a smaller scale. It's not super encouraging how many different civilisations, societies and commercial enterprises have died and failed before us, but maybe diversity and resilience go hand-in-hand, and those values are how we need to approach the natural world we now control. Of course, that all sounds a bit like the self-serving Dogma of Otherness, and another example of the double-standard in philosophy that "values that prioritise others actually elevate myself with their nobility".
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > but maybe diversity and resilience go hand-in-hand As long as the values that are against resilience are not part of that diversity... I'll say, I have no idea how to get anything close to sustainability from a human society. Thankfully, making something that can last for a few centuries looks like a much easier problem.
PaulHoule 2y ago
My first take was it's another case of sci fi fans discovering that the author doesn't believe in the stuff they write. Charles Stross confessed that he doesn't believe in space colonization and interstellar travel. As a non-fiction author Issac Asimov railed against the belief in ESP although he wrote as many trashy stories about ESP as any author had to to get published in the Campbell era. Maybe Heinlein never broke character or maybe his combination of earnestness and naivety was real (and provided future authors such as Haldeman a chance to write stories somewhere between a homage and refutation such as The Forever War and Worlds) Never mind the writers of fantastic fiction masquerading as non-fiction such as Lily, Castenada, Roberts, etc. To be a fan of fantastic fiction (sci-fi, fantasy, comic books, etc.) you have to be able to hold an imaginary world and its rules in your mind and take it seriously enough to care what happens to the characters. A certain kind of pornography can interest people for a while without any conflict but Superman would be entirely uninteresting if he didn't have meaningful limitations or worthy adversaries. (And he struggles... in Superman Returns he rescues people who are launching a freaking space shuttle (unsafe at any speed to begin with) off a commercial airliner. I'm sorry if your judgement is that bad you don't deserve to get rescued.) A good example of a 'serious' short story is The Cold Equations https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-cold-equations/ https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-cold-equation... where the story depends on believing certain constraints about space travel. The more fantastic it gets the more you're going to think it's silly unless you've got the ability to jump into a counterfactual world with both feet.
- gwern 2y ago
  > Cliff Stoll confessed that he doesn't believe in space colonization and interstellar travel. Perhaps you mean Charles Stross?
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    You're right! This has been corrected. Thanks!
- the_af 2y ago
  Hey, don't disparage Asimov's Foundation stories! It's true Asimov was an atheist and also stood against pseudoscience, but his stories are not trash! ;) > Charles Stross confessed that he doesn't believe in space colonization and interstellar travel I've never read Stross but I've experienced a similar dissonance with John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" series. If you stop at his first novel, you could easily believe (as I did) Scalzi is pro-war and his stance is that aliens must be met with firm military force "or else". He even has a token pacifist self-righteous character who insists there must be another way, then immediately gets torn to shreds by evil aliens for his naiveté (to everyone else's applause). I was disgusted and ready to toss the series into the garbage bin. Then... well, I'm not saying he's a good writer, but his later novels in the series paint a different picture. Well done fooling me, Mr Scalzi!
yldedly 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
RHSman2 2y ago
A great read.
- m463 2y ago
  To be honest, I posted this because I saw similar discussions s/dolphin/AGI/
  - m463 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689558
kazinator 2y ago
The thing is, if you've not defined precisely what it means for a dolphin (or human) to be intelligent, then, yes, there is room for other handwaving besides yours, even in a world where the otherness dogma has been loudly rejected. In the hard sciences there is no room for opinions in areas where we have the facts. E.g. electrical engineers don't have to entertain someone who has invented their own equation for how a transistor works which is completely different from Ebers-Moll and yields the wrong results. That's just a kook; move on. Things they try to build based on their wrong model will not work. If you dislike hecklers who are not easily dismissed kooks, either stay out of soft fields, or else avoid situations where you might engage the public.
AStonesThrow 2y ago
The thesis here pretty much reflects the heresy described and condemned by the Catholic Church as "modernism". Pope St. Pius X described Modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies", and it's often insidious and difficult to pin down. Because if at its core, it says "there can be no universal truths" that is already an inherent Liar's Paradox, and any subsequent claims are just as questionable if one truly adheres to Modernism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_in_the_Catholic_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_in_the_Catholic_Chur... https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documen... It is so strange how Brin tiptoes around mentioning any church or pope or the existing terms such as "Modernism", or how much the concept resembles his (rather appropriately) neologism-coined gobbledygook, but his words and phrasing seem to indicate that he's well aware that the same controversy has raged since the late-19th-century, (take note, he is of Eastern-Bloc Jewish descent) and merely wants to avoid cluing anyone in about the parallels.

116 points by m463 2y ago

Plato’s Republic was more fun and engaging than other foundational philosophy texts I read as an undergraduate because the dialogue format made me want to interrupt Socrates in way that I don’t usually experience when I read things that I disagree with. It activates the conversation lobes of my brain or something I guess, it’s simultaneously frustrating and satisfying. Anyway, the introduction to this article does the same thing.

ahazred8ta 2y ago
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22055276-the-just-city https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22055276-the-just-city

DiscourseFan 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Have_Never_Been_Modern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Have_Never_Been_Modern A book for those who are interested in this viewpoint; though, its a bit technical, its audience is anthropologists. I agree and disagree, in that, the concept of the "other," which Brin subtly attributes to a crude reading of Hegel, is misused in contemporary academia, in contemporary culture, to create these what can't be said to be other than corruptive ideas like an infinite meakness in the face of what we cannot know about ourselves, but a meakness which is secretly all the more chauvinistic, as it claims, above all, that only we are superior who recognize our "mediocrity," in the face of all those animals, cultures, potentialities of otherness, that fail to do so themselves. But, of course, Hegel's concept of the "other" is not this way at all. As JN Findlay argued, there is no substantial difference between Godel and Hegel's logic in terms of incompleteness: it is likely that, although the only philosophy which Godel ever adopted was Phenomenology, he would himself not have had any issues with the comparison. It is the "identity of non-identity," its not that you "encounter" the other, its the recognition that the other is already contained in what is non-other; which is to say, in a manner that Godel expressed far more clearly, that all logical systems, all systematic programs, contain elements that cannot be contained in the system, and the discreteness of the world only comes when those elements come to a head, when people are forced to, for Hegel, fight in a conflict to resolve, at the level of the Idea itself, what they cannot be certain of: this is why, science, what you'd think is objective and independent, depends on massive political and social forces: and if the Israeli's, for instance, could not fight their wars, it would be the proof that ideology of faith is more powerful than the ideology of the world, of technological power. The "truth" of a missile only becomes apparent when it hits its target, just in the same way that one cannot know, here on HN especially, how others will think of their comment, until they post it.

kbrkbr 2y ago
> which is to say, in a manner that Godel expressed far more clearly, that all logical systems, all systematic programs, contain elements that cannot be contained in the system Wikipedia [1] summarizes better than I could: "The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency." That's seems a bit different than what you stated, to me at least. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%2527s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%2527s_incompleten...
- moefh 2y ago
  Indeed. Godel's theorem is very technical, and any use outside the very technical realm of its immediate application should be viewed with great suspicion. For example, if you take the statement you quoted from Wikipedia and replace "natural number" with "real number", it doesn't work anymore: it's been proven that the arithmetic of real numbers is decidable[1]. That means that the sentence you quoted from OP's comment is not true. Anyone inclined to use Godel's theorem in these philosophical contexts should maybe read the great little book "Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse" by Torkel Franzén. I'll leave here a quote from a review[2]: In addition to obvious nonsense, there are among the nonmathematical ideas inspired by Gödel’s theorem many that by no means represent postmodernist excesses, but rather come to mind naturally to many people with very different backgrounds when they think about the theorem. It is especially such naturally occurring misunderstandings that Franzén intends to correct. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_of_first-order_theories_of_the_real_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_of_first-order_th... [2] https://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf https://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf
  - DiscourseFan 2y ago

js8 2y ago

I think that humanistic moral universalism (or simply humanism) - a moral philosophy which is a basis for e.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - requires the moral axiom that "not hurting humans is above all else". This obviously begs a question "who is considered a human?" in this moral philosophy. For this to work as intended, things like human cells (we can kill cells to save a human being) or societies like nation states (we can destroy or mutilate states to save a human being) have to be considered lesser than individual humans. But it gives rise to Russell-type paradox of how to include as many humans as possible without creating contradictions. (A similar problem is with democracy, it cannot be instituted or destroyed democratically.) These logical problems seem to come from the fact that you need some axioms at all. In the same way, you can be "dogmatic in your non-dogmatism". I also think if you accept the universalist moral position above, the questioning and distrust towards experts (authorities) becomes obvious conclusion. Authorities asking for humans to be killed or harmed (for example, going to a war) need to provide a strong justification. I also consider it very doubtful that the moral universalism was first invented by "Western civilization" or "enlightenment". Yeah, somebody was first, but it's not that a difficult idea. What might be new is the universal acceptance of it, but I am not so sure when I look around. However, in practice, the Russell-style paradox is rarely a problem. Yeah, there are edge cases like dolphins, or intellectually disabled people, but mostly we can figure it out.

082349872349872 2y ago
> [moral relativism is] not that a difficult idea Eg Aristotle (ca 300BC): Some people think that all rules of justice are merely conventional, because whereas a law of nature is immutable and has the same validity everywhere, as fire burns both here and in Persia, rules of justice are seen to vary. I'd guess it was common over the last 10k years for educated and/or travelled people to be aware that their neighbours had different* dogmas, and in pre-colonial times (when it was far more likely that these neighbours were similarly located on the tech tree) the parochialism of colonialists ("Whatever happens, we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not.") would not have been as facile. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1134b http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... * Tacitus seems to have written De origine et situ Germanorum partly as an objective description of germans, and partly as a subjective reproach of his Roman compatriots; during the XIX (which established many of the tropes we've inherited as "common knowledge") the germans flipped this around: germans and french were in superpower conflict, and as the french —with a significant advantage in language— had laid claim to inheriting the (centralised) Roman tradition, the germans retorted by digging up all the old arguments the (decentralised) greeks had made along the lines of "maybe the Romans have all the money, but we've got all the culture". (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter ; τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει )

Freak_NL 2y ago

David Brin is a great sci-fi author too by the way. One of the few who've written about dolphins flying a spaceship.

trompetenaccoun 2y ago
He's an expert in dolphin cognition, he's said so himself. Also notice the "Ph.D." he put after his name? Don't look up what that's in though, else you might wonder what astronomy and electrical engineering have to do with dolphins.
- yownie 2y ago
  >"I'm not a real expert," I tell them. "But the data are pretty easy to interpret. I'm afraid real dolphins simply aren't all that smart.
  - trompetenaccoun 2y ago
    >"Look how you all leaped up to refute me. Even though I'm the supposed 'dolphin expert' here, that hardly matters, since you all assume that any expert can still be wrong! No matter how prestigious his credentials, no expert can know all the answers." Believing things simply because supposed experts say them is a well-known logical fallacy. So the people were right to be skeptical. He also contradicts himself as shown, there is no reason to listen to him on this topic to begin with. The tale is utterly confused. There may well have been people in that audience who knew more about dolphins than he did. "The data is easy to interpret" is a sentence I've heard from idiots so many times, that's Dunning-Kruger in full force. Dumb people generally assume the world is easy to understand and they have it all figured out. Who in the world would think intelligence is a field that we know everything about and there can't be any further debate.
KineticLensman 2y ago
I really liked Startide Rising for its spacefaring dolphins, particularly how their attitudes contrasted with Humans' and the other uplifted or alien species – great concept overall, playful and sometimes poetic. And ‘Earth’ also had some great concepts and predictions, if you discount the global war against Switzerland. I didn’t like ‘Existence’, because (to me) the structure and characters seemed primarily to be a vehicle for Brin to make impassioned points about humanity. They may be good thought-provoking points, but they killed any suspense. YMMV

Simon_ORourke 2y ago

This seems quite appropriate listening to half wits like Joe Rogan giving equal weight to an expert in a given topic and then cutting away unashamedly to some fruitloop with a theory that would make a sane person blush.

jasonvorhe 2y ago
I'll never get accustomed to the arrogance of people hating on the intelligence of some of the most successful people in their field. I don't have to like JR and I'd be surprised if he wasn't a CIA asset to influence public perception, but outright calling him a half wit is more telling about you and than him. Your reliance on titles and certified experts just exposes what's wrong in a post-COVID and post-truth world.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I think it comes from a long experience of just how stupid people often are despite all of their success. While many certified experts are also often quite idiotic, particularly when talking even slightly outside their fields, or when parroting dogma within their field, there really seems to be almost no correlation between public success and what we'd normally call being smart.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    See Pauling, Shockley and Josephson for scientists who did fantastic work to win a Nobel prize who then went crazy with alt health, racism and psionics. Appallingly to me there are people taking Penrose's "I can do math because I am a thetan" seriously in another discussion running now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41696434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41696434
m463 2y ago
I like the variety of Joe Rogan guests. I think being able to listen to crazy viewpoints can help you untangle the fluff and propaganda in not only other speakers, but your own thinking. also, it prevents the echo chamber effect.

schoen 2y ago

(1986)

avazhi 2y ago

“Answer truthfully. You all believe that widely diverse points of view have merit, right?" Nope.

082349872349872 2y ago
Not all orderings are total: just as {A} is a subset of {A,B} and {A,C} but neither {A,B} nor {A,C} are subsets of the other, one can consistently hold the position that point of view A is inferior in merit to points of view AB and AC while neither of AB or AC are inferior to the other.
- avazhi 2y ago
  Sure. In many cases {A} isn’t a subset of anything else, though, and is merely what we might call standalone bullshit, and unfortunately it’s pretty prevalent these days.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    {A} is always a subset, by definition, of the power set.
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure avazhi just meant to observe that in these cases {A} is a facet (maximal face) of its memeplex.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

winwang 2y ago

Mostly tangential, but in mathematics, there are sometimes "canonical" objects, typically a 'natural' viewpoint which is proven to be unique and sometimes also 'universal' in a sense. So, in many cases, you can rigorously prove "this is the one 'best' way" (in some sense of best (in some theory)). A top-of-mind example is how a tuple `(A, B)` is "obviously" the (minimal) way you would have both objects A and B within one object: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(category_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(category_theory) I find it interesting that the author mentions "nonscientists", as those seem less likely to be equipped with the experiences of simple/well-defined problems with "global optima". And in mathematics, the "what if there were another way" questions get followed by "suppose there were another way _W_...".

Galanwe 2y ago
> A top-of-mind example is how a tuple `(A, B)` is "obviously" the (minimal) way you would have both objects A and B within one object I am confused as to what that means. A and B are most likely one of the thousands of possible modelisations for an abstract concept I am trying to model. Say I want to model a point on a plane, I could decide to model it as carthesian coordinates in an (A, B) tuple, or a single complex number as a scalar. The _best_ representation depending on how I plan to use that point later on.
- ordu 2y ago
  Complex numbers are just tuples of real numbers with some rules how to add and multiply them.
  - MarkusQ 2y ago
    Not quite. They can be _represented_ that way (but not uniquely, e.g. c=(a+bi) vs abs(c)=r, arg(c)=Θ) or they can be treated as fundamental (defined by axioms), or as a sub-field of the quaternions, etc. If this seems counterintuitive, think of how the claim that "words are just sequences of letters" breaks down when you examine it closely. Also, I'm not seeing why a tuple (A,B) (with order) is simpler than a set {A,B} or a bag [A,B].

EnigmaFlare 2y ago

[dead]

trompetenaccoun 2y ago

The idea that people in e.g. Asia don't tend to consider outside viewpoints as much as Americans is so absurd I'm not even sure what to say. If anything it's the opposite, but Westerners are too full of themselves to notice. It would require a genuine interest and to a degree immersion in foreign cultures. Prevailing Western ideology does not permit for that. To give just one example, people in China know much more about the US and its culture than vice versa. If America were really a questioning culture, it would be reversed.

mc32 2y ago
Do you mean some city folk or people in the hinterlands who’ve never seen any kind of foreigner ever in their lives?
- benfortuna 2y ago
  I would think most are familiar with American television, or other cultural symbols like Coca Cola. Regardless of where they live. Whether or not that equates to understanding American culture I can't say..
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    My daughter [in Argentina] knows more about Halloween than about the local Independence Day. Every kids show in Netflix has a special episode about Halloween.
    - mc32 2y ago
      This not an apt comparison. Else we could say American kids know more about Anime than about our Independence Day. Kids like kid things. I doubt people in the Podunks of interior China have much awareness of what the US is about other than what their official propaganda tells them.
      - 082349872349872 2y ago

fedeb95 2y ago

I think this is more abstractly expressed by Lewis' Convention book. "Dogmas" as fulfilled expectation about other's expectation's expectation (and so on recursively ad infinitum). Necessary, in Lewis opinion, to solve coordination problems.

rendall 2y ago

This was a common view back then. By 1986, Americans had long been culturally and geographically insulated from other cultures and nations. Post-modern philosophy was in full flower, promoting the idea that no world view nor cultural practice is inferior to any other. It was quite easy for the liberal wing of the American intelligentsia of the time to adopt a paternalistic universalist outlook, given that there were no immediate challenges to this perspective. In fact, examples of conservative-driven imposition of American ideals abroad were actively punished: Viet Nam, Iranian Revolution, Korea, etc. The Soviet Union appeared to be going strong. I'd argue that the rise of the internet, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, fears of disinformation and misinformation and foreign influence, bot-farms, the rise to prominance of China, all put the lie to this idea that all ideas have merit. It's an idea that is held by few American intellectuals these days, conservative or liberal.

DavidPiper 2y ago

> to look, as a species, into the mirror and see neither Lord of Creation nor Worldbane, but merely the first of many in the world to rise to the role of caretaker. I came to the same conclusion recently. As a species we have almost total control over earth. Caretaker - or BDFL if you prefer - seems to be the only viable long-term role for our species at this scale. Whether or not we're heading in that direction is another question. But it's interesting to watch nations, societies, businesses, etc, attempt to build sustainable structures and lives for their constituents using the power structures they believe best. A microcosm of the same problem on a smaller scale. It's not super encouraging how many different civilisations, societies and commercial enterprises have died and failed before us, but maybe diversity and resilience go hand-in-hand, and those values are how we need to approach the natural world we now control. Of course, that all sounds a bit like the self-serving Dogma of Otherness, and another example of the double-standard in philosophy that "values that prioritise others actually elevate myself with their nobility".

marcosdumay 2y ago
> but maybe diversity and resilience go hand-in-hand As long as the values that are against resilience are not part of that diversity... I'll say, I have no idea how to get anything close to sustainability from a human society. Thankfully, making something that can last for a few centuries looks like a much easier problem.

PaulHoule 2y ago

My first take was it's another case of sci fi fans discovering that the author doesn't believe in the stuff they write. Charles Stross confessed that he doesn't believe in space colonization and interstellar travel. As a non-fiction author Issac Asimov railed against the belief in ESP although he wrote as many trashy stories about ESP as any author had to to get published in the Campbell era. Maybe Heinlein never broke character or maybe his combination of earnestness and naivety was real (and provided future authors such as Haldeman a chance to write stories somewhere between a homage and refutation such as The Forever War and Worlds) Never mind the writers of fantastic fiction masquerading as non-fiction such as Lily, Castenada, Roberts, etc. To be a fan of fantastic fiction (sci-fi, fantasy, comic books, etc.) you have to be able to hold an imaginary world and its rules in your mind and take it seriously enough to care what happens to the characters. A certain kind of pornography can interest people for a while without any conflict but Superman would be entirely uninteresting if he didn't have meaningful limitations or worthy adversaries. (And he struggles... in Superman Returns he rescues people who are launching a freaking space shuttle (unsafe at any speed to begin with) off a commercial airliner. I'm sorry if your judgement is that bad you don't deserve to get rescued.) A good example of a 'serious' short story is The Cold Equations https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-cold-equations/ https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-cold-equation... where the story depends on believing certain constraints about space travel. The more fantastic it gets the more you're going to think it's silly unless you've got the ability to jump into a counterfactual world with both feet.

gwern 2y ago
> Cliff Stoll confessed that he doesn't believe in space colonization and interstellar travel. Perhaps you mean Charles Stross?
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  You're right! This has been corrected. Thanks!
the_af 2y ago
Hey, don't disparage Asimov's Foundation stories! It's true Asimov was an atheist and also stood against pseudoscience, but his stories are not trash! ;) > Charles Stross confessed that he doesn't believe in space colonization and interstellar travel I've never read Stross but I've experienced a similar dissonance with John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" series. If you stop at his first novel, you could easily believe (as I did) Scalzi is pro-war and his stance is that aliens must be met with firm military force "or else". He even has a token pacifist self-righteous character who insists there must be another way, then immediately gets torn to shreds by evil aliens for his naiveté (to everyone else's applause). I was disgusted and ready to toss the series into the garbage bin. Then... well, I'm not saying he's a good writer, but his later novels in the series paint a different picture. Well done fooling me, Mr Scalzi!

yldedly 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

RHSman2 2y ago

A great read.

m463 2y ago
To be honest, I posted this because I saw similar discussions s/dolphin/AGI/
- m463 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689558

kazinator 2y ago

The thing is, if you've not defined precisely what it means for a dolphin (or human) to be intelligent, then, yes, there is room for other handwaving besides yours, even in a world where the otherness dogma has been loudly rejected. In the hard sciences there is no room for opinions in areas where we have the facts. E.g. electrical engineers don't have to entertain someone who has invented their own equation for how a transistor works which is completely different from Ebers-Moll and yields the wrong results. That's just a kook; move on. Things they try to build based on their wrong model will not work. If you dislike hecklers who are not easily dismissed kooks, either stay out of soft fields, or else avoid situations where you might engage the public.

AStonesThrow 2y ago

The thesis here pretty much reflects the heresy described and condemned by the Catholic Church as "modernism". Pope St. Pius X described Modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies", and it's often insidious and difficult to pin down. Because if at its core, it says "there can be no universal truths" that is already an inherent Liar's Paradox, and any subsequent claims are just as questionable if one truly adheres to Modernism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_in_the_Catholic_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_in_the_Catholic_Chur... https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documen... It is so strange how Brin tiptoes around mentioning any church or pope or the existing terms such as "Modernism", or how much the concept resembles his (rather appropriately) neologism-coined gobbledygook, but his words and phrasing seem to indicate that he's well aware that the same controversy has raged since the late-19th-century, (take note, he is of Eastern-Bloc Jewish descent) and merely wants to avoid cluing anyone in about the parallels.