Political Philosophy discussion

[Thunderbrd]

Then it will be blamed on one of psychological biases.
That is equivalent of optical illusion.

Such blame I find to be illogical to assume. Too much reality is experienced by people in this limited individual manner to write it all off. I can understand writing off the experiences of others, but not of self.

 

[raxo2222]

Such blame I find to be illogical to assume. Too much reality is experienced by people in this limited individual manner to write it all off. I can understand writing off the experiences of others, but not of self.

I meant you can still experience such events, but they aren't result of higher beings or time travellers meddling.

If event doesn't break laws of physics, then it can happen somewhere.

 

[Thunderbrd]

but they aren't result of higher beings or time travellers meddling.

Why would you assume that?

 

[raxo2222]

Why would you assume that?

Why do you assume, that there are reality warpers (time travellers, aliens on cosmic joyride, angels or God itself) messing around, when stuff can be explained in more mundane way?
We aren't living in Stellaris, MCU, C2Cverse or any universe, where Earth tech level would be considered primitive on cosmic scale, otherwise something like SETI would detect anomalies far away.

Extraordinary claims like ultra-high tech level intelligent life, that can traverse infinity and eternity for cheap entertainment requires extraordinary evidence.
So its natural to assume, that universe is purely bottom-top driven and any top-bottom structures are emerging later, as intelligent life emerges from pure physics.

Higher beings, that go mess around other intelligent life can mess around with other stuff.

 

[tmv]

The main problem, I think, is that our brains, like anything else in the universe, are not flawless. But we don't have a "brain behind the brain" to catch it making mistakes, so we must consider even our own reasoning process to have bugs. We cannot debug our own brains, at least by ourselves, so we must try to get to a (probably) right answer with flawed reasoning, and this is not easy. It helps when there are other people that make different mistakes, so all points in the reasoning process where we make the same choices are more likely to be right, provided

• we are all well informed enough regarding the problem that we are not blind people describing a painting
• ideally we have not interacted with each other regarding the problem before, so we didn't have an opportunity to make matching errors

There are other points to observe, like making sure that when we inevitably fail, we don't take our "plane of existence" out with us, so to speak. And then we have the scientific method, which starts with the assumption that we have flawed brains and tries to deliver a reliable method to derive good results. Of course, these results are never final (like Newton's theories were ultimately found to be "mere" approximations), and even in Math people should remember that we construct our "proofs" with our limited brains, so even there we don't have perfect verification.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Why do you assume, that there are reality warpers (time travellers, aliens on cosmic joyride, angels or God itself) messing around, when stuff can be explained in more mundane way?
We aren't living in Stellaris, MCU, C2Cverse or any universe, where Earth tech level would be considered primitive on cosmic scale, otherwise something like SETI would detect anomalies far away.

Extraordinary claims like ultra-high tech level intelligent life, that can traverse infinity and eternity for cheap entertainment requires extraordinary evidence.
So its natural to assume, that universe is purely bottom-top driven and any top-bottom structures are emerging later, as intelligent life emerges from pure physics.

Higher beings, that go mess around other intelligent life can mess around with other stuff.

Wouldn't say I'm assuming either way. Just pointing out that its as illogical to assume something otherwise unexplainable cannot be what is within the realm of any theoretical possibility.

I also find that there seems to be a high likelihood that there IS no other better/more likely explanation for some experiences. When you try to stuff them into mundane explanations they defy the rationale for those explanations. Just because something CAN be explained in a mundane way doesn't mean the puzzle piece fits very well that way at times. So why should one maintain an anti-scientific sense of bias about anything?

But we don't have a "brain behind the brain" to catch it making mistakes, so we must consider even our own reasoning process to have bugs.

I think if we listen to our thoughts we'd find we have a HUGE amount of debugging software to our minds that is constantly looking out for errors. If we stand too fast, we can recognize that the woozy moments we experience are a result of the loss of blood and to disregard our thoughts. Most people experiencing dementia can recognize it when they are until it grows to a level where even those 'debug' routines are helplessly bugged. A person CAN be a decent judge of the reliability of their own thoughts. Sure some may fall prey to seeing what they want to see in something that takes place and we know of numerous blind spots and oversights. But that cannot be patently used to disregard the millions of people who claim to have had spiritual experiences I don't think, particularly when world wide over you can see repeatable trends and internal knowledge emerging from highly disconnected spiritualist conclusions. In essence, there IS a body of repeatable experiences to rely on in this subject if one does not look at it all with an immediate bias to discount its credibility. The problem, in part, is that with all of those traditions tends to come the understanding that it takes a LONG time to get to the point of achieving these experiences so 'easily' repeated is not really possible here, nor do the messages come through in the same way for all, but highly personalized in nature. Again, not exactly cause to immediately discount, particularly considering how similar end conclusions from these people all have many overlapping similarities.

 

[Blazenclaw]

If it happens at only unexpectable intervals, not to say it cannot be verified personally, but to admit it is infrequent and difficult to verify and impossible to CREATE verification, but has been experienced, is that so illogical? At least, when it has been experienced by the person saying so?

(1 event / 100 person-years) * (8 billion people on Earth) = ~150 such events, globally, per second. If some such event is given by something like "the grown connection of individual-specific neurons that have not been created in a manner according to the same laws of physics that govern the rest of reality" (read: someone's mind changes by means other than the same laws governing reality elsewhere), that does seem oddly specific to me, and quite potentially detectable in theory at some point. Further, the event really ought to be defined better; is it unique for everyone? What rules govern it? What neural structure is created that is unique to the individual since neural nets are intrinsically widely varied? The more defined something has to be, the further away it seems from all other physical laws we've uncovered that govern and/or model our reality (four fundamental interactions, a large handful of particles, and a set of [initial] conditions represents the bare essentials for the vast majority of what we see in our universe, and can fit on a T-Shirt). And the further away from everything else we've "verified"... yes, I would call that less logical, again due to Occam.

Sure some may fall prey to seeing what they want to see in something that takes place and we know of numerous blind spots and oversights. But that cannot be patently used to disregard the millions of people who claim to have had spiritual experiences I don't think, particularly when world wide over you can see repeatable trends and internal knowledge emerging from highly disconnected spiritualist conclusions.

If the specifics (above) are ignored, then general claims such as this must also discount other systemic factors such as cognitive biases intrinsic to human biology and common sociology. Given the latter are testable and interactable and would seem to provide a reasonable solution without needing really difficult specific implementation claims (again, above), I'd argue other systemic factors are near-infinitely more likely to be the cause rather than any individual spiritualist or religious belief, and merely significantly more likely than any generalist supernatural claim.

Ultimately, this does come down to personal opinion at some point - numbers are impossible to assign to broad statements as these - but I find that attempting to define specifics will often separate out things that merely seem to make sense from that which does make sense.
["What happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object?" is a question in English that is perfectly grammatically valid, yet whose specifics illustrate is nonsense; the definition of "unstoppable force" is, in this context, "there does not exist an immovable object which cannot be moved", and so in the question is a self-contradiction, and thus while it may seem reasonable to discuss, it nonsense in actuality.]

 

[Thunderbrd]

If the specifics (above) are ignored, then general claims such as this must also discount other systemic factors such as cognitive biases intrinsic to human biology and common sociology. Given the latter are testable and interactable and would seem to provide a reasonable solution without needing really difficult specific implementation claims (again, above), I'd argue other systemic factors are near-infinitely more likely to be the cause rather than any individual spiritualist or religious belief, and merely significantly more likely than any generalist supernatural claim.

While a reasonable and rational take, it certainly can only be made by one who hasn't personally experienced the things I'm discussing here.

 

[Blazenclaw]

While a reasonable and rational take, it certainly can only be made by one who hasn't personally experienced the things I'm discussing here.

Yeah, I'm attempting to logic through the general case of what most people would consider spiritual/religious/supernatural which, uh, is quite a bit.

I certainly don't know what specifically your own specific experiences have been, but at least for me- if ever I am truly, 100% convinced by something that there can be no alternative (DC0's "I don't believe God exists, I know God exists")... I'd no longer be me, because a core part of my identity is that reality is far more probabilistic than binary. If I experience something / somethings so profound I'd call evidence-based reasoning into question, I'd consider it (as I am now) far more likely to be a physical/biological "fault" in my brain circuitry that has caused whatever it was to impact hypothetical-future-me so much. Of course the impacted hypothetical-future-me would no longer have that objection, so it's something of a logical trap; once you're there, it's no longer possible to logically escape. It uh, does kinda unfavorably remind me of QAnon and rabbithole feedback loops of modern conspiracy theorist madness, but only in the structural sense, not the negative resultants.

 

[Pepo]

You thinking about the techno-optimists, who think all our problems will be solved by science and therefore there's no reason to worry/care about the big problems of our time, like plastic in nature, mass extinction of other species, and global warming? Yeah, that's a common irrationality of today, but it is often just a secondary one caused by the faith in eternal economic growth within finite time and space, which is a more dangerous irrationality imo.

Edit: Maybe you're just referring to the trivial case that many people take science seriously without understanding the evidence for it in many cases.

I was referring more to the latter rather than the former. I'am opposed to the position of the tecno- optimists as well, but I wouldn't say it is an irrationality on their part , more of a kind of ignorance in respect to the matter or that they have a hidden agenda on their part. I'am an economist, and from the dominant spirit of our profession, is not at all surprising some of the positions they take.

Also I wouldn't disregard "the triviality of the common belief". Not understanding why some natural phenomenons happen makes one need to rely on the words on another and believe what they are told. Of course, it is very easy to think they are rigth when our understanding of the world has increased exponentially in the last centuries. However the difference between knowing something (which may be indistinguishable from a belief) and having a knowledge of something it is very important, and may in part explain why we can see in our current era movements like the flat earthers or the anti-vaxxers .

 

[raxo2222]

Someone mentioned techno-optimism here.
Bad consequences of technology and science can be mitigated, if you invest in education and research.
Private sector is fine too, when regulated, like in Nordics or Western Europe.
With proper balance propaganda and needless work could be minimized.
Long term research and sustainability, arts, philosophy would benefit from state funding, that if state isn't focused on controlling everyone.
Short term economic growth and resilience would benefit from private sector, that if corporations aren't focused only on sucking money from everything to billionaires.

As for C2C, isn't game like ULTRA techno-optimistic?
Materialistic civilization effectively made religion, spirituality and all sort of higher beings truly real.
Future stuff made before Pepper was likely inspired by techno-optimist sites like this one.
Seems like some of you never got past of medieval era

As for religion/spirituality.... it could be truly personal property like toothbrushes lol.

 

[raxo2222]

Did any of you play Democracy 4?
Its turn based country simulator. One turn is three months.

You can nationalize education, healthcare, and some more industries, or privatize everything.
You can make religion extinct - throw religion out of schools, or make a theocracy.
You can start Mars, Space programs, invest in science and education, spend money on nuclear energy and fusion project.
You also can be Pol Pot (that anti-education Cambodian dictator) or Unabomber (anarchoprimitivist).

Also there are cultural policies like making state friendly to women, LGBT, and ethnic minorities.
Also legalize stuff like euthanasia, abortion, drugs, gambling, prostitution, gay marriage and other stuff like that.
Its freedom of choice - you think spinach is sin or something, doesn't mean spinach should be banned
You can go full conservative on cultural stuff too.

You can abolish poverty, inequality and be green technocratic social-democratic country.
You can be socially conservative Cyberpunk like country.
Or just ban and tax everything that can be banned and taxed - communist police state or something like that.

If you like Family Values so much, then just max out all policies, that make Parents happy
Also state housing, so people can actually buy houses

 

[Joij21]

socially conservative Cyberpunk like country.

I don't think social conservativism makes a cyberpunk like country. In most portrayals of cyberpunk in fiction, the society is usually heavily socially liberal but economically conservative.

 

[raxo2222]

I don't think social conservativism makes a cyberpunk like country. In most portrayals of cyberpunk in fiction, the society is usually heavily socially liberal but economically conservative.

So what would be better name for dystopian high tech socially and economically conservative state?
Theocratic Corporatocracy?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I do like the sound of Corporatocracy - that does match the concept of what has been proposed for a cyberpunk-like future.

 

[Joij21]

So what would be better name for dystopian high tech socially and economically conservative state?
Theocratic Corporatocracy?

Evangelical Christian America.

 

[strategyonly]

Evangelical Christian America.

YUCK, more and more are getting away from any kind of churches. . .and are more NON-believers ..

 

[raxo2222]

YUCK, more and more are getting away from any kind of churches. . .and are more NON-believers ..

So you would have Spiritual trait - any beliefs in higher powers are equally good

Spoiler :

"All beliefs except mine are fake news"

"My religion is best one"

"Every faith in higher power is good faith"

"Higher powers are fake news"

 

[Thunderbrd]

All that + "Fake News Sources Must Die"

 

[strategyonly]

All that + "Fake News Sources Must Die"

ahaha thats called "Fox News", lol