Berzerker
Deity
if everyone agrees progress has been achieved
What if we all agreed?
- Thread starter Gary Childress
- Start date
Mise
isle of lucy
Well, let's try to simplify this with a more easy-to-imagine model. So let's equate "everyone agrees" to "everyone agrees with me". Note that it doesn't really matter who "me" is: it could be anyone. It could even be you!
Now, there are a couple of problems with this conception of "agreement". First, I'm very often wrong. I could be wrong for any number of reasons. I could lack information which might change my mind, I could succumb to any number of cognitive biases or logical failures, I could have ulterior motives or deep-lying psychological issues, unbeknownst even to myself, that might lead me down the wrong path, I could be under the influence of drugs, alcohol, brainwashing, cultural or social pressure, stress or illness, tiredness, etc etc etc. Like, I could be wrong for a million reasons. So if everyone agreed with me on everything, it would be really weird: they would have to have all those things that are wrong with me wrong with them as well, or would somehow magically have to contrive to believe the same thing that I believe, despite having less wrong with them.
Consequently, if I am wrong, then we're all doomed. DOOMED. We'd all do the same thing, we'd all make the same mistakes and we'd all proverbially jump off the cliff like lemmings.
Finally, I very often don't even agree with myself on things. I'm often caught in two minds. I often can't decide what to do. Which is why I seek other opinions, other advice. If there is no such other advice, then we are doomed by paralysis and inaction instead. DOOMED.
So clearly, it doesn't appear possible for everyone to agree with me, for a whole host of reasons in the first paragraph. And even if everyone did agreed with me, the world would end pretty quickly.
But is the problem with me*? What if I changed my mind to meet other people's minds instead? I.e. what if the consensus after debate on various issues was always 100%? Well, you would probably get over some of the issues in the first paragraph. But how could you possibly ensure that everyone has access to all information? Let's say I don't know anything about climate science. If I did know what climate scientists knew, I'd probably conclude that we need to act on global warming and reduce carbon emissions. But for some reason, I'm not a climate scientist. I don't have that knowledge. And I might not even be capable, physically, intellectually, of ever having that knowledge or understanding it to the extent that climate scientists do. So how would I ever be able to agree with climate scientists? And it's not just knowledge either: it's experience, too. And all those biases I talked about would still exist. So again, it doesn't seem possible to all agree on everything.
But let's say we magically all had full knowledge, experience, and so on, through some sort of telepathy or shared consciousness. And let's imagine we're all magically free from the cognitive biases and psychological failings that often result in us making the wrong decisions in real life. So we're hand-waving away those problems. Would this then be desirable?
Well, we might now possess the collective knowledge of all of mankind, but if we all agreed on a single solution, we would never be able to hedge our bets in an uncertain world. We still won't have all the information to make decisions, because there is so much uncertainty in all of the variables. So we would still have to hedge our bets, come up with multiple different solutions, and see which one works. So we would need some form of disagreement to come up with those solutions.
But what if we all agreed that, due to the uncertainties of the world, we needed multiple solutions, and all agreed to create a broad range of solutions to various problems? Well, I think we would have a world much the same as we have now. In order to eliminate the physical impossibility of universal agreement, we've had to magic away all the psychological/informational/etc problems. But in order to actually make a system that works, we have to reintroduce pretty much the same disagreements that we face in our current world. So I think we can conclude that it is neither possible nor desirable for the entire world to agree on everything.
(*-There is also another option after exhausting the "with me" part. We could change it to "everyone thinks and does what I would do if I knew what they did". But we'd have the same problems, so let's skip that.)
Now, there are a couple of problems with this conception of "agreement". First, I'm very often wrong. I could be wrong for any number of reasons. I could lack information which might change my mind, I could succumb to any number of cognitive biases or logical failures, I could have ulterior motives or deep-lying psychological issues, unbeknownst even to myself, that might lead me down the wrong path, I could be under the influence of drugs, alcohol, brainwashing, cultural or social pressure, stress or illness, tiredness, etc etc etc. Like, I could be wrong for a million reasons. So if everyone agreed with me on everything, it would be really weird: they would have to have all those things that are wrong with me wrong with them as well, or would somehow magically have to contrive to believe the same thing that I believe, despite having less wrong with them.
Consequently, if I am wrong, then we're all doomed. DOOMED. We'd all do the same thing, we'd all make the same mistakes and we'd all proverbially jump off the cliff like lemmings.
Finally, I very often don't even agree with myself on things. I'm often caught in two minds. I often can't decide what to do. Which is why I seek other opinions, other advice. If there is no such other advice, then we are doomed by paralysis and inaction instead. DOOMED.
So clearly, it doesn't appear possible for everyone to agree with me, for a whole host of reasons in the first paragraph. And even if everyone did agreed with me, the world would end pretty quickly.
But is the problem with me*? What if I changed my mind to meet other people's minds instead? I.e. what if the consensus after debate on various issues was always 100%? Well, you would probably get over some of the issues in the first paragraph. But how could you possibly ensure that everyone has access to all information? Let's say I don't know anything about climate science. If I did know what climate scientists knew, I'd probably conclude that we need to act on global warming and reduce carbon emissions. But for some reason, I'm not a climate scientist. I don't have that knowledge. And I might not even be capable, physically, intellectually, of ever having that knowledge or understanding it to the extent that climate scientists do. So how would I ever be able to agree with climate scientists? And it's not just knowledge either: it's experience, too. And all those biases I talked about would still exist. So again, it doesn't seem possible to all agree on everything.
But let's say we magically all had full knowledge, experience, and so on, through some sort of telepathy or shared consciousness. And let's imagine we're all magically free from the cognitive biases and psychological failings that often result in us making the wrong decisions in real life. So we're hand-waving away those problems. Would this then be desirable?
Well, we might now possess the collective knowledge of all of mankind, but if we all agreed on a single solution, we would never be able to hedge our bets in an uncertain world. We still won't have all the information to make decisions, because there is so much uncertainty in all of the variables. So we would still have to hedge our bets, come up with multiple different solutions, and see which one works. So we would need some form of disagreement to come up with those solutions.
But what if we all agreed that, due to the uncertainties of the world, we needed multiple solutions, and all agreed to create a broad range of solutions to various problems? Well, I think we would have a world much the same as we have now. In order to eliminate the physical impossibility of universal agreement, we've had to magic away all the psychological/informational/etc problems. But in order to actually make a system that works, we have to reintroduce pretty much the same disagreements that we face in our current world. So I think we can conclude that it is neither possible nor desirable for the entire world to agree on everything.
(*-There is also another option after exhausting the "with me" part. We could change it to "everyone thinks and does what I would do if I knew what they did". But we'd have the same problems, so let's skip that.)
You join me and Gary in wiping out humanity.
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
I'll print out an application for Borachio. We can't just take in anyone who wants to wipe out humanity, you know, without an application. And besides if he is martyred we'll at least need to know who to notify as "next of kin".
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
Joining a movement to destroy humanity without an application???? Are you sure that's wise? What if something happens and we get sued? 
Paul in Saudi
Emperor
If we all agreed, i suspect we would all be wrong.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Obviously, disagreements are a practical nessesity in trying to come to the best conclusions. Humans are limitided and variable like that.
However, if we would forgo that practical necessity and focused on the intrinsic value of disagreement and agreement then we might have something to discuss.
Now I have seen a lot of to me seemingly gilp gut answers about how that would be very undesireable to be in agreement with everyone. It is true that the sport of disagreements can be pleasureable, it can motivate use to be engaged, can reward when we overcome disagreement etcetera.
However, to be in agreement also can yield a lot of pleasure. If we agreed on anything, the result would be a kind of universal state of harmony, and harmony is perhaps in so far boring as that it lacks the pleasures disagreements can provide, but foremost I find it clear that harmony is a fantastic state. I think people feel overall the most satisfaction in a social context when in a state of harmony. Those moments when we are in perfect tune with a group and feel all fuzzy and warm inside
Now - is the pleasure of disagreement so significant that it outweighs the please of universal harmony? I strongly doubt that. It is my gut assumption that people feel like they have to seem strong + many are conditioned to value diversity and other slogans of our time, so they are quick to judge such a state as "chilly" or boring or whatever.
Btw - this scenario reminds me of a novel I read, a science-fiction novel which was about a future where all humans would be identical twins and on account of that everybody would feel deeply connected to everybody and the world was a hugely better place. I found this to be an intriguing and somewhat plausible concept. Though it certainly could also vastly overstate the effects of identical genes.
However, if we would forgo that practical necessity and focused on the intrinsic value of disagreement and agreement then we might have something to discuss.
Now I have seen a lot of to me seemingly gilp gut answers about how that would be very undesireable to be in agreement with everyone. It is true that the sport of disagreements can be pleasureable, it can motivate use to be engaged, can reward when we overcome disagreement etcetera.
However, to be in agreement also can yield a lot of pleasure. If we agreed on anything, the result would be a kind of universal state of harmony, and harmony is perhaps in so far boring as that it lacks the pleasures disagreements can provide, but foremost I find it clear that harmony is a fantastic state. I think people feel overall the most satisfaction in a social context when in a state of harmony. Those moments when we are in perfect tune with a group and feel all fuzzy and warm inside
Now - is the pleasure of disagreement so significant that it outweighs the please of universal harmony? I strongly doubt that. It is my gut assumption that people feel like they have to seem strong + many are conditioned to value diversity and other slogans of our time, so they are quick to judge such a state as "chilly" or boring or whatever.
Btw - this scenario reminds me of a novel I read, a science-fiction novel which was about a future where all humans would be identical twins and on account of that everybody would feel deeply connected to everybody and the world was a hugely better place. I found this to be an intriguing and somewhat plausible concept. Though it certainly could also vastly overstate the effects of identical genes.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Hang on, hang on. I didn't "agree to join". I just agreed.
Specifically, I was agreeing with Mr Mise (who was saying agreeing was a "bad thing", if I understood him correctly). And I only did that because I imagined I was being dead cool and witty.
But take notice (you and any members of the FBI who may be lurking): I'm very firmly in the "let's not exterminate humanity" camp.
In fact, I don't think it's a good idea to kill even one person. Not even if that one person was David Cameron. Not even if it were incredibly funny to do so.
Mise
isle of lucy
I agree - agreement is a priori good. However, while I agree broadly with your point, I would caution against getting too carried away with it when taking it back to reality. In particular: "many are conditioned to value diversity and other slogans of our time" <-- I agree with the sentiment behind this, as a possible explanation for why so many people have said "this would be boring". However, consider this: we in the Western world -- that is, we who have been conditioned to believe in Western values -- already agree on the vast, vast majority of things. Like, 95% of all things, we agree on. Partly that's down to cultural conditioning, partly down to education. But the 5% we disagree on are the cause of a great deal of disharmony and anxiety, as you mention. Imagine if we reduced "disagreement" from 5% down to 1%. I.e. we started agreeing on fully 80% of the things we currently disagree on, but there remain disagreements over the other stuff. Do you expect we would be any closer to this utopian harmony? Or do you think that the remaining 1% that we now disagree on will be so consuming and contentious -- necessarily so, since it's necessarily the most difficult thing to agree on! -- that we still can't be noticeably more harmonious than at present? Would the same be true if we got down to 0.1% disagreement? Or maybe if we got it down to just 1 single thing that people still didn't agree on? E.g. abortion. Hmmm! I think there would still be a great deal of disharmony in a society that agreed on everything, aside from the most difficult thing to agree on.
If we suddenly agreed on everything, though, then yes, I agree that the world would probably be more harmonious, and this clearly outweighs the "downside" of it being a slightly less interesting world to live in.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
We will become the Borg.
Not even IDS???
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
You know that when I said it would be chill that was meant as a positive thing?
Now I think a problem behind this discussion is the vagueness of the premise. What does agreeing on things mean? In one interpretation every single individual has to be identical (at least brain-wise), in another, it's basically that people share the same view about how the world works and how things should be.
I think the second interpretaion sounds pretty rad, granted that people didn't say agree that sanitation is unhealthy.
So basically, if the things we agree on are true and ethical (which I know is a vague term, but I think you get me), I think it would be pretty nice. Maybe if it happened this very instant people would feel restless, but I think it's a thing one could get used to. And people could still meet eachother, fall in love, embark on adventures and so on.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Agreement is mutually preferrable self-preservation of various sorts. Nothing more and nothing to do per se with truth or best or most fair solutions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not humanity but stupidity should. Humanity needs to be merely perfected...
Lets face it agreement isnt even close to any permanent solution. Love is. Thats what is true spirituality about.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I think we can agree on everything only in the far future, when "we" are hyper-intelligent entities. Much like in the Culture of Iain M. Banks' novels - the minds in that universe do not agree on everything, but imagine them being advanced a bit further. Eventually you reach a stage where the knowledge attained by each being is so great that being might as well be a God-like being that's all-knowing.
If a collection of all-knowing beings exists, they may very well all agree on everything, because they know everything. I doubt we'll ever "evolve" or improve ourselves to such a stage, but theoretically speaking, I think this is the only scenario I can think of in which a collection of 6 billion minds would agree to everything. Unless they were all brainwashed or something, but that seems like a cop-out.
I also agree that without disagreements there would be no progress. That seems so obvious in hindsight, but I wouldn't have thought to say that, I guess probably because I'm not a philosopher.
If a collection of all-knowing beings exists, they may very well all agree on everything, because they know everything. I doubt we'll ever "evolve" or improve ourselves to such a stage, but theoretically speaking, I think this is the only scenario I can think of in which a collection of 6 billion minds would agree to everything. Unless they were all brainwashed or something, but that seems like a cop-out.
I also agree that without disagreements there would be no progress. That seems so obvious in hindsight, but I wouldn't have thought to say that, I guess probably because I'm not a philosopher.
Similar threads
- Locked
