Altriusm, a nice way to express your selfishness?

[JoeDawg]

What, like cuckoos you mean?

I'm not going to resort to namecalling, but I'm sure you might have a pet.

How bout http://psychology.uga.edu/primate/pub/Izar%20et%20al%20adoption%20AJP%2068,%20692%20-%20700%202006.pdf"

The examples you are thinking of would be mistaken behaviours

Not cuckoo then, but psychic.

And if you really think that good Moko "led" the whales to safety, then perhaps you also think bad Moko trapped a female swimmer off shore so she was in danger of drowning.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this.

 

[apeiron]

You can't derive an ought from an is...

Why not? Of course I know the old Humean arguments. But I was arguing a not uncommon counterview.

A self-organising system would indeed be prescriptive at the level of global constraint - even if dichotomistically, it was descriptive at the level of local constructive action, or material stuff.

Reductionist think everything just "is". There is no meaning in reality. A systems thinker would expect things to be the way they are because that was the way they had to be for some reason, some purpose.

Of course you need other bits of the systems toolkit to get how this works, like vagueness.

 

[JoeDawg]

Reductionist think everything just "is". There is no meaning in reality. A systems thinker would expect things to be the way they are because that was the way they had to be for some reason, some purpose.

If that is true, then everything that 'is', has a purpose.
Which means if it exists, it should exist.

Serial killers, mass murderers, pedophiles, rapists, and people who kick puppies all exist as part of the system for a purpose.

And yeah, Hume.

 

[apeiron]

I'm not going to resort to namecalling, but I'm sure you might have a pet.

Er, I'm human and having pets is hardly an act of altruism. So not seeing how this is relevant.

How bout http://psychology.uga.edu/primate/pub/Izar%20et%20al%20adoption%20AJP%2068,%20692%20-%20700%202006.pdf"

But this is still a biological case of mistaken identity. You could call it altruistic, but from a science point of view, it would be a contentless statement. It would no explain why it happened. Whereas a misdirected maternal instinct explains it very well.

And why would I favour an unhelpful useage over a helpful one?

Not cuckoo then, but psychic.

Meaning?

I'm not even sure what you mean by this.

Perhaps you don't know of the incident? I'm simply suggesting that if you impute disinterested concern in the one case, then it would seem you would have to impute selfish malice to the other.

 

[apeiron]

If that is true, then everything that 'is', has a purpose.
Which means if it exists, it should exist.

Serial killers, mass murderers, pedophiles, rapists, and people who kick puppies all exist as part of the system for a purpose.

And yeah, Hume.

All these examples are local particulars - they indeed would exist at the level of "is". The ought would lie in the global constraints. It is trying to collapse the two scales implied by a dichotomy that is the reductionist fallacy. And you continue to commit it.

Referring back to my earlier posts in this thread, the local level would be "competition" and the global level would be "co-operation". All the examples you cite above would be local pathologies - out of equilbrium reactions. Insufficiently constrained - for the purposes of the greater system. Which is why there are laws and prisons.

Everything that is, ought to be in harmony with the purpose enshrined in the whole.

 

[JoeDawg]

The ought would lie in the global constraints.

Yeah, just about everyone has some claim to knowing what those are.
I'm thinking one has to know the purpose of the system as a whole, first, though.
And just so, even a cancer cell has its own purpose, and its own part to play.

Referring back to my earlier posts in this thread, the local level would be "competition" and the global level would be "co-operation".

Eastern philosophy tends to view those two things as indistingishable, mainly because the balance of nature is maintained by competing forces. Of course that assumes an eternally static universe, which we don't appear to have, and life itself is a bit of an aberration.

I don't buy the teleology, I don't think you can translate the 'global contraints' of the universe into human everyday life. Its like saying that certain atoms should act a certain way, because they belong to a baseball. Equilibrium includes a wide range of atomic level behaviors.

Which is why there are laws and prisons.

Nature required no such thing for millions of years. If anything, we are an aberration, within an aberration. A system where the law of the jungle is the global constraint, within a system where inanimate matter and empty space are the universal contraint.

Civilization is out of harmony with the jungle, but its where I prefer to live.

 

[apeiron]

Yeah, just about everyone has some claim to knowing what those are.
I'm thinking one has to know the purpose of the system as a whole, first, though.
And just so, even a cancer cell has its own purpose, and its own part to play.

Eastern philosophy tends to view those two things as indistingishable, mainly because the balance of nature is maintained by competing forces. Of course that assumes an eternally static universe, which we don't appear to have, and life itself is a bit of an aberration.

I don't buy the teleology, I don't think you can translate the 'global contraints' of the universe into human everyday life. Its like saying that certain atoms should act a certain way, because they belong to a baseball. Equilibrium includes a wide range of atomic level behaviors.

Nature required no such thing for millions of years. If anything, we are an aberration, within an aberration. A system where the law of the jungle is the global constraint, within a system where inanimate matter and empty space are the universal contraint.

Civilization is out of harmony with the jungle, but its where I prefer to live.

This is such a mish mash of statements it is not worth trying to disentangle them.

But anyway, cancer cells are another of your examples of local out-of-equilbrium behaviour which prove my general point (and I refer youback to apoptosis).

Dichotomies are defined by their absolute differentiation.

Equilbrium is a dynamic concept and does not presume a static universe.

The system view of particles would indeed see them as local features like solitons.

And I think you are being rather hard on yourself if you believe are an aberration. But it was indeed my earlier suggestion that the heat death as the purpose of the second law is indeed (arguably) the broadest sense of what we would deem to be ethically natural.

 

[JoeDawg]

This is such a mish mash of statements it is not worth trying to disentangle them.

Thank you.

But anyway, cancer cells are another of your examples of local out-of-equilbrium behaviour which prove my general point (and I refer youback to apoptosis).

Well yes, I realize that, but at the other end, it all depends on what you define the system as... the scope of your field of view:

Cancer is the bigbang in a multiverse, so the entire visible universe is 'out of equilibrium'.
And I don't make this up, symmetry breaking is a recognized part of our universe: matter/anti-matter etc..

We aren't the cancer, the universe is. Maybe?

Or, imagine the universe as a fractal system with bends within bends, and curves within curves, the shape dependent only on field of view and magnification.

Who knows.

Dichotomies are defined by their absolute differentiation.

Yeah, but absolutes are rubbish.

Is the universe static?
Well, if we think of time as a dimension, then the arrow of time is an illusion, and nothing really 'changes'. The universe doesn't 'begin' and 'end', so much as it has a front and back.

Is the universe dynamic?
The past is gone, and the future doesn't exist yet.
Time is change.

Or, maybe, static and dynamic are just two different ways of looking at the same universe, it is neither, and it is both. Dichotomies are merely artificial frames of reference.

Equilbrium is a dynamic concept and does not presume a static universe.

One could have equilibrium in a static universe. A static universe is just one that is not expanding or contracting. And if a multiverse exists... then it essentially is the 'real' universe.

The system view of particles would indeed see them as local features like solitons.

That at least is interesting. Have to look into that.

And I think you are being rather hard on yourself if you believe are an aberration. But it was indeed my earlier suggestion that the heat death as the purpose of the second law is indeed (arguably) the broadest sense of what we would deem to be ethically natural.

Hard on myself? Not at all. I rather like the idea.
Our very existense defiles the universe.

Of course, if the universe is indeed a cancer, then we are doomed to defeat, by an unstoppable evil... but is there not some nobility in that?
Think happy thoughts.

 

[JoeDawg]

I have not made any appeals to legal definitions

I don't see it as avoidable.

I am fairly certain that you and I can likely come to an understanding of the common definition in the modern western world.

'Rape' is not an action, per se. It already has a value attached to it.
If we are going to talk about the nature of an action, this is a bad place to start.

And I never said you did. I am only guessing at your objections since you have done little other than throw up strawmen.

Another bad place to start.

 

[apeiron]

so the entire visible universe is 'out of equilibrium'.
And I don't make this up, symmetry breaking is a recognized part of our universe: matter/anti-matter etc..

Yes, the universe arises out of symmetry breaking, but if its local and global sources of action are integrating evenly (even as they also differentiate) then is is an equilibrium state that is being achieved.

The difference between the two states is easy to recognise. A symmetry breaking which maintains an equilbrium rate of development shows powerlaw behaviour - log/log, as both its aspects show geometric growth, giving it overall a geometric mean.

Out of equilbrium in your example of cancer is where one aspect grows too fast, exponentially - log/normal.

Yeah, but absolutes are rubbish.

As an absolutist statement, this is indeed rubbish.

I've explained this before, you will recall. Models are crisp formal statements - absolutes. But reality develops out of vague potential towards these absolutes without ever actually achieving them. The boundary states - like perfect continuity, or perfect discreteness - are good descriptors but not actual achieved states of reality. As we know from QM.

Or, maybe, static and dynamic are just two different ways of looking at the same universe, it is neither, and it is both. Dichotomies are merely artificial frames of reference.

Correct, dichotomies are the general modelling concept in metaphysics. All philosophy's concepts arose as dichotomies. But they arose because they do seem to say true things about the limits that shape reality.

Stasis~flux is one of those classic dichotomies. And the modern idea of a thermodynamic equilbrium - where change is also no change - is a way of resolving the ancient dilemma over which category is primary.

One could have equilibrium in a static universe. A static universe is just one that is not expanding or contracting. And if a multiverse exists... then it essentially is the 'real' universe.

No, a purely static universe seems impossible from the laws of physics. And by extrapolation, it seems safe to argue a multiverse would also have to be a stasis~flux equlibrium structure. But that would be OK if the multiverse is really just our universe at a vaguer state of development.

Hard on myself? Not at all. I rather like the idea.
Our very existense defiles the universe.

Of course, if the universe is indeed a cancer, then we are doomed to defeat, by an unstoppable evil... but is there not some nobility in that?
Think happy thoughts.

Good and evil - the subtext of this thread - do not make a good dichotomy. This is why there is so much confusion around them. A good dichotomy makes the necessary local~global division in scale visible.

There are two kinds of symmetry breaking - the same scale kind of left/right, for example. But the natural one, the developmental one, is the scale invariant kind. Fractals for example. Static and dynamic in equal measure because it exists everywhere and never ends.

 

[JoeDawg]

Out of equilbrium in your example of cancer is where one aspect grows too fast.

'Too fast' sounds extremely relative.

As an absolutist statement, this is indeed rubbish.

That's just a language game.

But reality develops out of vague potential towards these absolutes without ever actually achieving them.

Right, they don't exist, they are just imaginary architecture.
Just like the ancients used the 5 elements to describe the world. Some things had more water in them, some were more a combination of Earth and air. We moderns have a greater understanding of the world because our model is more detailed and more descriptive. But any model is about utility, it is used for something.

All philosophy's concepts arose as dichotomies.

That is oversimplification, as I said before.

But that would be OK if the multiverse is really just our universe at a vaguer state of development.

Not if the universe was a random event.

Good and evil - the subtext of this thread - do not make a good dichotomy.

Again, good, depends what you want to use it for.

 

[apeiron]

'Too fast' sounds extremely relative.

You didn't get the point about log/normal vs log/log? Too fast is precisely defined here. It is a model rather than a hand wavy statement.

Right, they don't exist, they are just imaginary architecture.
Just like the ancients used the 5 elements to describe the world. Some things had more water in them, some were more a combination of Earth and air. We moderns have a greater understanding of the world because our model is more detailed and more descriptive. But any model is about utility, it is used for something.
.

This may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote of mine you attach it to. Is this further evidence of your shrewd debating skill?

That is oversimplification, as I said before.

And as I've pointed out, your statements about what you personally believe really don't rate even as an appeal to authority. An argument backed with evidence would be more convincing.

I've challenged you to name a single metaphysical concept that you believe to be true, or even just fundamentally useful for modelling purposes, that is not a dichotomy. That is a concrete challenge you have continually passed on. To me, that is evidence. The lack of an argument is eloquent indeed.

 

[JoeDawg]

I've challenged you to name a single metaphysical concept that you believe to be true, or even just fundamentally useful for modelling purposes, that is not a dichotomy. That is a concrete challenge you have continually passed on. To me, that is evidence. The lack of an argument is eloquent indeed.

I gave you this example, and others, ages ago:
Past-Present-Future

And, I made it clear that the fact you can reduce something to a dichotomy doesn't mean it is useful to do so. And yes, we all know you think dichotomies are the basis of everything. Your endless nattering about it, however, is not proof or evidence, and once again you've tried to hijack the discussion so you can preach the gospel of dichotomies.

 

[apeiron]

Ooh, language Timothy!

I gave you this example, and others, ages ago:
Past-Present-Future

Apologies. I don't remember that at all.

Unfortunately, dichotomies do lead to triads because what is separated then gets mixed, which gives that third emergent result. So having three things, rather that one thing all on its own, supports my position.

Again, can you think of a monadic concept that can stand all on its own?

I could deconstruct past~future for you, show how the present arises as a scale-free mixing (think lightcones, think the transactional interpretation) but I can see that would try your patience.

Once more, the challenge was to find any standard concept in metaphysics which stands mondadically alone and has no natural dichotomous partner. Identifying triads just leads you to the next step of the systems argument.

Remember, we have in physics the triad of QM-classical-GR. Hierarchy theory explains why.

And mechanists are stuck because it seems so hard to reduce GR (let alone classical) to the monadic category of QM standing alone.

And, I made it clear that the fact you can reduce something to a dichotomy doesn't mean it is useful to do so. And yes, we all know you think dichotomies are the basis of everything. Your endless nattering about it, however, is not proof or evidence, and once again you've tried to hijack the discussion so you can preach the gospel of dichotomies.

Yet again, the point was that metaphysics does reduce things to dichotomies, and yet not to monads. And those dichotomies have proved immensely useful as the basis of reality modelling.

It is not my obsessive idea but philosophy's eternal discovery.

I agree that much of western intellectual history has been about an attempt to go one better and reduce to monads.

Heraclitus said all is flux so Parmenides had to say all is stasis. Or at least that is how modern historians like to recreate the to and fro of greek philosophy. Likewise, the atomists said all was substance and Plato said all was form (except he didn't - there was also, dichotomistically, the chora).

Anyway, repeated attempts have resulted in repeated failure. Can you do any better?

Information theory would seem a successful example of modern monadism. It from bit. Wolfram's CAs. Tegmark's infinitude. There is a lot of triumphalism about these ideas. I'm surprised you don't cite actual current examples of monadism. And I would enjoy knocking them down if you did.

I know how distressed you usually are over the inadequacy of ad hominen arguments in the place of reasoned, referenced, debate, so you will be happy to be reminded that the views I put forward are as ancient as civilisation. And they are not a religious belief that is preached but a model of logic that can be backed up by argument and evidence.

The challenge remains. What is a single (monadic) philosophical principle that exists all on its own-some?

Not a triad. That is a hierarchy.

To remind you again of some of the classic dichotomies, they are local~global, discrete~continuous, stasis~flux, chance~necessity, matter~mind, substance~form, atom~void...the list just goes on.

Now where is the similar list of monadic philosophical concepts? That is your challenge.

Otherwise you have to accept dichotomies rule (symmetry breakings rule) and have to start considering why.

Anything less would indeed be faith-based. One would be left making statements unsupported by arguments and evidence.

 

[Kajahtava]

The point is that this entire discussion hangs on 'intention', what your intended goal/action instead of your action itself is. Intentionality is not a scientific category, rather it is naïve realism.

If I trip over, hurt myself, but in that process bump into my greatest enemy and save him or her from a bullet. I had nothing to gain from that and all to lose (for sake of argument), however, was it my 'intention' to trip over?

Most people define an altruistic act by that it was my intention and not just did so by not being careful. However, intention really is just naïve realism.

 

[disregardthat]

The point is that this entire discussion hangs on 'intention', what your intended goal/action instead of your action itself is. Intentionality is not a scientific category, rather it is naïve realism.

If I trip over, hurt myself, but in that process bump into my greatest enemy and save him or her from a bullet. I had nothing to gain from that and all to lose (for sake of argument), however, was it my 'intention' to trip over?

Most people define an altruistic act by that it was my intention and not just did so by not being careful. However, intention really is just naïve realism.

Do you leave no room for intention? Certainly on an intuitive level we distinguish between acts which was intended and acts which was not intended. If the results of our actions are as expected, the result was intentional. If the results of our actions was surprising and not as expected, then the result was not intentional. It seems to me that distinguishing between the two is trivial, but perhaps not in every case. Maybe there are some deeper reasons why this is not so? I am sure that including intention in a moral issue is not equivalent to naïve metaphysical realism.