What are your opinions on Jordan Peterson's ideas? Sensing a fair amount of affinities here.
Personally I believe the thesis that 1) value necessarily precedes facts and that 2) the only processes known to man for determining which values are good are long-run evolutionary processes, are basically, correct.
There is one nasty snag though, which is how do you find short term leading indicators to long term value-of-values. Without which, how does one ever innovate on value other than relying on pure hubris?
I have more to right about this, but yeah, i've been influenced by Peterson to some degree.
> which is how do you find short term leading indicators to long term value-of-values.
Yup, this is the 21 million bitcoin question.
> Without which, how does one ever innovate on value other than relying on pure hubris?
I think the answer is, because if you don't, you'll die? If the world were static and largely unchanging, my approach would be 'figure out who has been able to hold a civilization together for the longest, and then see what worked for them.'
In general i think trying to understand as many different value systems as possible, and seeing how to synthesize them, is an approach that avoids hubris. For example, i've done a lot to try and synthesize hinduism and various types of christianity. If my basic thesis is that a reality exists, and that most large faiths are attempts at mapping that reality, i want to combine the different maps as much as possible. To the extent that they differ, I want to understand how and why.
And then, eventually, i have to choose what I believe. That's the scary part. I'm not sure if there's any way around it, and it seems like i can either choose to believe that some existing map is already complete, or i can say, well, they all seem to have issues, so i'll try to roll my own.
This makes a lot of sense from the perspective of a modern individual attempting to navigate the meaning crisis, and is close to what I've been intending to practice (though perhaps not to the same level of sophistication).
The interesting thing here though, I think, is that if you look at past moral entrepreneurs - say Jesus, or Buddha - I doubt they followed a process like this. Their innovations were leaps and breaks from the traditions that they were immersed in. It really did seem to be more a matter of revelation than careful observation and synthesis. Jesus could not have convinced himself of the validity of Christianity by observing the thousands years of history of the Christian world.
Revelation produces false positives, the consequences of which can be dire (as you pointed out). Is there any, at least directionally reliable, method to know? Can one tell a Jesus from a Lenin without waiting for their ideas to play out in history over decades or millennia and millions blood shed?
I think you are right about the processes these people followed not being the one I am following. But for most of these people, this process wasn’t available. To be honest, I didn’t have interest in leading any kind of movement. The idea pops into my head from time to time but I don’t think it does me any good; it seems to be an ego thing. I get the impression that the world needs lots of small scale leaders, much moreso than it needs one big leader. If I’m hoping to do anything, it’s to encourage intellectuals who really get math and science to take the notion of religion seriously, and adopt the same belies that there really is territory to moral beliefs, and existing religions are all maps that actually do a decent job if you take them seriously.
The theory I have been using as my definition of “good” for some time basically says “it’s impossible to compute what is truly good, at best you can approximate it.”
Having lots of different approximations is better than just one. So rather that come up with some new religion, I’d rather come up with a compelling reason for adults skeptical of both traditional religion and materialism to take the religion of their ancestors more seriously. There’s a not-so great write up here:
I think if you have a lot of knowledge of history, and the history of various movements, you can “backtest” your approaches by seeing what advice they’d have given you at various points in history.
Maybe this is unsatisfactory, but in trying to integrate all these different value systems, it now seems like there’s a huge night and day difference between a movement that says “give me control of a powerful state and I will make the world better” and one that says “love and serve others.” I think a lot people understand the latter to be basically correct but are missing a sense of whether it’s really some cosmic truth beyond physics, or just, say, a good strategy with limits, like brushing your teeth on a regular basis.
My hunch on revelation is that what happens if you go down this route long enough is you become super confident you’ve got something figured out. I suspect that this confidence is basically always wrong. I like Sadghuru, for example, as a nice counterpoint to Jordan Peterson. I’m pretty sure Sadghuru is onto something as well - but he also makes some out there claims as well.
> I think value beliefs are false if they lower the long-term valence of the entity operating under them.
Here you state a personal value of yours, without having given any argument for why everyone else should adopt it.
It's not clear to me where you think the fact/value distiction from Hume's Fork is correct? Ie. do you think you can show why people should accept a value statement like the above, without any value-related premises?
I think hume's fork is correct but generally misunderstood. Yes, you need existing value beliefs in order to generate new ones. But the same is true of fact beliefs! If you don't start with some axioms, you can't generate new fact beliefs.
Most people are fine starting with some 'fact assumptions', like "there is a reality to fact beliefs, and our senses portray this reality roughly accurately."
All I am doing is taking the same stance with value beliefs: "there is a reality to value beliefs, and our moral intuitions portray this reality roughly accurately."
"Remember, brains are computers, and our minds are the software systems running on these computers"
Mmm... No, the brain is a sending and receiving mechanism to consciousness, which exists apart, separate and non-local. There's plenty of evidence if you look. Hell, you can even get out of your body w/o entheogens just by a good yoga session followed by deep breathwork, then fly off and have a look around places you're not supposed to (if you've got the stones for that sort of thing).
Rigid materialism is one way bullet train to despair and death.
I agree with your view of a sending/receiving mechanism, which i first encountered in a biography of alan turing; turing saw our brains differently. Does it help if i claim that consciousness includes more than 'just' the mind, and that computers might be seen as 'receivers' that 'conduct signals' from the platonic realm?
This seems to just sneakily be putting in "works well for groups over the long term" as a basic value. If you already assume what's morally correct you can of course test possible courses of action against that, but it doesn't seem to actually resolve the issue.
Overall I agree, although I was trying to be upfront about it. And I wouldn’t use the term “basic value” so much as, say, empirical test.
I don’t think there’s any way of resolving the gap overall, but it’s not like there’s people walking around who don’t have some values already. I think the question is, “are they integrated into a coherent concept? Or just kind of… there?”
Or maybe another question is, “how well do most people understand the relationship between their actions and how they feel? How well do most people understand what makes them actually feel better over long periods of time?”
I don't think the description of it as an empirical test (i.e. presumably a way to tell you what's ultimately "good") is accurate, though. Defining "stable over the long term" as "good" is a value judgement, and one which probably doesn't track well with people's existing values - for example, if it turned out that the best way to make a value system persist over the long term involved aggressive indoctrination, slavery, eating babies, genocide of opposition, etc. then I would disapprove of it regardless of how durable it was.
Good essay. We must be tuned into the same shard of the Logos as one of my next Contemplations is going to cover similar ground!
What are your opinions on Jordan Peterson's ideas? Sensing a fair amount of affinities here.
Personally I believe the thesis that 1) value necessarily precedes facts and that 2) the only processes known to man for determining which values are good are long-run evolutionary processes, are basically, correct.
There is one nasty snag though, which is how do you find short term leading indicators to long term value-of-values. Without which, how does one ever innovate on value other than relying on pure hubris?
I have more to right about this, but yeah, i've been influenced by Peterson to some degree.
> which is how do you find short term leading indicators to long term value-of-values.
Yup, this is the 21 million bitcoin question.
> Without which, how does one ever innovate on value other than relying on pure hubris?
I think the answer is, because if you don't, you'll die? If the world were static and largely unchanging, my approach would be 'figure out who has been able to hold a civilization together for the longest, and then see what worked for them.'
In general i think trying to understand as many different value systems as possible, and seeing how to synthesize them, is an approach that avoids hubris. For example, i've done a lot to try and synthesize hinduism and various types of christianity. If my basic thesis is that a reality exists, and that most large faiths are attempts at mapping that reality, i want to combine the different maps as much as possible. To the extent that they differ, I want to understand how and why.
And then, eventually, i have to choose what I believe. That's the scary part. I'm not sure if there's any way around it, and it seems like i can either choose to believe that some existing map is already complete, or i can say, well, they all seem to have issues, so i'll try to roll my own.
This makes a lot of sense from the perspective of a modern individual attempting to navigate the meaning crisis, and is close to what I've been intending to practice (though perhaps not to the same level of sophistication).
The interesting thing here though, I think, is that if you look at past moral entrepreneurs - say Jesus, or Buddha - I doubt they followed a process like this. Their innovations were leaps and breaks from the traditions that they were immersed in. It really did seem to be more a matter of revelation than careful observation and synthesis. Jesus could not have convinced himself of the validity of Christianity by observing the thousands years of history of the Christian world.
Revelation produces false positives, the consequences of which can be dire (as you pointed out). Is there any, at least directionally reliable, method to know? Can one tell a Jesus from a Lenin without waiting for their ideas to play out in history over decades or millennia and millions blood shed?
I think you are right about the processes these people followed not being the one I am following. But for most of these people, this process wasn’t available. To be honest, I didn’t have interest in leading any kind of movement. The idea pops into my head from time to time but I don’t think it does me any good; it seems to be an ego thing. I get the impression that the world needs lots of small scale leaders, much moreso than it needs one big leader. If I’m hoping to do anything, it’s to encourage intellectuals who really get math and science to take the notion of religion seriously, and adopt the same belies that there really is territory to moral beliefs, and existing religions are all maps that actually do a decent job if you take them seriously.
The theory I have been using as my definition of “good” for some time basically says “it’s impossible to compute what is truly good, at best you can approximate it.”
Having lots of different approximations is better than just one. So rather that come up with some new religion, I’d rather come up with a compelling reason for adults skeptical of both traditional religion and materialism to take the religion of their ancestors more seriously. There’s a not-so great write up here:
https://apxhard.com/2020/11/27/a-moral-system-from-scientific-rationality/
I think if you have a lot of knowledge of history, and the history of various movements, you can “backtest” your approaches by seeing what advice they’d have given you at various points in history.
Maybe this is unsatisfactory, but in trying to integrate all these different value systems, it now seems like there’s a huge night and day difference between a movement that says “give me control of a powerful state and I will make the world better” and one that says “love and serve others.” I think a lot people understand the latter to be basically correct but are missing a sense of whether it’s really some cosmic truth beyond physics, or just, say, a good strategy with limits, like brushing your teeth on a regular basis.
My hunch on revelation is that what happens if you go down this route long enough is you become super confident you’ve got something figured out. I suspect that this confidence is basically always wrong. I like Sadghuru, for example, as a nice counterpoint to Jordan Peterson. I’m pretty sure Sadghuru is onto something as well - but he also makes some out there claims as well.
It's nice to see the DAG concept from our email convo illuminated!
From your conclusion:
> I think value beliefs are false if they lower the long-term valence of the entity operating under them.
Here you state a personal value of yours, without having given any argument for why everyone else should adopt it.
It's not clear to me where you think the fact/value distiction from Hume's Fork is correct? Ie. do you think you can show why people should accept a value statement like the above, without any value-related premises?
I think hume's fork is correct but generally misunderstood. Yes, you need existing value beliefs in order to generate new ones. But the same is true of fact beliefs! If you don't start with some axioms, you can't generate new fact beliefs.
Most people are fine starting with some 'fact assumptions', like "there is a reality to fact beliefs, and our senses portray this reality roughly accurately."
All I am doing is taking the same stance with value beliefs: "there is a reality to value beliefs, and our moral intuitions portray this reality roughly accurately."
"Remember, brains are computers, and our minds are the software systems running on these computers"
Mmm... No, the brain is a sending and receiving mechanism to consciousness, which exists apart, separate and non-local. There's plenty of evidence if you look. Hell, you can even get out of your body w/o entheogens just by a good yoga session followed by deep breathwork, then fly off and have a look around places you're not supposed to (if you've got the stones for that sort of thing).
Rigid materialism is one way bullet train to despair and death.
Are these two views necessarily contradictory?
I agree with your view of a sending/receiving mechanism, which i first encountered in a biography of alan turing; turing saw our brains differently. Does it help if i claim that consciousness includes more than 'just' the mind, and that computers might be seen as 'receivers' that 'conduct signals' from the platonic realm?
This seems to just sneakily be putting in "works well for groups over the long term" as a basic value. If you already assume what's morally correct you can of course test possible courses of action against that, but it doesn't seem to actually resolve the issue.
Overall I agree, although I was trying to be upfront about it. And I wouldn’t use the term “basic value” so much as, say, empirical test.
I don’t think there’s any way of resolving the gap overall, but it’s not like there’s people walking around who don’t have some values already. I think the question is, “are they integrated into a coherent concept? Or just kind of… there?”
Or maybe another question is, “how well do most people understand the relationship between their actions and how they feel? How well do most people understand what makes them actually feel better over long periods of time?”
I don't think the description of it as an empirical test (i.e. presumably a way to tell you what's ultimately "good") is accurate, though. Defining "stable over the long term" as "good" is a value judgement, and one which probably doesn't track well with people's existing values - for example, if it turned out that the best way to make a value system persist over the long term involved aggressive indoctrination, slavery, eating babies, genocide of opposition, etc. then I would disapprove of it regardless of how durable it was.