Search the Community

Reason Vs. Emotion Vs. Belief Vs. Consciousness Reason, emotion, belief, and consciousness, have a fundamental place in epistemology and psychology but I have not found where they sit. I especially haven't found where they sit from first principles. My hope with this discussion is that these things can find their proper place. Emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational I have some ideas, each with their own arguments and evidence. From what I gather, Stefan has an implicit, specific conception of the relation between these things. The two major premises I can identify are 1) Emotions reflect belief, and 2) beliefs are always rational. Now, this second premise seems obviously false, but there is a corollary to it 3) beliefs do not necessarily reflect conscious thought. I should make it clear, by beliefs I mean what we really believe deep down and might not even be conscious of. Evidence for It's from these premises that much of the psychology in this community can be explained. We can explain the true self as rationality and the collection of beliefs. We can explain the false self as the origin of conscious thought that is not wholly informed by beliefs. We can explain free will by saying that it is a choice whether conscious thought wholly informs itself with belief. It also conforms with the evidence. It explains self-defence mechanisms where a person consciously thinks something but believes something else. It explains how personalities as a collective can be fragmented throughout history from all the evils that take place. It gives foundation to how a child protects themselves with false thoughts. It explains how psychotherapy works, by uncovering beliefs using critical thinking and self-reflection. It explains procrastination, as procrastination just reflects the belief of resentment. It would suggest we should follow our emotions as long as we identify them properly. Evidence against The issue is, there is a lot of evidence against these things. Are emotional leftist protesters simply misunderstanding their emotions? Are they masking a true self with a false self? Do people fall for propaganda because of the false self, or maybe we aren't actually innately rational? Another problem is, it seems incredibly redundant to have a true self making calculations, and then a false self making entirely different calculations about the same thing. Cognitive therapies suggest something is wrong with cognition itself. For example, schema therapy suggests that we have core beliefs that are often themselves unconscious and formed in childhood that are irrational and make us feel some ways or generate negative thoughts. It would be strange to have an extra layer to this by saying that those irrational core 'beliefs' are preceded by true beliefs. It is very hard for me to believe that emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational. But it also explains so much and makes life a lot easier. Argument for from first principles Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rather than doing some kind of trial-and-error, making observations, etc, an argument from first principles would take away a lot of doubt about the psychology taught in this community. I would think that arguing for these psycho-epistemological concepts from first principles would be the most important thing, as the psycho-epistemology kind of defines what this whole community is about. I tried to find these first principles, and I found these quotes from Ayn Rand. "There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards." (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 147) All knowledge is derived from reality, so emotions follow cognition. Perhaps we could further say from this that emotions reflect cognition. And, perhaps we can assume cognition and reason that goes with it have sovereignty. Indeed, doesn't seem logical that a rational faculty would allow something like 2+2=5. It is more likely that anyone who thinks such a thing is not using their rational faculty. It would also seem strange that the rational faculty would switch off, rather than keep working at the background. In fact, I think that our very feeling of having a self and having free will sort of rest upon the idea that we have some kind of sovereignty, and that we know what is best for ourselves, and we trust our faculties to give us the most accurate information possible. Perhaps this should be self-evident. Perhaps this is self-evident to any peacefully parented individual. Argument against from first principles Ayn Rand would disagree with our second premise; that beliefs are always rational. "Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values." (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 5) also, "An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . . In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?” (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 17) Rand is seeming to suggest emotions can reflect irrational thoughts. It seems beliefs held in the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance'. She says that using the rational faculty is not automatic but voluntary. So it has sovereignty, but it is up to a person to use it. Her view does make a lot of sense. Our working memory is incredibly limited, so thinking rationally would be incredibly limited. Perhaps there is no 'true self' beyond our ability to reason consciously. If Rand is right, I believe it challenges the psychology of this community. Rather than listening to a true self, and to emotions and their origins, her views would suggest we should rather use reason alone to find what is the right thing to do and to create habits out of it. Perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no ought from an is. It makes a lot of sense to me that only emotions can tell us something as trivial as what flavour of ice cream to have and something as serious as whether I should really marry some person. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance', but maybe it a somewhat active system which holds our true beliefs, while our conscious thoughts themselves can differ. What do people think? Can these premises be proven from first principles? Maybe you think the premises I outlined are inaccurate? How do you think is the best way to approach and deal with emotions and choices? Have any podcasts/books to share about this stuff?

Stefan points out that the axioms described in the “UPB in a Nutshell” section of UPB are ones that must bind any moral system. As such, the ethical framework I forward will hopefully arise under these axioms without contradiction. In regards to Utilitarianism Stefan had this to say: “I do not believe that morality can be defined or determined with reference to “arguments from effect,” or the predicted consequences of ethical propositions. Utilitarianism, or “the greatest good for the greatest number,” does not solve the problem of subjectivism, since the odds of any central planner knowing what is objectively good for everyone else are about the same as any - 10 - central economic planner knowing how to efficiently allocate resources in the absence of price – effectively zero. Also, that which is considered “the greatest good for the greatest number” changes according to culture, knowledge, time and circumstances, which also fails to overcome the problem of subjectivism. We do not judge the value of scientific experiments according to some Platonic higher realm, or some utilitarian optimisation – they are judged in accordance with the scientific method. I will take the same approach in this book.” This is quite a piercing and accurate criticism. The problem any theory which tries to aggregate some good faces, whether it’s pleasure, happiness, or some other “good”, is that it inevitably cannot measure that good objectively. Therefore, there is no way an individual, let alone a central planner could assess what the correct moral decision would be. Call this the measurement problem. Utilitarianism faces various other problems as well (such as the repugnant conclusion, and the utility monster and probably a few others I’m unaware of). Though this seems to be the most condemning problem of them all, since without its solution, Utilitarianism doesn’t get off the ground. Let’s turn to a quick thought experiment. There is a choice machine. This machine knows all of your current preferences and it updates each time your preferences change. This machine has a phenomenal grasp of deterministic physical forces and can assess the various outcomes of any set of decisions. This machine will best choose the decisions you have before you, in accordance with whatever outcome would best suit your preferences. The machine does this job without fault. Do you choose to let the machine run your life? There is a second choice machine. It too knows all of your current preferences and it updates each time your preferences change. While it doesn’t make the best possible choices in accordance with outcomes and your preferences, it makes the choice you would have made. Do you let this machine run your life? Making decisions can be quite stressful and you would get the exact same life you would have had, but without any of that stress. If you would not let either of these machines run your life, it is likely because you are a rational person. Any rational person innately values choice. But what if we plugged choice itself into the principle, “whatever maximizes x, is good”? Well let’s take a quick look at the meaning of choice. Choice is the willful use of a conscious mind. So a coma patient that is still conscious is making choices about how to direct his attention. Lifting your leg is a choice, as is not lifting your leg. So choosing not to make a choice is itself a choice. Seems pretty straightforward. In fact, so long as there is a conscious person by themselves(in total isolation from other actors), they are making as many choices as they can. That is, choice is always maximized On the other hand, when more than one moral agent gets involved, things get interesting. If A and B decide on an exchange, both of them will the exchange to happen and so you have two choices resulting in one exchange (mutual assent). However, if A were to replace B’s items with his own, despite the fact that B may have traded anyway, there is one less choice than there could have been. A abolished a choice of B’s. When A murders B, A takes away B’s choice for euthanasia, or to remain alive. When A rapes B, the option with greater choice is that where B and A had consensual sex. I know what you’re thinking, A’s a real asshole. I agree. But aside from that, where do A and B get off claiming they have the right to bodily integrity? Well Mill makes a good point (at least there’s one), that human beings are themselves outside the consideration of exclusively being means to other ends. That is, an any given time, we humans are ends in and of ourselves. Preservation of conscious entities and indirectly the shells that sustain them are inherently valuable. If you see a baby drowning in a puddle and there’s no one around, you at the very least get the baby out of the puddle. If not, you are A a psychopath and B not fully rational. More on this later. Choice and Markets How could one go about maximizing choice? Doesn’t this version of Utilitarianism suffer the same measurement problem as the others? Well, no. So, choice is binary in that you either opt for A, or you don’t. In another sense it’s pluralistic in that you may be giving up a litany of other choices by making any one choice. This is what economists refer to as opportunity cost. By saying that somehow making a choice isn’t a choice because of all the other opportunities you pass up, you’re sneaking in a requirement for choice that wasn’t in the original definition. In any given circumstance with more than one conscious actor, you can have an exchange where there is mutual assent. In each of these exact instances there is maximal choice occurring. What’s interesting is that went a voluntary interaction occurs something new is generated. If A gives B his pencil for a dollar, A values B’s dollar more than his own pencil and B values A’s pencil more than his own dollar. Also, A values B’s dollar more than B does and B values A’s pencil more than A does. Net economic value is necessarily created. Involuntary exchanges, however, are zero-sum. With the creation of economic value comes the expansions of resources. Choices are expanded directly as resources expand. If a market is merely the sum of all consensual interactions (including gifts, charity, etc…) then the market is at that point the most ethical state of affairs possible. What’s fascinating is that we know empirically that markets create the most resources netted compared to central planning or other involuntary exchanges, while simultaneous creating the greatest distribution of those resources to the greatest number of people. Voluntarism is necessarily the moral course of action as a direct result of maximizing choice. Then there is the question of how resources come to be decided upon, and by whom. For this, see Rothsbard’s Applications and criticism from the Austrian school. The basics are, in regards to the control of materials external to the body, if you work with something that no one else has a claim to, it becomes yours after a time. A farmer comes to a new territory, puts up a fence, and works the land. That land is his. I reject that the ownership of the self is necessary through these means, because the integrity of the body and its directed use by consciousness within its brain, is innately valuable. Other than that, this method of acquisition is unlimited. Let’s recap. We have free-markets as dictated by the maximization of choice, the respect for property rights due to the homesteading theory, and the intrinsic value of human life. The Intrinsic Value of Preserving Conscious Creatures Let’s revisit the conclusions we drew about the drowning baby. From the notion that one happens upon a baby drowning in a puddle, it is reprehensible that anyone should let it drown, despite perhaps desiring not to bend down. That is, bending down and saving the baby wouldn’t be their choice. This strikes most as intuitive. Similarly, if someone were to happen upon someone who had experience vertigo and fallen into a body of water and was drowning, it would be equally vile not to throw that person a nearby self-inflating life vest. There is also the popular flag pole scenario (though this seems the most farfetched I’ll admit) where a man on a balcony of a very high building loses balance somehow and falls off the balcony. Luckily he grabs onto the flagpole outside the window of the story immediately below. Should a person deny the hanging man the ability to kick in the glass, or land on the balcony(which magically appeared to change this into a different thought experiment), or worse yet actively seeks to defend his balcony from the man trying to set down on it, we would say this strikes us as unsettling behavior. Yet none of the options that would ruffle our feathers in any of the above scenarios is one which there would be less choice. There is another value at play, and as you might have guessed that value one intrinsic to preserving conscious creatures. Only in these rare instances which pose negligible risk to moral actors does that intrinsic value necessarily outweigh the value of the choice to do nothing. This has certain restrictions. If for instance the person in the river did not fall there because of vertigo, and instead was trying to drown themselves, no one should interfere. Worst case scenario, the suicidal person is rescued and must commit suicide slightly after they had wished to initially. Also if you try and maximize conscious creatures, al the value problems and other problems of utilitarianism arise. That only happens if you try and directly create a greater aggregate preservation of consciousness. If in all circumstances where there are conscious actors with the ability to preserve their own lives(such that they are not in danger), choice is deferred to as the vehicle of maximization, then all is well in the measurement department. An immediate imposition of danger would be required for the value of life to be considered and what qualifies as “immediate” or as a “negligible risk” to the moral actor is no more or less than how we use those words. All words with meaning get that meaning through inter-subjective agreement. What would it matter if we could say such people were wrong for refraining from acting? A lot to the families of those imperiled. Compensatory damages to the families or the victims themselves, should they survive but not unscathed, would be a moral right. By abstaining from action, the bad actor injured the victim. They would be obligated to make them whole again. Similarly in the event of death, emotional damages should be compensated to the extent that they could be. What you wouldn’t get is some central planner telling people they have to wipe the noses of passers by. If you have read this far, thanks. The only thing I ask, before you issue your criticism is that you do your very best to defend this position first. Before you ask your question or point out a flaw, anticipate how I might respond and play out the back and forth. Again thanks for reading and have fun tearing it to pieces lol. EDIT: Mill further describes the relationship of people being ends in themselves, and this establishing the argument for self defense, where he says "the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"

For the past several months something has bothered me. I felt as if something Stefan was saying was self-contradictory. I called into the show twice to try and figure out what it was. I figured it out. I have written an open letter to Stefan detailing my thoughts. you can read it and comment on it here if you like. Enjoy.

So, sparked by curiosity I've gone on an epic search for God through critical thinking, here is what I think I have "discovered". Propositions: 1. Consciousness exist. It must exist because I am thinking and thoughts are proof of consciousness. I think therefore I am. 2. Consciousness is the route of creation. I must think, consciously or subconsciously, before I can paint a painting, build a house, lay down a road, chop down a tree, breath or create any action, product, thought or effect my environment in anyway. 3. If am able to concede that other people also do exist, they too must have consciousness because they too create. 4. All things that exist must of been created and must have a source of creation or an origin. 5. Therefore consciousness must have been also created and must have a source. 6. Consciousness must exist outside of the human mind because consciousness is the source of creation and the natural earth was not created by us, therefore must of been created by another consciousness. 7. Before consciousness there must of been no creation and therefore nothing at all or vastness. 8. As one becomes progressively more conscious one is able to create more. Ex. A toddler can create a wooden block house but not an atom smasher, a 30 year old physicist can create a wooden block house and an atom smasher. Theory: "God" is the source or original consciousness. This consciousness came about when vastness became aware of itself. As this source consciousness became more aware it was able to create and effect it's environment more. Over a nameless amount of time it had created the universe, the planets, gravity etc and eventually other consciousnesses (Life!) which in turn were able to create, grow in consciousness and effect their environment in a already previously created environment. "God" saw our consciousness as competition to it's previous ultimate power and tried to influence us in order to "deter" our conscious expansion. Represented through "Don't eat the apple guys, you're gonna die!"(Genesis 1:17) or "I'm going to confound your language because you can create anything you imagine like me and I don't want that!"(Genesis 11:6-9) among other various acts that can be argued over. Just some weird thoughts, please tell me if any of this doesn't seem logical to you but so far I cant find holes. Not to be too sure of myself of course I submit this to you. A Secret Identity

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/researchers-may-have-discovered-consciousness-onoff-switch New research conducted on an epileptic patient has led to what might be the 'on / off' switch for human consciousness. 'The scientists stumbled upon this finding whilst stimulating different areas of the brain of an epileptic woman and measuring resultant activity in order to find the epicenter of her seizures. They discovered that electrical stimulation with an electrode placed between the left claustrum and anterior-dorsal insula caused the woman to lose consciousness. She completely stopped moving, became unresponsive and her breathing slowed.' This might have been better placed in the religion / atheism forum as yet another blow to the idea of a 'soul', but I thought it was more interesting as a point for science. For more really cool things that researchers have found by looking at people with damaged brains, check out this video: http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind

I've recently read a lot about these things called tulpas. A tulpa is basically a second consciousness that you create inside your own head. This consciousness has an own personality and other sorts of traits, and optionally also an imagined form but that's secondary. The way you do this is by beginning to talk to yourself as if some second person is actually listening. It's fuelled by attention. Eventually, as your tulpa develops itself more, you will begin to hear its voice inside your head and it works like a separate consciousness that has access to your thoughts, feelings and memories, but nevertheless is uncontrolled by the consciousness that is you. You can talk to it, it can help you with thinking, memorization, self-knowledge, accessing your subconscious, etc... eventually in an advanced stage you can even let it "switch" and control your body, that sort of thing. It sounds pretty mad and mystical, but I think it's plausible, because first off, the brain is elastic. If you do a lot of math, you'll develop circuits in your brain that make you really good at math. There's no reason (as far I know at least; I'm not a neurologist) why the same can't apply to consciousness. There are also detailed guides on how to create and treat a tulpa so you can empirically prove it to yourself. There is also a whole community discussing their tulpas, etc... Anyway, now, as for my point: doesn't the first paragraph sound a bit familiar? Is God a tulpa that religious authority figures make children create in their heads for the purpose of giving them an authority figure in their own head, effectively making them control themselves? They form his personality, make children pray as if he is listening, and then follow the claims of God being omnipresent and omniscient (and indeed; a tulpa is everywhere in your head and knows everything about you). This could also explain why theists are so unreasonable when presented with arguments against God. To them, God IS real, it's a tulpa (and they're unaware of that). Why would you agree with all these abstract philosophical arguments, if the empirical evidence, to you, is right here with you? Surely the philosopher must be making some mistake...! He just doesn't believe in God because he doesn't let him into his heart... Just a little thought I had. Perhaps some more research into tulpas could bring us closer to an understanding of theism? Anyway, I don't know to what degree you guys are aware of the whole tulpa thing, but I'm interested to know what you all think of this.

I've been getting into the work of John Searle recently because he has a fascinating approach to accounting for consciousness. He's got an awesome 15min TED talk that introduces the most basic concepts that I would highly recommend. Through his work I've added some really great new concepts into my vocabulary such as intentionality, aspectual shape, ontological subjectivity and irreducibility. The focus of John's work is on the philosophy of mind. Which if you are not familiar, basically, goes back to Descartes who proposed that the mind and the physical world are of different substances. A Dualism that regards the mind as being a part of god separate from the physical. There is a tension here on the side for both the mystics and the materialists. The supposed problem is the irreducibility of consciousness. That is that the actual subjective first hand experience that is our conscious experience cannot have a full account through the reduction to lower level processes. Take the example of the color red. Imagine a person who was born truly color blind in the strictest sense. They grow up to be an expert on colors. They know exactly the wavelengths of colors and that red is 600 nanometers in the diameter of these spiraling streams of light. They have seen and measured the effects that these light waves have on the cones and rods in our eyes. They have watched the visual sense data get integrated in an fMRI into our unified conscious experience. And yet they have absolutely no clue what the color red looks like. Think about that for a second. Certain things in reality really are irreducible, and the atomic theory of matter cannot fully account for many of the emergent phenomena in this world. And that doesn't make them any less based in science or real. We don't use physics to account for biological processes. We have a science for that. It's called biology. But this is unsettling for most people who consider this. The mystics tend to want to make the physical the part that is unreal and regard the mind as having primacy over reality, if it does exist. Deepak Chopra says that we all collectively create the physical world through our imagination, for example. The materialists regard those inescapably subjective phenomena as unreal or not based in science and so they disregard the mind and seek to explain consciousness as being like a computer. And if we can only figure out the program, we can have a full account of consciousness that includes beliefs, pains, desires, decision making and all the rest of the subjective first hand experiences we have our own consciousness. John Searle doesn't accept this dualism. Neither does he waste his time on the mystics. What he focuses on is the materialist account of consciousness and how a model of computation cannot ever explain consciousness. He also includes an awesome critique of behaviorism and of Freud's model of the unconscious that will flip some things on their head for you. It certainly changed the way I looked at the unconscious. What I find so refreshing about the whole approach is that he accounts for consciousness in a way that totally accepts our experience of our decision to act in certain ways. Me deciding to lift my arm is what actually happened, is a valid description of the events. He doesn't try to reduce it away to a level of description that says my synapses fired in my motor cortex sending a electrical and chemical information from my brain to my arm activating the muscles in my arm to retract and lift my arm. As if that explained anything about consciousness in the first place. He will convince you that the materialist position on the philosophy of the mind is illogical and anti-scientific despite the enormous support in the world of academia and (many of) those in cognitive science. The book is The Rediscovery of the Mind.

Ribuck posted the following video in another thread and I've become fascinated by this guy devouring everything he has on youtube. Maybe this could be an interview?