The Perils of Perfect Knowledge

[Lians]

I was recently reminded of my early debates on anarchism and atheism. With the benefit of hindsight, I was able to formulate some hopefully useful thoughts that I wanted to share with you.

 

From the all-knowing God to the Marxist state and its ability to calculate objective value, perfect knowledge predicates and permeates nearly all irrational ideologies. Politicians and priests, with their god-like knowledge, can tell millions of people how they should live their lives. Sadly, the desire for perfect knowledge doesn't end with governments and religions.

 

Before I got into self-knowledge, I used to discuss and debate economics and anarchism on Reddit and a variety of other websites. Upon reflection, I was able to notice a pattern.

 

The topics that resulted in a lot of tension were almost always related to either utilitarian arguments, fringe cases of libertarian theory or lifeboat ethics. What is utilitarianism but the assumption that you know what's best for everyone? Lifeboat scenarios and fringe cases are a little trickier to dissect.

 

Here's what would usually happen. Someone would bring up the all-too-familiar template question: "In a stateless society, how are you going to do X?" Anarchists and other subject-matter experts would then storm in with their well-researched arguments, and the person who started the thread would proceed to incrementally add complexity to the original question. After a while, everyone would be exhausted, frustrated and angry. I kid you not, I once saw people argue themselves into a frenzy over whether casting a shadow on someone's property should be considered a violation of the NAP. Even if they could convince a doubter that the presented case can be dealt with non-violently, the same person would later show up with yet another question. The same pattern could be observed with lifeboat ethics.

 

"If I can't figure out how an-cap theory applies to all possible scenarios, no matter how ridiculously improbable, an-cap theory is invalid," was the premise in these threads. That's like saying the following: "If I can't figure out how to solve a problem using mathematics, all of mathematics is invalid." Madness! The desire for perfect knowledge once again rears its ugly head.

 

So, what's the source of this problem? I think the answer's rooted in how parents react to the preferences of their children. How many parents impose their preferences on their children through threats of aggression and manipulation? What does this teach the child? "Mummy and daddy know what's best for you, and your perception of yourself and the world around you is flawed." What are these children to do when they grow up? How are they to trust their abilities and judgements? To use a metaphor, if you couldn't trust your senses to accurately perceive your immediate environment, you'd need perfect knowledge in the form of a mental image to navigate the world around you. What a terrible curse to put on a young mind...

[cynicist]

I kid you not, I once saw people argue themselves into a frenzy over whether casting a shadow on someone's property should be considered a violation of the NAP. Even if they could convince a doubter that the presented case can be dealt with non-violently, the same person would later show up with yet another question. The same pattern could be observed with lifeboat ethics.

 

That's hilarious. I say that knowing the numerous unconscious arguments I've had. You get so focused on being right that you forget the reason you were arguing to begin with.

 

So, what's the source of this problem? I think the answer's rooted in how parents react to the preferences of their children. How many parents impose their preferences on their children through threats of aggression and manipulation? What does this teach the child? "Mummy and daddy know what's best for you, and your perception of yourself and the world around you is flawed." What are these children to do when they grow up? How are they to trust their abilities and judgements? To use a metaphor, if you couldn't trust your senses to accurately perceive your immediate environment, you'd need perfect knowledge in the form of a mental image to navigate the world around you. What a terrible curse to put on a young mind...

 

I agree. It reminds me of all the contradictory rules that parents put forth with no reference to principles when we are kids. So you end up constantly testing boundaries and edge cases to find out the shape of the rulebook rather than simply opening it and reading something like the NAP. In arguments on anarchism what comes naturally for people is to jump to edge cases and declare the whole thing contradictory and invalid instead of exploring possible solutions or at least acknowledging how unnecessary much of the government is. It's like if you can make the argument that 99% of the government is useless but you can't quite invalidate that last 1%, people will go back to the position that 60% of what the government does is absolutely vital.

 

I remember arguing with a friend about roads some time ago. It was so complicated. Looking back all I needed to say was that the government contracts with private companies for roads, so it's only eliminating the middle man. Ugh, If I could go back in time...

[Lians]

It's like if you can make the argument that 99% of the government is useless but you can't quite invalidate that last 1%, people will go back to the position that 60% of what the government does is absolutely vital.

 

You just described what the An-Cap Reddit used to be like (probably still is actually) with one sentence. People, including myself, would get incredibly anxious whenever someone voiced an objection we hadn't dealt with in the past. Quick! Come up with counter-arguments or we're all doomed to statism! Holding onto the conclusions instead of the methodology can be quite stressful.

[Maciej Bembnista]

I'm not really sure, if I get it right: you put foreword a theory, that this constantly nit-picking and searching for flaws presented by most of us as a "default position" by discussing strange (for us) theories is result of insecurity- we need a perfect knowledge to get out of world of phantasies/of conclusions inflicted on us by our caregivers?

 

If so, what about the other patterns we learn unconsciously from our parents: e.g.

(1)stronger one (physically, intellectually and so on) is always right, or

(2)if something (e.g. an idea) is not comfortable for me, I can wish it away for example through inflicting self-doubts- through passive agression (what fundamentally is this nit-picking in my opinion).

 

I know, that psychological processes are very, very complex (as the world is for us, maybe with one more "very":)), that we can be narcissistic (e.g. 5% on the usual scale) and altruistic (e.g. 80%) at the same time and that can be reffered to as being altruistic (for utilitarian reasons)- so I think I understand, that it's not so easy/simple to name one reason for certain behaviour, 

BUT :

don't you think, that (if I understood right your argument) your explanation assume a positiv reason for striving for perfect knowledge (disorientation and seeking a right navigation for the world around us) and "my" explanation assume a negativ impulses (hands-off my comfortable, artificial vision of the world, don't matter what)?

And if so, is the world so complex, that we are able to have a positive and negative impulses in one topic at the same time and that they result in (in fact) consistent and consequent behaviour?

 

PS. Thank you for bringing your fresh view (and in this way: stimulating) topic- it's still fascinating for me, how we are broken...

 

 

 

[Maciej Bembnista]

I forgot to mention Stefs theory: we are trained/primed to attack te most reasonable person (to avoid feeling reality- in other words: to avoid to feel like a slave). That is essential part of our upbringing, coped in instinctive parental rules- to protect their offsprings, to bring them the best chance to survive, that is to conform with the herd!

That's our basic survival strategy and a reason for existence of the state (and other f***ing hierarchies). The essential reason!

 

Source: FDR podcasts: 948, 947 and (one of my favorite): 946

[Lians]

I'm glad you're interested! I took this post from my journal, so it's not particularly rigorous. It's more of an idea outline for now. I'll use anarchism as an example of what I was mulling over:

 

Correct: There's a contradiction in the principles of anarchism, therefore the theory of anarchism is invalid. [theory]

Incorrect: Anarchism cannot be applied in this situation, therefore anarchism is invalid. [application]

 

To analogize:

 

Correct: The axioms of this mathematical theory are inconsistent, therefore the theory is invalid. [theory]

Incorrect: The mathematical theory cannot be applied to this problem, therefore the theory is invalid. [application]

 

With some minor exceptions, no one's mad enough to claim that if you can't apply anarchism to a particular situation, it means that the theory of anarchism is invalid. After all, unless you challenge the premises or logic that underlie the theory, you can't invalidate it.

 

The way people get around this problem is they say the following: Since anarchism, supposedly, cannot be applied to this particular fringe case, anarchism is impractical in all cases. In effect, they substitute impractical for invalid to argue against the theory.

 

This irrational extrapolation implies a flawed standard of practicality (and implied validity): For anarchism to be practical, it should be applicable to any and all cases. However, application is predicated on knowledge; you need to understand mathematics in order to apply mathematics. Therefore, the sceptics require perfect knowledge of how anarchism can be applied in any and all cases.

 

Why would people require the impossible standard of perfect knowledge? Why is the general public so drawn to theories that are predicated on perfect knowledge (religion, communism etc.)? This, to me, is quite fascinating. It would be circular to assume that people dismiss anarchism simply because they want to dismiss anarchism, so I looked for a possible explanation rooted in people's childhoods.

 

The metaphor in the final paragraph of my previous post is what prompted me to put forward the conjecture that people require perfect knowledge because their parents didn't negotiate with them. I wanted to pick people's brains before setting out to develop a more rigorous argument.

[Lians]

I forgot to mention Stefs theory: we are trained/primed to attack te most reasonable person (to avoid feeling reality- in other words: to avoid to feel like a slave). That is essential part of our upbringing, coped in instinctive parental rules- to protect their offsprings, to bring them the best chance to survive, that is to conform with the herd!

That's our basic survival strategy and a reason for existence of the state (and other f***ing hierarchies). The essential reason!

 

Source: FDR podcasts: 948, 947 and (one of my favorite): 946

 

I fully agree with Stef's theory, but it still doesn't explain why people selectively submit to reason. Think of how many people accept the scientific method but ignore its implications for, say, religion. Sure, seeing religion for what it is will expose their slavery, but a lot of people openly praise the farm when they see it: "My parents beat me because I was bad. We need the government to reign in the beastly nature of humans."

 

I guess I'm trying to nail the cause down to something more concrete since avoiding the knowledge of subjugation is far too broad an idea when you want to explain the desire for perfect knowledge. What would you say to people if you wanted them to raise more rational children? "Don't raise your children as slaves," can refer to a myriad of things. "Negotiate with your children," is a more concrete and actionable advice. Moreover, mapping the cause and effect will further support the effectiveness of negotiation.

 

I've known that what my parents did to me was wrong for years, yet I still felt eerily drawn to perfect knowledge. For example, I consciously rejected utilitarianism, but I nonetheless found myself interested in utilitarian arguments (when I couldn't immediately identify the utilitarian premise). It was only after I emotionally processed how my preferences were ignored that I started to let go of this desire. This entire idea came to me while I was reading a book on negotiation, so I decided to investigate the possibility of a connection.

 

Imagine stating the following to a libertarian couple: "Your children are more likely to become communists if you don't negotiate with them." If we can make this argument, it can be quite a powerful weapon in our arsenal. That's why I'm interested in pursuing it. Does this make any sense?

[Lians]

Fascinating! I just finished reading Stef's masters thesis and it turns out that I was reversing his argument. If you equate perfect knowledge with Plato's theory of forms - a conceptual archetype - the idea boils down to:

 

Stef: A rejection of the validity of the senses results in theories that are predicated on perfect knowledge.

Me: Theories that are predicated on perfect knowledge are a result of a rejection of the validity of the senses.

 

With this established, I can go back to FDR 70 and the invisible apple for a more rigorous examination of how the validity of the senses is put into question.

 

It's quite interesting to think of ideas like utilitarianism and lifeboat ethics as something that results from an unconscious doubt in the senses. I might also have to refresh myself on the content of the invisible apple podcast to see if negotiation was covered in it.

 

My curiosity is now satisfied and I didn't even have to work out the argument on my own!

[cynicist]

Stef: A rejection of the validity of the senses results in theories that are predicated on perfect knowledge.

Me: Theories that are predicated on perfect knowledge are a result of a rejection of the validity of the senses.

 

That makes sense to me. If we accept that truth exists but reject the senses as valid we still need some way to know what is true and what is false. So the opposite of collecting information gradually and building a model using the senses would be an already complete model somewhere that you can access through higher forms, god, or whatever other spiritual mechanism. Utilitarianism presupposes the same access to a perfect knowledge of how all actions effect everyone because it is required in order to maximize happiness/utility.

 

 

I fully agree with Stef's theory, but it still doesn't explain why people selectively submit to reason. Think of how many people accept the scientific method but ignore its implications for, say, religion. Sure, seeing religion for what it is will expose their slavery, but a lot of people openly praise the farm when they see it: "My parents beat me because I was bad. We need the government to reign in the beastly nature of humans."

 

I guess I'm trying to nail the cause down to something more concrete since avoiding the knowledge of subjugation is far too broad an idea when you want to explain the desire for perfect knowledge.

 

Well but people only assume access to perfect knowledge to support the theories they have, it's not that they care to have actual knowledge. (If they did they would have the knowledge that they don't know some things, and therefore have no access to a perfect knowledge) I think the explanation (though rather dull) for why people selectively submit to reason is just a matter of practicality. Our brains are naturally wired to process material reality, so I assume it would take too much energy/effort to try and counteract that natural function in areas other than those necessary for survival in childhood. Maybe I'm missing something but that's how I see it.

[Lians]

That makes sense to me. If we accept that truth exists but reject the senses as valid we still need some way to know what is true and what is false. So the opposite of collecting information gradually and building a model using the senses would be an already complete model somewhere that you can access through higher forms, god, or whatever other spiritual mechanism. Utilitarianism presupposes the same access to a perfect knowledge of how all actions effect everyone because it is required in order to maximize happiness/utility.

 

Ditto. To me, the value of this inverse approach is that you can apply it more easily in the examination of yourself and others. For example, if I notice myself slipping into the realm of perfect knowledge, I can immediately identify the roots of this dynamic without fumbling around so much. If I'm talking to someone who can't easily let go of fringe cases or lifeboat scenarios, I can adjust my approach accordingly. By questioning the premise of perfect knowledge I can save myself the time and frustration of dealing with something like the dreaded roads.

 

Well but people only assume access to perfect knowledge to support the theories they have, it's not that they care to have actual knowledge. (If they did they would have the knowledge that they don't know some things, and therefore have no access to a perfect knowledge) I think the explanation (though rather dull) for why people selectively submit to reason is just a matter of practicality. Our brains are naturally wired to process material reality, so I assume it would take too much energy/effort to try and counteract that natural function in areas other than those necessary for survival in childhood. Maybe I'm missing something but that's how I see it.

 

I'm working with the Bomb in the Brain premise - for traumatized people, conscious thought is an ex post facto justification for unconscious drives. I'm not ignoring choice here since many of us made different choices when faced with the truth, but I'm more interested in early childhood prevention; how this splitting comes about. I remember Stef talking about the mechanics of the splitting here:

 

FDR 70 - How to control a human soul

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

 

I'll have to refresh my memories by re-listening though.

[Lians]

For those who are interested in a short syllogistic argument:

• Preferences are derived from sensual experiences.
• The parent's preferences have a higher value compared to the child's preferences.
• Therefore the validity of the parent's preferences trumps the child's sensual experiences.

The second premise is foundational to authoritarian parenting and the conclusion gives birth to the seed of doubt in the senses for the child. In the absence of authoritarian arbitration of preferences, the parents have to negotiate. I suspect the logic behind this syllogism has a lot to do with the infant's need for mirroring. He needs to confirm that the parents can accurately perceive and act on his preferences. When the parents don't meet this need for mirroring, they sow the seed of doubt.

[kcq]

very interesting and well put.

there is a fine line between perception and sensation or experience.

 

"Preferences are derived from perceptions which are a result of sensory experiences."

 

"The parent's preferences have a higher value compared to the child's preferences."

 

"Therefore the validity of the parent's preferences trumps the child's perception, not his sensual experience."

 

i say this distinction not because of semantics. But because this has to do with suppression vs repression.

 

"The second premise is foundational to authoritarian parenting and the conclusion gives birth to the seed of doubt in the senses for the child."

is it doubt, simply repressing the truth in the senses? or is it actively suppressing the truth which brings us to "He needs to confirm that the parents can accurately perceive and act on his preferences. When the parents don't meet this need for mirroring, they sow the seed of doubt."

[dsayers]

Interesting thing to think about. It begins with the parent-child relationship. That's the only way propaganda could ever convince somebody that even though the entirety of their adult life is voluntary interactions with other people, we cannot voluntarily interact with other people. It's the echo of the mindset that was inflicted upon them as children.

 

It's so sad too because I talk with people all the time that speak as if they actually believe that without a gun pointed at their head, people would starve before seeking out a sandwich. It's as if they've never said to themselves, "I'm cold" and then put on a sweater. As opposed to, "I'm cold, so I'm going to point a gun at somebody that has a sweater." Or, "I'm hungry, so I'm going to point a gun at somebody that has a sandwich." Even though they never do this in their own lives.