To answer the question to pose as a precision in your comment, if there are structures that could be analogous to intelligence, without being literal biological? - The simple answer to that is 'yes'. 

What we call 'consciousness' is not a 'neutral' lens - and there is no issue with imagining and understanding that there could be types of 'consciousness' that are shaped by very different processes than our own.  


Personally I want to be part of a conscious universe, where there is communication going in all directions, and there is a shared goal and purpose. Though, since the structures might be so different, even reaching the step where they are able to differentiate themselves, and even communicate anywhere close to effectively, won't be easy. Considering how hard it is to understand ourselves, aka the signals from cells, bacteria and viruses, it might not be much easier for, say, the Earth to communicate with us. 

Ideas/theories that are similar: 
Panpsychism, but an idea/theory that might also fit would be Analytical Idealism. 
A theory that explores this in a much more general way, looking at it from the perspective of values and paradigms, would be Spiral Dynamics.

I also don't see anything wrong with going in this direction, as an exploration. Complexity theory and emergence duly point out that there is much more to our reality, even to biology, than meets the eye. 

I tend to enjoy existential thoughts and ideas, and taking problems sincerely and staring at them head on. Adding in fluff to explain away realities, isn't the preferred way I would want to find answers.

Though, even when I agree with the usefulness of being more clear-headed about situations we face in reality, the more I thought about this example you used, and how you dismissed the various ways to 'explain away' the situation, I got to thinking about why I also don't find your comparison compelling.

Because, as you point out with regard to Camus, every action/inaction we make influences the world around us. Though in reality, the consequences are not clear to us. To apply a consistent value-system in a world that doesn't 'give' results on moral actions the way it does physical ones, seems to be quite doomed to begin with.

Yes, it is highly improbable that you not pulling the switch would lead to the death of the five people, but it isn't certain. Nothing Is certain in the way hypothetical scenarios present them. We can try to do our best, but that doesn't mean it leads to the desired result, or to even a fixed result. 

And so I guess I want to recognize that although it is a useful skill to be able to be more level-headed in the face of uncertainty, I don't see your comparison as a good example of gaining moral consistency, as the Trolley Problem is a very clinical and 'magical' scenario.

In my view, existentialism is better applied as a mentality, a way to hold conflicts and difficult situations where we don't see/feel that there are any good outcomes. Instead of being angry, getting reactive or making a choice that would make the situation worse, to try to bear the pain of there being no good options - whilst simultaneously not assigning any blame to each other on top of the felt 'insert negative emotion'. 
A decision, a mindset of intentions, of not adding that extra layer of 'blame' to any given situation that otherwise would just be.

I do agree with the temptation to shirk accountability, but there is also real and extreme terror in facing the reality of the world - and I'm pretty sure it is a reason many people go completely insane. It isn't some easy fancy or useful tactic you can apply on a whim, or a nice skill to learn one summer. It is an extremely humbling paradigm shift, that changes one's thoughts, feelings and perceptions of the world, and becoming both more accountable, and less reliant on 'the gods' or some external authority. A stance in the face of unavoidable hurt, pain and the continuous "infliction" of deprivation on oneself and others.
With the Trolley Problem we can have clear results, though that is not the case in life. There are too many uncertainties, and our viewpoints and axioms are scattered, lack enormous amounts of information, and are biased in ways that are in direct contradiction with our conscious intentions - and it is a lot of work to just make minor adjustments. This is also something to rest in, the paradox of being the master of ourselves, whilst also not really having control over anything at all.

And so I wonder if focusing on the Trolley Problem in a way is a subtle rejection of reality. The temptation to give in to a view of reality that is 'simpler' and makes more sense to our mind. Like a video game, where the actions are programmed, and the results consistent. 

To sum up, I do agree with the use of existentialism in general, and some of its uses for sitting in difficult situations and not shirking our role in situations. Though, in general, do not agree with the link drawn to the Trolley Problem. The best uses of Camus and Absurdism has for me been to not assign 'blame' as an added layer to a reality in interpersonal relationships and also intrapersonally, by being more able to feel the feelings and thoughts underneath this deflective layer of blame.

Hello Unreal,

this was surprisingly relatable, despite us taking very different paths to reach similar conclusions. 

The uncompromised mind is something I have sincerely delved into for a good while, and also the part where you describe discarding 'everything', is quite relaxing. 

Some of your views seem complimentary, and some seem like none of us can be in the right, (or both, but just slightly).

My motivation was and never has been AI, though, and if that is a fixed point to you, maybe we can find out how/why we see it differently? I find the focus on AI to often lead to the kind of 'one X to solve everything' complacency our mind is so prone to. *Which is a very short version, on one reason of many.

Maybe you'd like to have a more in-depth talk as well. I'll send you a PM, so let me know what you think.

Kind regards

 

For a while I've been thinking about writing a continuation to the "Is there something fundamentally wrong with the Universe?" question. I've read through the answers, and it isn't that hard to build upon them and further investigate the issue. But something is seriously holding me back, and I'm not quite confident I know perfectly what it is. 

Part of it is that I don't see the comments as that challenging to refute, in many ways. There are loopholes, contradictions and incoherence. At the same time, I don't know the answer either. 

The obvious problem with saying that something is fundamentally flawed, is that on a physical level I am also fundamentally flawed. For all I know, the answer might be right there, under my nose, and I have no way of seeing it, till I either stumble across it and find a way to "discover" it, or someone points it out to me, and helps me in my pursuit of understanding it. 

So what is the question I want an answer to? To me, I guess I see this question more as a multifaceted puzzle, a long-term source of joy, entertainment and contentment in my life. A meaning-giving activity, on the high-end of what gives my life purpose and interest. 
And as such, I want good stimuli, to find someone to really challenge me, someone who wants to delve into this with me, and for whom I can be the same source of entertainment. 

I am writing in the hopes of finding someone who sees in the question a source of long-term entertainment and meaning-making. Not so much the questions themselves, but the complexities that arise from interacting, challenging and delving into them holistically, wholeheartedly and passionately, and try to answer them within ourselves, and within a social context.

I don't have many qualms writing, but I choose not to. Is it arrogance, dispassion, self-devaluing, or a mixture of all of them and more? If I were to give the feeling words, it says something like "I don't want to waste words. - Direct my hand to those that want to hold it tightly, and not just try holding everyone that comes my way." 
But how do I do that? How would the people who would derive optimal joy from having me in their life, and me from them, know about me, without me telling them? Is it time to become a believer in "the law of attraction" or serendipity? 

As an intuitive person, I know that some things are a sign of a bigger issue. Some feelings are safe to ignore, move past, challenge or transform. But not this one. This one needs "an answer" - a concrete action, that is different from what I have been doing so far. 

Which is confusing - because I don't know how to achieve it. Is there a way to just pierce the fourth wall somehow, and be "Hey, you, yes you, want to hang for a lifetime?" *Googling fourth wall piercer, DIY*

Wishing myself luck on this one.

Hello, 

I did enjoy the dialogues I've read so far, and would like to join one. 

I tend to read a lot of different things, and as such am much better at drawing parallels and seeing associative links between different concepts or structures of thought, than delving into one in particular. This is useful for finding novel solutions to problems that are almost impossible to solve with a hammer - but you might have more luck with if you use a pair of scissors

It is hard to know if the issue is one that is best solved with a hammer or with something else - but I do believe I can help in dismissing some fruitless avenues. So if you are just curious about having someone exploring different takes on something (as little or much as you want) let me know.


Besides the more general above, I care about these things. You don't have to be familiar with it per se to have a dialogue about it, but for it to work, I assume you will have to have an equal interest in something else that we can share our take on, and I want it to be decently advanced as well. Am not much of a teacher, and don't like to work on the basics, if it isn't related to a more fundamental, meta-level of understanding.

- MBTI - Cognitive functions and their very different inner "Logic". Would love to speak with sensors, especially about which skills they have developed, when, why etc. 

- Nonviolent communication (practices, issues, uses) - Dyads, group processes, organizations

- Internal Family Systems - 

- Spiral Dynamics - An outline theory about complexity-development; Complexity & abstraction of ideas, feelings, self, world etc

- Typical Mind Fallacy; What does it include or not, and could there be other explanations? What about neurodivergent vs neurotypical. How big are the differences in minds really, and are there ways to bridge the gap successfully?

Much, much more, but that is the general gist. I relate all these concepts together, and add in more as well if I find they fit somehow. 

So hit me up/invite me if you are just mildly curious to curious, and we'll take it from there.

Yes, it is true, but being King doesn't grant him omnipotence. The great rewards are guarded by someone, tallied by another, taxed by a third, available to some - similar to the great penalties. He is trusting in his power as king that his subjects will follow his every whim - when:

Who could he trust, when anyone around him might scheme for his throne? 

The King trusts his subjects Directly by asking them to do things for him directly, trusts them indirectly by believing his given role as "King" is enough for them to follow this squandering of resources. He even 'trusts' that this 'trust' is strong enough to gather the kind of people that will actually work diligently and genuinely to create something 'Trustworthy'. 

Searching for a 'trustworthy thing' might simply be an expression of his lack of discernment - he can't trust himself - so he tries to compensate by creating something he can trust. But - if he himself is the problem, creating a perfect Golem won't fix him. And maybe that is what this piece is about - 

That we are limited by so many factors beyond our control that we simply can't reach the level of the Golem, and in its construction, become its weakest link.

Hello Jay Bailey,

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I seem to have overcomplicated the point made in this post by adding the system-lens to this situation. It isn't irrelevant, it is simply besides the point for Alice and Bob.

The goal I am focusing on is a 'system overhaul' not a concrete example like this.

I was also reminded of how detrimental the confrontational tone and haughtiness by Alice and the lack of clarity and self-understanding of Bob is for learning, change and understanding. How it creates a loop where the interaction itself doesn't seem to bring either any closer to being more in tune with their values and beliefs. It seems to further widen the gulf between their respective positions, instead of capitalizing on their respective differences to further improve on facets of their values-to-actions efficiency ratio that their opposite seems capable of helping them with.

But I didn't focus much on this point in my comment.

Kindly, Caerulea-Lawrence

Hello Firinn,

Thanks for the linked post, it was right on the money.

I see that I look at market-economy as a problem by itself, but I haven't really thought about money from a less idealistic point of view.

It is really hard to come to terms with the argument he makes, when the system money operates under is so flawed.

But maybe it is more of a general point. In the instance between Alice and Bob, they might not see or have the ability to try to change the system itself, and under those circumstances I have missed the point.

Again, thanks for the post.

Kindly, Caerulea-Lawrence

Hello Firinn, 

I can relate to this post, even when I was never part of the EA-movement. When I was younger, I did join a climate-organization, and also had an account on kiva.org. And I would say there was a lot of guilt and confusion around my actions at that point, whilst simultaneously trying to do a lot of 'better than'-actions. 

Your post is very extensive, and as such I find myself engaged by just reading one of the external links and the post itself. Therefore, my comment isn't really a comment to the whole post, but sees the post through one entry-point I thought might be valuable. I hope it is still useful to the thematic you had in mind.

I focused on Child in the Pond and have used that as my pivot point - as well as reading the whole interaction between 'Alice' and 'Bob'. 

Imagining being in the pond situation does fill me with emotions that would steer me towards taking action to alleviate the immediate suffering. But there are two things I believe that the Child in the pond text gets conflated, and which might also be relevant for the interactions between 'Alice' and 'Bob'.

The two are:
1. 'Why' you save the kid from drowning, but why you can't "save" lives. 
2. And relatedly, why focusing on money as a metric for saving lives, can fuel the same situations the text implies we should avoid.

1. 'Why' you save the kid from drowning, but why you can't "save" lives. 
To take the conflation first.

Why do you save the kid from drowning? Many might be motivated by 'compassion' - to want to alleviate the perceived suffering of the child. You perceive the situation, interpret it, feel an emotion, and you choose to act on it. Acting on this emotion, seems like the best course of action - the situation might be complex, there are a lot of things you don't know, but to do this would be 'the moral thing to do'. 

But there is quite the leap between having the physical abilities, and being in a situation where you can save a child from drowning, and what the Child in the Pond text talks about, namely 'saving lives'. It says:

Now think about your own situation. By donating a relatively small amount of money, you could save a child’s life.

In other words, an arbitrary link is made between a situation in which you can 'act' to save a child from drowning, to a situation in which you can 'pay' to save a child. 

But if it were the same, you could, If you so desired, save the toddler in the pond by simply pulling out your 'magical card of FixEveryProblem', swipe it, and the problem would be solved. If you really wanted to help more, you might even get the option of getting the toddler a 'good, caring parent', one/two/three very good friends and the premium helping package where they have healthy, fulfilling and enriching lives for themselves and everyone they come into contact with.

But you can't. You can't pay to save the toddler. You have to be there, see the situation, understand it, be willing to act and decide to act. An action that might naturally be followed up by you caring for the child and bringing it to its caretakers (what happened there btw..?), whilst dealing with the reactions the toddler has to the situation, be it anything from loud screaming, crying, to gut-wrenching misery and getting water on your face and clothes, or maybe even puked on. Do you still do it? Yes, I hope you would.


Yes, it is a conflation. It is also made a lot worse by the use of the word 'save', and the implicit 'guarantee' it hinges on your money - that it 'saves' lives.
If your only goal was to 'save' lives, the most rational choice I can see would be to try to minimize the amounts of people getting born - as every person 'born' is only guaranteed to 'lose' their life. You might buy for the vaccines, but they get lost in transport, or destroyed by an earthquake. Losing your life, on the other hand, is guaranteed. Remove religious elements like Jesus, and you have the perfect antidote for human suffering: Antinatalism. 

- You can't 'save' lives, you can only 'prolong' life.

- You can't pay to prolong life, there are certain acts/resources that prolongs a life, alleviates various kinds of suffering and even increases well-being. 

This might seem like a small problem by itself, but it creates a lot of stumbling-blocks when communicating effectively, because donating money isn't an action that save children from certain illnesses by itself.

2. And relatedly, why focusing on money as a metric for saving lives, can fuel the same situations the text implies we should avoid.

As I pointed out above, there is a conflation between the drowning child and donating money. It compares apples and oranges, it conflates two different things and compares them as being the same. 

Now, in the same text, there is this story of the child Wang Yue dying in the streets, despite numerous people seeing her. What does this have to do with money? Well, if you start to argue that 'money' saves lives, then going to work on time, and leaving 'saving the person' to someone working in a charity, or to those paid by society to take care of her (Parents?), might arguably be the correct choice of action. 

To a charity, the expression 'Money saves lives' is true in the sense that you create a product with ingredients like: distinct causal connection between an action and a result - Give us money >> less children die of malaria.
If you save the child Wang Yue, you might not have a product team, a PR team, a photographer or a film-crew on the ready to create a product that people can buy. In other words, you aren't guaranteed to make money. And since money saves lives, losing money might start looking akin to losing lives.

And it seems like both Alice and Bob have unwittingly bought into the concept of Money=lives. 
What actually prolongs lives, isn't money, but resources, genetics and luck. You need resources like time, effort, skill, innovation, dedication, will, focus, materials, care, understanding and cooperation, to name a few. Money doesn't create these resources, it is used to direct them


System lens:

Alice: You know, Bob, you claim to really care about improving the world, but you don’t seem to donate as much as you could or to use your time very effectively. Maybe you should donate that money rather than getting takeout tonight? 

This was the experience I had with climate organizations and kiva.org as well, that this conflation is very rampant. Ironically, people would on the one hand say that 'capitalism' is wrong, whilst on the other saying that donating is good. Which is odd. 
If Capitalism is inherently unsustainable, how does monetizing more of human life, values and needs, create more sustainability? 

Human resources like care, time, understanding, empathy, love, cooperation, friendships, intelligence, wisdom, skill etc. are interconnected with each other, and don't grow due to money. Money might give you access to certain resources - but the resources aren't there due to money.

A different kind of communication:

Reading the argument between Bob and Alice reminds me of discussions that go in circles. In a way, the issue they are arguing might be a totally different one, but finding out 'what is going on' needs a different approach.
I remember hearing about this process where people with different political views were to have a talk, but instead of the usual 'debate format', they were to explain how they got to believe what they believed in. It lead to much higher levels of mutual understanding and respect, but I haven't seen this replicated in the national debates.


Conclusion:

One thing is the conflation I spotted, which ties to a lot of conflicts, that seem like they are conflicts on one level - but are really about something else. But knowing that the issues are more 'fundamental' might not feel that reassuring, which is why I presented the point about a kind of communication that might bring more understanding and respect, whilst still exploring disagreements or different points of view. 
My hope is for more understanding in general, and to see various skills people have applied in ways that increase felt meaning for the people participating in disagreement - as well as anyone listening to it.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence