You're not born programmed to feel that 1+1=0 is wrong, so you don't have the instinct.
The only reason 1+1 = 2, is because there is something like a half-bit adder in the brain. If the human mind reflects the universe (to a rough approximation), then it is no accident that such an adder would exist. You might say that there exists a culture somewhere that doesn't know about larger numbers. Well perhaps. (The social sciences have manufactured a lot of "evidence" like this.) But even if it were true, you would find it impossible to tell someone these people that 2 apples is not the same as 1 apple and 1 apple.
There are also intuitive notions of biology, which gives us much of our understanding of race. You can tell this from cross-cultural studies of young children. They see an "essence" in living creatures that is unique to their "class". Plays very well in to creationist populism. Much learning is actually about seeing that such naive notions exist, and much political populism is playing to those naive notions that are embedded in our minds. (Every mind is different though.) We never leave our naivety behind. It is part of every thought.
If that sounds distressing, Kant wrote: "The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space." The limitations of the mind *is* the air that makes the resistance to knowledge.
Regarding homosexuality: if one identical twin is gay, then the concordance rate for the other twin is only about 50%. Keep in mind that that says next to nothing about the amounts of nature and nurture. It does say that homosexuality is not purely genetic in origin. If you are interested, I summarised a lot of research in a short essay about two years ago.
As for the biological basis of homophobia, we have no reason to believe that it is purely cultural, but there sure is a lot of wishful thinking on the issue. Yet we see every culture in all times engage in persecution of gay men in particular. We also see adolescents reliably engage in homophobic harassment. We also know from the three laws of behavioural genetics that genetics (not just biology) probably has a large role in homophobic behaviour.
With these culture war issues, it really is just an issue of choosing the "evidence" for what is "natural" for whatever position you want to take, all the while ignoring the very problems with any notion of "natural", and all the while surreptitiously asserting that if it is "natural" it must be good. It is a fraught exercise through and through.
But just to make sure we're on the same page, when you say "structure of the mind" you are also considering our mental tools (e.g. language) right?
Language is couched in mentalese. The structure of mentalese determines the types of thoughts that we can have as much as the limitations of memory and other such factors. Language comes later.
but culture and reason keeps us away from our primeval instincts
It's important to realise that culture and reason are equally the product of primeval instincts. We like to flatter ourselves into thinking that emotion is somehow primitive; however, if you think about it, you are/always/ high on your feelings. We all are. For example, consider that you only know something is correct because of how you feel when you reach the conclusion. "Reason" is couched thoroughly in those primeval instincts. As an AI researcher and life-long student of the mind, that is my opinion.
How does this play out in the real world? Well, consider homosexuality and homophobia. Pro-gay groups like to say that homosexuality is "natural", and homophobia is a "cultural construction. Anti-gay groups like to say the opposite.
Both are wrong.
Human suffering happens because we are born with so many different competing instincts within us. The structure of the mind determines how we cognize and "reason" about these instincts. There is nothing in the universe that we can recognize outside of this stuff of thought. There is nothing "important" outside of what our instincts tell us.
Plunk down your own money and start one that follows your ethical code.
Barriers to entry. What internet infrastructure you going to use? The government paid for most of the infrastructure that US ISPs use. How you going to compete with that? And even if you're not fighting for a government subsidy, then how will you raise billions to service your city?
Companies need to make money, but to be a global superpower for a sustained period, you need to manage your reputation and act in a way that makes people want to work for you and buy from you in the future.
True, but then there's Monsanto. The difference being that Monsanto doesn't rely on Joe Average customers.
Moral authoritarians never understand this. They have a different model of human nature that believes people need to be beaten into shape by threat of force.
So helping a country declare independence is imperialistic?
No comrade, helping the American proletariat declare independence from the yoke of capitalism is not imperialistic. It is moral.
Go read about US foreign policy from the 1800s through to 1940, and you will see the stomach imperialism at its best. Invasions. Coups. Interference in civil wars. Trade negotiations down the barrel of a gun. You name it, the USA was doing it. I wonder if you think slavery is the only black mark on American history, because it isn't.
as far as excessive military, foreign intervention
That just simply isn't true. From the very beginnings of the USA, the hawks had their eyes on other people's territory.
Before the turn of the 20th century, the USA founded and supported Liberia (!) in Africa. The USA was also involved in China (along with France, Britain and Russia), pushing unfair trade treaties on a very weak emperor. And then there was also the occupation several islands in the pacific, including a war with the Philippines, and subsequent occupation. And of course the Spanish-American War, where the USA said to Mexico: "all your base are belong to us."
In the early 20th century (before WWII), the USA extensively interfered with Central and South America: in Panama (political buy off), the Dominican Republic (invasion), Cuba (occupied as part of a treaty to the Spanish-America war), Nicaragua (backed coup, and then later an invasion), Mexico (invasion), Haiti (invasion) and Chili (political/military influence in civil war.)
Outside the Americas, the USA got involved in WW1 (of course), and also the Russian Civil War (1917-1922).
The USA has always being going to war for sh*ts and giggles.
I think the "shock and awe" SWAT tactics just reveal an underlying fear in the police that they could deal with the situation any other way.
There is high gun ownership in other parts of the world; however, in this country you have a situation where police bring violence to non-violent situations. That can spiral out of control, of course, so now the police bring overwhelming force type violence, so that nobody gets hurt, except the other guys.
There is also the US attitude towards guns. In Switzerland, every young man (about 20 years) is required to keep a military assault rifle in their house -- part of being in the army. The swiss don't have the same attitude towards guns. They aren't for self-protection of no (generally) for fun. They are tools for doing their job in the army.
Many states in the USA have "stand your ground" laws which are a recipe for disaster. Shoot someone and then just claim you were afraid, or defending yourself. Gang thugs in Chicago have successfully used these laws to get out of jail time for murdering other gang members. (Yes, your honor, I was terrified, and *had* to defend myself with lethal force. Otherwise I'd be going to jail!)
Politics in the USA is broke, and gun politics is part of the problems. Militarized SWAT teams is just a symptom of paranoid authoritarianism. It will never be fixed while the media just acts as cheerleaders for special interests. (In this case, defense contractors and gun manufacturers.)
Jim: How am I going to explain the missing documents to the Mail?
Sir Humphrey: Well this is what we normally do in, circumstances like these. [hands over a file]
Jim: [reading] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. [to Humphrey] Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files.
Jim: [reading] Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for liable or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. [to Humphrey] Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? [Humphrey says nothing] How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?
I'm going to punt and say you believe Trayvon Martin killed himself too.
Somewhere in the world, a fascist state is calling for a new foot-soldier. A lock-step authoritarian Javert. "He stole a loaf of bread, let's ruin his life. JUSTICE!!!!"
Well, in a just world, only the guilty would be punished by the law. You seem to believe it is a just world, so therefore Schwartz was guilty of/something/. Which was downloading JSTOR publications, which he had access to. Well, in a just world, we can't have any disobedience to the powers that be, so we should threaten him with penalties worse than murder. (Let's face it, downloading legally accessible journal articles is/far/ worse than murder.) We should then bleed him dry of money in the court system, and bring his life to a grinding halt with all the time it takes. That would be a just world.
Strangely enough, most political analysts largely ignore it.
They learn about it, and ultimately discard it. Want to know why? Get educated in political science to find out. There is no quick road to knowledge, but there is a quick road to opinions. You just repeat what others say (if it sounds good), and assert it's true, 'cause you know you're a smart guy and all. Simple.
In office, Nixon used the power of government to suppress his rivals. Reagan committed treason by selling arms to the enemy (Iran).
I remember the Reagan era quite well. He was very popular, and in many ways a great guy. But "mistakes were made" (to use his words), and they were not minor peccadilloes. Could you imagine that hard-on that Rush Limbaugh would get if Obama was caught selling arms to Iran in order to fund a war that congress told him he couldn't have? And then imagine a dozen top Obama official being indicted, and being given a presidential pardon. Just because breaking the law isn't breaking th law if you're colluding with the president. That would cause Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, and everyone right-wingnut to blow their wad.
It amazes me that smart people sometimes choose the GOP, because they really live by the maximum "tell a lie enough and it become the truth". And they don't know how to keep the budget under control either.
Read up the history of the iran hostage crisis -- particularly the brass balls Carter had for ordering the raid which failed, and that his administration negotiated the release of the hostages, and that the GOP took credit in the eyes of the sheeple.
Carter was a smart guy, and a good guy, and he was outmaneuvered by fate. The Iranians were so proud that they brought down the US president. (Hey, we're so powerful!!!)
Then Reagan ended up being selling arms to Iran to fund a war the congress said he couldn't have. All the people indicted were given presidential pardons.
The GOP has since been busy re-writing the history of the 80s. Meanwhile, the USSR fell, and many mujaheddin in Afghanistan think they did it single handedly!. And now they think they are bleeding the USA (they are), and may yet bring down the great satan.
The world is fundamentally irrational and can by quite tragic and cruel.
Carter did okay as president, and never let his presidency stop him from being the most successful ex-president ever.
(1) Whines about the media
(2) Believes the media was trying to convict Zimmerman*, but fails to notice media trying to acquit Zimmerman
Obviously a Faux-News sheep here.
(*) Opinions on the Zimmerman trial showed a steep partisan divide. The party of white resentment rallied around the poor white vigilante who stalked a black man with a gun, got beat up, and then pulled the trigger. The party sees racism as a structural institution in society did pretty much the opposite. Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that how we see race was a strong prior on how we saw the trial.
It is based on the fact that all human fields of knowledge use without exception logic as the tool to solve problems and math is the formalization of logic.
That is just not true. For a starters, it is a meta-physical question whether the mathematical laws really model anything, and already we are outside of "logic" and into the larger field of esoteric experience. Science itself is an esoteric experience, because you know things through an experience of knowing. Spend some time studying epistemology, and you'll figure out that logic isn't as straight-forward as it seems, and certainly doesn't encompass all fields of human knowledge.
Now I believe that there is a non-self-referential epistemology that grounds the stuff of through in physical laws, but as of today, we've barely come up with an acceptable definition of addiction that isn't self-referential, and have no clue what thoughts really are -- the so called "hard problem".
What passes for "good educator" these days is pathetic.
I find that so absurd. As a highly educated person, who has spent inordinate amounts of time sifting through the rather fruitless nature-versus-nurture debate, I can only say that your statement makes sense from an impoverished (social sciences) view of human nature.
Every great teacher knows that their students do well because of their teaching, and their children do well because of their genes. Self-deception is funny like that.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not born programmed to feel that 1+1=0 is wrong, so you don't have the instinct.
The only reason 1+1 = 2, is because there is something like a half-bit adder in the brain. If the human mind reflects the universe (to a rough approximation), then it is no accident that such an adder would exist. You might say that there exists a culture somewhere that doesn't know about larger numbers. Well perhaps. (The social sciences have manufactured a lot of "evidence" like this.) But even if it were true, you would find it impossible to tell someone these people that 2 apples is not the same as 1 apple and 1 apple.
There are also intuitive notions of biology, which gives us much of our understanding of race. You can tell this from cross-cultural studies of young children. They see an "essence" in living creatures that is unique to their "class". Plays very well in to creationist populism. Much learning is actually about seeing that such naive notions exist, and much political populism is playing to those naive notions that are embedded in our minds. (Every mind is different though.) We never leave our naivety behind. It is part of every thought.
If that sounds distressing, Kant wrote: "The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space." The limitations of the mind *is* the air that makes the resistance to knowledge.
Regarding homosexuality: if one identical twin is gay, then the concordance rate for the other twin is only about 50%. Keep in mind that that says next to nothing about the amounts of nature and nurture. It does say that homosexuality is not purely genetic in origin. If you are interested, I summarised a lot of research in a short essay about two years ago.
As for the biological basis of homophobia, we have no reason to believe that it is purely cultural, but there sure is a lot of wishful thinking on the issue. Yet we see every culture in all times engage in persecution of gay men in particular. We also see adolescents reliably engage in homophobic harassment. We also know from the three laws of behavioural genetics that genetics (not just biology) probably has a large role in homophobic behaviour.
With these culture war issues, it really is just an issue of choosing the "evidence" for what is "natural" for whatever position you want to take, all the while ignoring the very problems with any notion of "natural", and all the while surreptitiously asserting that if it is "natural" it must be good. It is a fraught exercise through and through.
But just to make sure we're on the same page, when you say "structure of the mind" you are also considering our mental tools (e.g. language) right?
Language is couched in mentalese. The structure of mentalese determines the types of thoughts that we can have as much as the limitations of memory and other such factors. Language comes later.
but culture and reason keeps us away from our primeval instincts
It's important to realise that culture and reason are equally the product of primeval instincts. We like to flatter ourselves into thinking that emotion is somehow primitive; however, if you think about it, you are /always/ high on your feelings. We all are. For example, consider that you only know something is correct because of how you feel when you reach the conclusion. "Reason" is couched thoroughly in those primeval instincts. As an AI researcher and life-long student of the mind, that is my opinion.
How does this play out in the real world? Well, consider homosexuality and homophobia. Pro-gay groups like to say that homosexuality is "natural", and homophobia is a "cultural construction. Anti-gay groups like to say the opposite.
Both are wrong.
Human suffering happens because we are born with so many different competing instincts within us. The structure of the mind determines how we cognize and "reason" about these instincts. There is nothing in the universe that we can recognize outside of this stuff of thought. There is nothing "important" outside of what our instincts tell us.
It would mean we are becoming human.
Anarchy will never work because we /ARE/ human beings. To a close approximation, we have /ALWAYS/ been human beings.
What you are really saying is that "it would mean that human nature is changing into what I conceive it should be"
Plunk down your own money and start one that follows your ethical code.
Barriers to entry. What internet infrastructure you going to use? The government paid for most of the infrastructure that US ISPs use. How you going to compete with that? And even if you're not fighting for a government subsidy, then how will you raise billions to service your city?
I'm not sure if you're being glib.
Companies need to make money, but to be a global superpower for a sustained period, you need to manage your reputation and act in a way that makes people want to work for you and buy from you in the future.
True, but then there's Monsanto. The difference being that Monsanto doesn't rely on Joe Average customers.
Moral authoritarians never understand this. They have a different model of human nature that believes people need to be beaten into shape by threat of force.
So helping a country declare independence is imperialistic?
No comrade, helping the American proletariat declare independence from the yoke of capitalism is not imperialistic. It is moral.
Go read about US foreign policy from the 1800s through to 1940, and you will see the stomach imperialism at its best. Invasions. Coups. Interference in civil wars. Trade negotiations down the barrel of a gun. You name it, the USA was doing it. I wonder if you think slavery is the only black mark on American history, because it isn't.
as far as excessive military, foreign intervention
That just simply isn't true. From the very beginnings of the USA, the hawks had their eyes on other people's territory.
Before the turn of the 20th century, the USA founded and supported Liberia (!) in Africa. The USA was also involved in China (along with France, Britain and Russia), pushing unfair trade treaties on a very weak emperor. And then there was also the occupation several islands in the pacific, including a war with the Philippines, and subsequent occupation. And of course the Spanish-American War, where the USA said to Mexico: "all your base are belong to us."
In the early 20th century (before WWII), the USA extensively interfered with Central and South America: in Panama (political buy off), the Dominican Republic (invasion), Cuba (occupied as part of a treaty to the Spanish-America war), Nicaragua (backed coup, and then later an invasion), Mexico (invasion), Haiti (invasion) and Chili (political/military influence in civil war.)
Outside the Americas, the USA got involved in WW1 (of course), and also the Russian Civil War (1917-1922).
The USA has always being going to war for sh*ts and giggles.
I think the "shock and awe" SWAT tactics just reveal an underlying fear in the police that they could deal with the situation any other way.
There is high gun ownership in other parts of the world; however, in this country you have a situation where police bring violence to non-violent situations. That can spiral out of control, of course, so now the police bring overwhelming force type violence, so that nobody gets hurt, except the other guys.
There is also the US attitude towards guns. In Switzerland, every young man (about 20 years) is required to keep a military assault rifle in their house -- part of being in the army. The swiss don't have the same attitude towards guns. They aren't for self-protection of no (generally) for fun. They are tools for doing their job in the army.
Many states in the USA have "stand your ground" laws which are a recipe for disaster. Shoot someone and then just claim you were afraid, or defending yourself. Gang thugs in Chicago have successfully used these laws to get out of jail time for murdering other gang members. (Yes, your honor, I was terrified, and *had* to defend myself with lethal force. Otherwise I'd be going to jail!)
Politics in the USA is broke, and gun politics is part of the problems. Militarized SWAT teams is just a symptom of paranoid authoritarianism. It will never be fixed while the media just acts as cheerleaders for special interests. (In this case, defense contractors and gun manufacturers.)
From Yes Minister, "The Skeleton in the Cupboard"
Jim: How am I going to explain the missing documents to the Mail?
Sir Humphrey: Well this is what we normally do in, circumstances like these. [hands over a file]
Jim: [reading] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. [to Humphrey] Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files.
Jim: [reading] Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for liable or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. [to Humphrey] Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? [Humphrey says nothing] How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?
Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister.
Yeah, on careful consideration, I think Swatz deserved 50 years in prison, and $1 million in fines. Not.
If you think that is a reasonable penalty, then I suppose you also think Oliver North paid the right price for his crimes as well.
Surely you mean gay muslim atheists.
where he didn't have access, and took books which the library had which could only be checked out under strict controls
Bullsh*t. You're just making it up. Swartz was a research fellow at a university with a JSTOR account. That mean he had legal access to them.
Say, you're not part of Idiot America are you?
I'm going to punt and say you believe Trayvon Martin killed himself too.
Somewhere in the world, a fascist state is calling for a new foot-soldier. A lock-step authoritarian Javert. "He stole a loaf of bread, let's ruin his life. JUSTICE!!!!"
Well, in a just world, only the guilty would be punished by the law. You seem to believe it is a just world, so therefore Schwartz was guilty of /something/. Which was downloading JSTOR publications, which he had access to. Well, in a just world, we can't have any disobedience to the powers that be, so we should threaten him with penalties worse than murder. (Let's face it, downloading legally accessible journal articles is /far/ worse than murder.) We should then bleed him dry of money in the court system, and bring his life to a grinding halt with all the time it takes. That would be a just world.
The just world hypothesis.
Strangely enough, most political analysts largely ignore it.
They learn about it, and ultimately discard it. Want to know why? Get educated in political science to find out. There is no quick road to knowledge, but there is a quick road to opinions. You just repeat what others say (if it sounds good), and assert it's true, 'cause you know you're a smart guy and all. Simple.
In office, Nixon used the power of government to suppress his rivals. Reagan committed treason by selling arms to the enemy (Iran).
I remember the Reagan era quite well. He was very popular, and in many ways a great guy. But "mistakes were made" (to use his words), and they were not minor peccadilloes. Could you imagine that hard-on that Rush Limbaugh would get if Obama was caught selling arms to Iran in order to fund a war that congress told him he couldn't have? And then imagine a dozen top Obama official being indicted, and being given a presidential pardon. Just because breaking the law isn't breaking th law if you're colluding with the president. That would cause Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, and everyone right-wingnut to blow their wad.
It amazes me that smart people sometimes choose the GOP, because they really live by the maximum "tell a lie enough and it become the truth". And they don't know how to keep the budget under control either.
Read up the history of the iran hostage crisis -- particularly the brass balls Carter had for ordering the raid which failed, and that his administration negotiated the release of the hostages, and that the GOP took credit in the eyes of the sheeple.
Carter was a smart guy, and a good guy, and he was outmaneuvered by fate. The Iranians were so proud that they brought down the US president. (Hey, we're so powerful!!!)
Then Reagan ended up being selling arms to Iran to fund a war the congress said he couldn't have. All the people indicted were given presidential pardons.
The GOP has since been busy re-writing the history of the 80s. Meanwhile, the USSR fell, and many mujaheddin in Afghanistan think they did it single handedly!. And now they think they are bleeding the USA (they are), and may yet bring down the great satan.
The world is fundamentally irrational and can by quite tragic and cruel.
Carter did okay as president, and never let his presidency stop him from being the most successful ex-president ever.
(1) Whines about the media
(2) Believes the media was trying to convict Zimmerman*, but fails to notice media trying to acquit Zimmerman
Obviously a Faux-News sheep here.
(*) Opinions on the Zimmerman trial showed a steep partisan divide. The party of white resentment rallied around the poor white vigilante who stalked a black man with a gun, got beat up, and then pulled the trigger. The party sees racism as a structural institution in society did pretty much the opposite. Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that how we see race was a strong prior on how we saw the trial.
Your ignorance is shameful, my friend, and your willingness to keep exposing it as a virtue is even more.
Projection isn't logical. If you knew what it was, then you'd know something illogical.
It is based on the fact that all human fields of knowledge use without exception logic as the tool to solve problems and math is the formalization of logic.
That is just not true. For a starters, it is a meta-physical question whether the mathematical laws really model anything, and already we are outside of "logic" and into the larger field of esoteric experience. Science itself is an esoteric experience, because you know things through an experience of knowing. Spend some time studying epistemology, and you'll figure out that logic isn't as straight-forward as it seems, and certainly doesn't encompass all fields of human knowledge.
Now I believe that there is a non-self-referential epistemology that grounds the stuff of through in physical laws, but as of today, we've barely come up with an acceptable definition of addiction that isn't self-referential, and have no clue what thoughts really are -- the so called "hard problem".
That is an interesting conjecture that I agree with; however, it is just an assumption.
Easier. The hard problems are just addressed terribly by people who don't know that they don't know what they are doing.
What passes for "good educator" these days is pathetic.
I find that so absurd. As a highly educated person, who has spent inordinate amounts of time sifting through the rather fruitless nature-versus-nurture debate, I can only say that your statement makes sense from an impoverished (social sciences) view of human nature.
Every great teacher knows that their students do well because of their teaching, and their children do well because of their genes. Self-deception is funny like that.
have nothing to do with his views on a totally orthogonal societal issue
OSC slips the odd anti-semitic slur into his books -- not sure who he is titillating.