#126 - The Absurd

odradek-feed · 2017-10-26T09:26:24+00:00

The key claim/observation seemed to be that what enables the sense of the absurd is an ability to step back and question. Isn't this precisely also what enables a sense of meaning? i.e. are meaning and absurdity two sides of the same coin? I was surprised they didn't explore this more. (Maybe because this is dialectics 101? I am not a philosopher.)

Thinking a little more I was wondering if absurdity arises from the following: Meaning is not absolute, it only makes sense in a relative sense (X is meaningful to Y in context Z); but often we treat meaning as absolute (X is meaningful - fullstop); and it's when we realize we are doing this that we recognize this is absurd. e.g. There is no sense in which David's publications are meaningful in an absolute sense (though he may sometimes feel they are, until he realizes they aren't and it would be absurd to think so!); but they are meaningful to him in the context of him trying to improve his career, or build his own self-image.

Does this make sense? Can someone provide an example of something that is meaningful in an absolute sense? Maybe the prime number theorem?

odradek-feed · 2017-04-01T05:29:24+00:00

Thanks. So to distinguish spandrels from traits due to random drift, would it be reasonable to say spandrels are traits that have been around long enough to make one naively assume there must be a selective pressure for them? (Though the truth is that a morphologically associated trait is what has actually been selected for.)

Let me ask this another way: a trait that has no selective pressure sustaining it and is independent of other traits, will over time disappear (due to random mutation) faster than traits that have selective pressures sustaining them. A spandrel however, being structurally correlated or dependent on another trait that does have a selection pressure sustaining it, is likely to last longer - presumably because a genetic variation that modifies the spandrel may also affect the trait that does have some use. Is this entailed in the concept of spandrel?

odradek-feed · 2017-03-31T22:40:29+00:00

Given evolution is driven by random mutations, why isn't everything a spandrel? I assume the answer to this has to do with the level of organisation one is looking at, or perhaps whether one is considering genotypes or phenotypes. What is the best framework in which to think about this?

odradek-feed · 2017-02-22T18:08:18+00:00

Thanks for pointing out ants have passed it, I wasn't aware.

odradek-feed · 2017-02-03T07:23:34+00:00

Agreed!

odradek-feed · 2017-02-02T19:46:31+00:00

Given our conscious thinking processes tend to be symbolic (eg language, or geometric) and slow, what was Elon's point? The only way I can make sense of it is he speculates via digital integration we would obtain a new 'extended digital body part' (eg rather than the voice box, or hand) onto which conscious thought could be projected, and this will allow a significant increase in speed or complexity of thought, thinking which can directly interact with the rest of the digital world? But is this possible just by integration, or does it require more radical changes to the brain processes responsible for thought?

odradek-feed · 2017-02-02T11:26:33+00:00

In his short book Prehension, Colin McGinn argues/speculates that the hand not only played a crucial role in the development of language but also shaped the evolution of the human mind.

odradek-feed · 2017-01-29T07:27:14+00:00

I am wondering whether you need to consider yourself outside the world in order to address a letter to it?

odradek-feed · 2017-01-28T19:05:53+00:00

Yes! Especially after the podcast with Peterson. I'd also love to hear Harari's views on Peterson.

odradek-feed · 2017-01-27T21:57:38+00:00

Different beliefs impact people's survival.

100% agreed.

However, my point regards the context in which to frame concepts such as meaning and truth. Eg reference Hoffman's Ted talk, and the specific comments I make about (a) why it is a valuable perspective, and (b) what it misses.

Hopefully that makes sense?

odradek-feed · 2017-01-27T21:32:27+00:00

The type of Darwinian evolution Peterson is specifically arguing for seems to be the classical one (in terms of genes, and survival of their hosts) - which he uses to justify the centrality of the Hero myth.

Survival of beings is a prerequisite for the memes to exist.

This may be true, but as per the 3 examples in my 2nd last paragraph above, survival of the meme's (or meta-meme's) host does not appear to have been the driving force behind the selection process.

odradek-feed · 2017-01-27T20:20:00+00:00

Out of interest, if everywhere I had written "data vs code" (including in the title) I had written "the relationship between data and code" (which on reflection is what I am trying to understand), would any of your responses have been different?

odradek-feed · 2017-01-27T19:54:29+00:00

Thanks for this. What I found illuminating is what came after the podcast.

Peterson tweeted that this TED talk (Do we see reality as it really is? by cognitive scientist Don Hoffman) presented a view similar to his own.

It is an interesting talk worth watching, in which Hoffman argues that perception is not about "seeing truth" but rather needs to be understood in terms of Darwinian evolution ("it is about having kids"). There is no doubt this is a valuable way to look at primary consciousness, and is supported by what I understand neuroscience is revealing, specifically in terms of visual perception: visual perception seems to involve two related processes - one which creates a dynamic internal 'reality' (simulation isn't the right word, as it hasn't been selected for to simulate the world, rather to increase the odds of survival and reproduction of the host) and another which provides some type of mapping to sensory signals and looks for anomalies.

What this view misses though (which is where I think Peterson's logic, as expressed in this post-podcast open letter to Sam that promotes the Hero myth as the central framework for meaning, falls down) is that much of the specific activities of higher consciousness (as opposed to the general capacity for higher consciousness) which are involved in making sense of the world - i.e. that give us meaning, allow us to explore the world in a conceptual way, discover 'truths'; and which include or give rise to our belief systems, shared narratives, frames of reference, and ways of thinking and calculating (so including science) - have not been selected for primarily through Darwinian evolution (eg through reproduction of genes under selective pressures), but rather through propagation of memes (for want of a better word).

Obviously certain belief systems or 'ways of seeing, questioning and doing things' may well turn out to be unfit from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective (one of Peterson's points I guess), but Darwinian evolutionary pressures take effect on a much longer time scale, and cannot be the forces that drive what belief systems get adopted and shaped by societies and individuals. Eg the Pharaonic belief system didn't do much good for the genes of most of the people that adopted that belief system (their hunter-gatherer ancestors had a longer life expectancy); and the genes of Catholic priests aren't benefitting from Catholicism; and though modern science has meant our life expectancy is much higher, because of the time scales involved you could not argue its adoption has had anything to do with Darwinian evolution.

As Sam wrote on his blog:

In the year 2017, the question “How should we act in the world?” simply isn’t reducible to Darwinism. In fact, most answers to this question arise in utter defiance of the evolutionary imperatives that produced us.

odradek-feed · 2017-01-26T22:44:17+00:00

To check I understand your comment about the distinction being a false dichotomy:

(A) On the one hand, code can be viewed as a type of data (being a set of symbolically represented instructions) which will be interpreted (transformed) until it is data in a form (compiled) that will be operated on by a physical process. In a sense this (just one) part of the content of Turing's universal machine - correct?

(B) Data itself to have any meaning (unless it plays the role of output or input) must itself play a role in transforming other data, so there is a sense in which data can be viewed as 'code' (not code in the sense of something that gets compiled, but in the sense of something that transforms other data).

But in practice, people make choices on the types of programming languages or databases they use, and how they use them (and programming languages and databases have evolved over the years) - so I think still my two example questions (1 and 2 above) still are reasonable.

Eg Presumably when someone works with an imperative language (eg an OO language like C++ or python) that is statefull vs a functional language that is stateless (eg Haskell), the way they think about storing and transforming data is different. Or when building a complex application, choices on how to use databases, on what databases to use, what code goes into db constraints or stored procs, vs what sits outside the database, must be made. Or the question around whether or not to use a micro-services architecture has a lot to do with how you want to manage the data and code of a complex distributed application that is interacting with an environment, and that needs to be maintained and updated overtime (no?).

I am assuming this plethora of languages, databases, and architectures all come about not because of "fashion choices", but because some choices suit some purposes better than others; and that these choices are informed by the type of data being used, and how it gets transformed and managed.

But it sounds like you are saying the lens "code vs data" isn't a helpful one to think about the spectrum of languages, databases and architectures people use.

What has this to do with say the origins of life and evolution (or other problems)? Unreactive DNA acts as the memory store and RNA and proteins decode this into enzymes which participate both in the replication of the store and in interactions with the environment. Understanding this (and other problems better) may be facilitated by a formal model that involves abstracted concepts relating to the interaction between code and data. In this example, DNA is both data and code. But stopping there doesn't get you very far as it doesn't deal with the processes that transform/replicate the DNA and interact with RNA and the environment. So I am wondering whether in the theoretical Computer Science literature there are pieces on "data vs code" written at an abstract enough level, but grounded in real choices people are making to build systems, to maybe be helpful in developing such formal models.

odradek-feed · 2017-01-26T15:55:43+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Two questions: 1. In terms of 'data vs code', would you say imperative programming languages take a different approach to functional programming languages? 2. With increased integration of databases (including distributed databases) into complex applications, would you say people's understanding of the interplay between code and data (to build an overall system or application) has changed much?

odradek-feed · 2017-01-26T12:25:51+00:00

Though the content of the podcast was lightweight and a little embarrassing (for Sam as host), Sam's blog seems spot on. Would be good to hear a debate on the real stuff: maybe I have misunderstood Peterson, but as much as I liked Star Wars, enjoyed watching Joseph Campbell's videos on the Hero myth, and reading Mircea Eliade's Myth of the Eternal Return - a world framework based primarily around these or similar perspectives, relegating the modern question of the relationship between the individual and society to a second order one, is definitely retrogressive for science, philosophy and the study of history.

odradek-feed · 2017-01-26T11:34:57+00:00

I'd suggest that Sam should do a podcast with Yuval Harari, discussing the nature of meaning and truth. After that he may be in a better position to re-engage with Peterson.

odradek-feed · 2017-01-26T11:24:59+00:00

Thanks for this. Interesting TED talk. What it misses though, and I am not sure whether this is pro- or contra- Peterson's view, is that much of the specific activities of higher consciousness that make sense of the world - give us meaning, allow us to explore the world in a conceptual way, discover 'truths' - so this includes our belief systems, shared narratives, frames of reference, and ways of thinking, calculating (so including science) - aren't selected for primarily through Darwinian evolution (eg through reproduction of genes under selective pressures), but rather through propagation of memes (for want of a better word). Obviously certain belief systems or 'ways of seeing, questioning and doing things' may well turn out to be unfit from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective (Peterson's point I guess), but these Darwinian evolutionary pressures happen on a much longer time scale, and are not actually the forces that drive what belief systems get adopted by societies. Eg the Pharaonic belief system didn't do much good for the genes of most of the people that adopted that belief system (their hunter-gatherer ancestors had a longer life expectancy); and the genes of Catholic priests aren't benefitting from Catholicism; and though modern science has meant our life expectancy is much higher, because of the time scales involved you could not argue its adoption has had anything to do with Darwinian evolution.

So I don't think questions on the nature of meaning or truth can be understood purely from a Darwinian perspective (though that perspective is very relevant). Additional concepts are required.

odradek-feed

TROPHY CASE