Thanks you for pointing me to the articles. So much material!
subjective because since they are computation they exists only insofar our minds compute them
This is were I believe the rational analysis has gone wrong. When you say computation I understand it in one of two ways:
[1] Humans are consciously computing
[2] Humans are unconsciously computing
[1] This is clearly not the case as even today we are trying to find a computational basis for morality. But we already have advanced system of values so they have been created before this attempt of ours.
[2] That could be a possibility but I have not seen any evidence for such a statement (please point me to the evidence if they exist!). In contrast we have an insane amount of evidence for the evolution and transmission of values through stories.
So, values (I would propose) have not been computed at all, they have evolved.
To quote myself from my answer to Manfred below:
Since we are considering evolution we can make the case that cultures evolved a morality that corresponds to certain ways of being that, though not objectively true, approximate deeper objective principles. An evolution of ideas.
I think the problem we are facing is that, since such principles were evolved, they are not discovered through rationality but through trying them out. The danger is that if we do not find rational evidence quickly (or more efficiently explore our traditions with humility) we might dispense with core ideas and have to wait for evolution to wipe the erroneous ideas out.
That could be a possibility but I have not seen any evidence for such a statement (please point me to the evidence if they exist!). In contrast we have an insane amount of evidence for the evolution and transmission of values through stories.
Computation, in this case, does not refer to mental calculation. It simply points out that our brain is elaborating informations to come up with an answer, whether it is in the form of stories or simply evolved stimulus-response. The two views are not in opposition, they simply point to a basic function of the brain, which is to elaborate information instead of, say, pumping blood or filtering toxins.
I see what you mean but I am not sure we are exactly on the same page. Let me try to break it down and you can correct me if I misunderstood.
It seems to me that you are thinking of computation as a process for “coming up with an answer” but I am talking about having no answers at all but acting out patterns of actions transmitted culturally. Even before verbal elaboration. This transmission of action patterns was first performed by rituals and rites as can be observed in primitive cultures. They were then elaborated as stories, myths, religion, drama, literature etc. and of course at some point became an element for manipulation by abstract thought.
So the difference with what you are saying is that you are assuming an ‘elaboration of information’ by the brain when on the level of ideas the elaboration happens culturally through the evolutionary process. The consequence is that the values have to be accepted (believed in) and then can be (maybe) experientially confirmed. This also explains the ‘ought from an is’ issue.
Maybe it’s because I’m coming from a computer science background, but I’m thinking of computation as much more basic than that. Whether you’re elaborating myths or reacting to the sight of a snake, your brain is performing calculations. I think we agree that our values are deeply ingrained, although it’s much more difficult to say exactly to what level(s). I do not agree that our values are selected through memetic adaptation, or at least that’s only part of the story.
I would be grateful if you can indulge my argument a bit further.
Maybe it’s because I’m coming from a computer science background, but I’m thinking of computation as much more basic than that.
I think I clumsily gave the impression that I deny such computation. I was referring to computations that generate value presuppositions. Of course the brain is computing in multiple levels, whether we are conscious of it or not. In addition there seems to be evidence, of what may be called, an emergent proto-morality in animals that, if true, is completely biologically determined. Things become more complex when we have to deal with higher, more elaborated, values.
I’ve read a bit through the meta ethics sequence and it seems to me to be an attempt to generate fundamental values through computation. If it was successful some kind of implementation would indicate it and/or some biological structure would be identified, so I would assume this is all speculative. I have to admit that I didn’t study the material in depth so please tell me if you have found that there are demonstrable results arising from it that I simply haven’t understood.
So to sum up:
Your view is that there is an objective morality that is shared and encoded in the DNA (parts of it are even mathematical equilibria, such as cooperation in IPD). They are also subjective because since they are computation they exists only insofar our minds compute them, and outside of the common nucleus they can vary depending on the culture / life experiences / contingencies / etc.
My view is that your proposition of a biological encoding may be correct up to a certain (basic) level but many values are transmitted through, to use your terminology, mimetic adaptation. These are objective in the sense that they approximate deeper objective principles that allow for survival and flourishing. Subjective ideas can be crafted on top of these values and these may prove beneficial or not.
I do not agree that our values are selected through memetic adaptation, or at least that’s only part of the story.
It seems to me that it is unquestionably part of the story. Play, as a built-in mimetic behaviour for transference of cultural schemas. Rituals and rites as part of all tribal societies. Stories as the means of transmiting values and as the basis of multiple (all?) civilisations including ours, so…
Am I missing something? What is the rational basis by which you choose to under emphasise the hypothesis regarding the cultural propagation through mimetic adaptation and stories?
Thanks you for pointing me to the articles. So much material!
This is were I believe the rational analysis has gone wrong. When you say computation I understand it in one of two ways:
[1] Humans are consciously computing
[2] Humans are unconsciously computing
[1] This is clearly not the case as even today we are trying to find a computational basis for morality. But we already have advanced system of values so they have been created before this attempt of ours.
[2] That could be a possibility but I have not seen any evidence for such a statement (please point me to the evidence if they exist!). In contrast we have an insane amount of evidence for the evolution and transmission of values through stories.
So, values (I would propose) have not been computed at all, they have evolved.
To quote myself from my answer to Manfred below:
Computation, in this case, does not refer to mental calculation. It simply points out that our brain is elaborating informations to come up with an answer, whether it is in the form of stories or simply evolved stimulus-response. The two views are not in opposition, they simply point to a basic function of the brain, which is to elaborate information instead of, say, pumping blood or filtering toxins.
I see what you mean but I am not sure we are exactly on the same page. Let me try to break it down and you can correct me if I misunderstood.
It seems to me that you are thinking of computation as a process for “coming up with an answer” but I am talking about having no answers at all but acting out patterns of actions transmitted culturally. Even before verbal elaboration. This transmission of action patterns was first performed by rituals and rites as can be observed in primitive cultures. They were then elaborated as stories, myths, religion, drama, literature etc. and of course at some point became an element for manipulation by abstract thought.
So the difference with what you are saying is that you are assuming an ‘elaboration of information’ by the brain when on the level of ideas the elaboration happens culturally through the evolutionary process. The consequence is that the values have to be accepted (believed in) and then can be (maybe) experientially confirmed. This also explains the ‘ought from an is’ issue.
Maybe it’s because I’m coming from a computer science background, but I’m thinking of computation as much more basic than that. Whether you’re elaborating myths or reacting to the sight of a snake, your brain is performing calculations.
I think we agree that our values are deeply ingrained, although it’s much more difficult to say exactly to what level(s). I do not agree that our values are selected through memetic adaptation, or at least that’s only part of the story.
I would be grateful if you can indulge my argument a bit further.
I think I clumsily gave the impression that I deny such computation. I was referring to computations that generate value presuppositions. Of course the brain is computing in multiple levels, whether we are conscious of it or not. In addition there seems to be evidence, of what may be called, an emergent proto-morality in animals that, if true, is completely biologically determined. Things become more complex when we have to deal with higher, more elaborated, values.
I’ve read a bit through the meta ethics sequence and it seems to me to be an attempt to generate fundamental values through computation. If it was successful some kind of implementation would indicate it and/or some biological structure would be identified, so I would assume this is all speculative. I have to admit that I didn’t study the material in depth so please tell me if you have found that there are demonstrable results arising from it that I simply haven’t understood.
So to sum up:
Your view is that there is an objective morality that is shared and encoded in the DNA (parts of it are even mathematical equilibria, such as cooperation in IPD). They are also subjective because since they are computation they exists only insofar our minds compute them, and outside of the common nucleus they can vary depending on the culture / life experiences / contingencies / etc.
My view is that your proposition of a biological encoding may be correct up to a certain (basic) level but many values are transmitted through, to use your terminology, mimetic adaptation. These are objective in the sense that they approximate deeper objective principles that allow for survival and flourishing. Subjective ideas can be crafted on top of these values and these may prove beneficial or not.
It seems to me that it is unquestionably part of the story. Play, as a built-in mimetic behaviour for transference of cultural schemas. Rituals and rites as part of all tribal societies. Stories as the means of transmiting values and as the basis of multiple (all?) civilisations including ours, so…
Am I missing something? What is the rational basis by which you choose to under emphasise the hypothesis regarding the cultural propagation through mimetic adaptation and stories?