“is morality an innate quality of the universe or purely evolved by human brains?”
Your use of the word “purely” here confuses me; this isn’t an either-or question. Evolution happens due to selection effects, selection effects come from contingent facts about the environment but also less-contingent logical facts about types and equilibria of timeless games and many other things like that. Superrational game theory is an “innate” quality of the universe and seems to have a lot to do with our intuitions about morality. We don’t know if “morality” is a powerfully attractive telos or contingent result of primate evolution. In general moral philosophy is not obvious. If it was then my life would be a lot easier.
(ETA: And when it comes down to actual decision policies you have to do a lot tricky renormalization anyway, so even if it was obvious that morality (the truly optimal-justified decision policy) was a powerful telos it’s not clear how much it would help us to know that fact. Yeah, maybe everything will turn out okay in the end, but maybe it will only do that if you act as if it won’t. (Or maybe it only will if you act as if it will, as Borges and Voltaire talked about.))
Agreed that it’s more complicated than either/or. However, I was using it as an example of a “Big Question” that some people believe shouldn’t be investigated for fear of damaging moral consequences. To people who see it that way, I think it would be an either/or.
Frequently, looking at the Schelling point one will notice it is fundamentally arbitrary, or at the very least be tempted to move it “just a little” in one direction or another.
When I consider examples of Schelling points I think of scenarios directly analogous to archetypal examples. The times when you notice that you are playing a coordination game and need to guess what other people will guess that you will guess. When you notice this and start to ask “What is the schelling point here?” you become even more likely to adhere to a common, predictable solution than to follow your own independent whims.
If I’m driving along an isolated dirt road (like those I grew up on) and I’m feeling philosophical I may well notice that the side of the road that I’m driving on is fundamentally arbitrary. Given that a lot of these roads are narrow enough that you drive in the center of the road it becomes a decision of which way to swerve when encountering the occasional oncoming traffic. And if there aren’t any cops around to enforce a legal coordination one way is pretty much the same as the other. In fact I know those wacky Americans drive on the wrong side of the road all the time. But when I notice that the situation is arbitrary and start to think about the Schelling point it makes me think “he’s going to swerve left and if I swerve right I’m going to @#@% die”. Follow the Schelling points, cut this independent thinking nonsense!
That’s because you recognize that what you’re dealing with is in fact a Schelling point. If one doesn’t realize this fact, one will weaken the Schelling point.
That’s because you recognize that what you’re dealing with is in fact a Schelling point. If one doesn’t realize this fact, one will weaken the Schelling point.
Yes, I think this is where we had most of our initial disagreement.
If the heavens, despoiled of his august stamp could ever cease to manifest him, if God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Let the wise proclaim him, and kings fear him.
Voltaire
(Will Sawin pointed out that this also works if you replace “God” with “computers”; I agree, since in the limit they mean the same thing.)
Insofar as the heavens manifest computers. Though I suppose we can treat that part as pure poetic frippery. Of course, if we do that, the quote also applies to high-speed cargo rail.
I’m not sure what Aquinas would make of the idea that one perfection of God is “high-speed cargo rail-ness”. Computers are a lot more like gods than trains are; hence Leibniz’s monadology, which is about both God and computer programs. A similarly compelling metaphysics involving trains instead would be kinda hard to pull off, I imagine.
I’m not claiming that trains are particularly like gods, I’m claiming that “If high speed cargo rail didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent it” is also true.
Your use of the word “purely” here confuses me; this isn’t an either-or question. Evolution happens due to selection effects, selection effects come from contingent facts about the environment but also less-contingent logical facts about types and equilibria of timeless games and many other things like that. Superrational game theory is an “innate” quality of the universe and seems to have a lot to do with our intuitions about morality. We don’t know if “morality” is a powerfully attractive telos or contingent result of primate evolution. In general moral philosophy is not obvious. If it was then my life would be a lot easier.
(ETA: And when it comes down to actual decision policies you have to do a lot tricky renormalization anyway, so even if it was obvious that morality (the truly optimal-justified decision policy) was a powerful telos it’s not clear how much it would help us to know that fact. Yeah, maybe everything will turn out okay in the end, but maybe it will only do that if you act as if it won’t. (Or maybe it only will if you act as if it will, as Borges and Voltaire talked about.))
Agreed that it’s more complicated than either/or. However, I was using it as an example of a “Big Question” that some people believe shouldn’t be investigated for fear of damaging moral consequences. To people who see it that way, I think it would be an either/or.
Well, looking too closely at a Schelling point is likely to destroy it, even if the Schelling point was serving a useful function.
That doesn’t sound true. I’d go as far as to say it is likely to strengthen it.
Frequently, looking at the Schelling point one will notice it is fundamentally arbitrary, or at the very least be tempted to move it “just a little” in one direction or another.
My model of the local universe differs and I don’t believe you. I expect more strengthening than weakening.
Here is an example of the phenomenon I’m talking about, see especially my comment here.
When I consider examples of Schelling points I think of scenarios directly analogous to archetypal examples. The times when you notice that you are playing a coordination game and need to guess what other people will guess that you will guess. When you notice this and start to ask “What is the schelling point here?” you become even more likely to adhere to a common, predictable solution than to follow your own independent whims.
If I’m driving along an isolated dirt road (like those I grew up on) and I’m feeling philosophical I may well notice that the side of the road that I’m driving on is fundamentally arbitrary. Given that a lot of these roads are narrow enough that you drive in the center of the road it becomes a decision of which way to swerve when encountering the occasional oncoming traffic. And if there aren’t any cops around to enforce a legal coordination one way is pretty much the same as the other. In fact I know those wacky Americans drive on the wrong side of the road all the time. But when I notice that the situation is arbitrary and start to think about the Schelling point it makes me think “he’s going to swerve left and if I swerve right I’m going to @#@% die”. Follow the Schelling points, cut this independent thinking nonsense!
That’s because you recognize that what you’re dealing with is in fact a Schelling point. If one doesn’t realize this fact, one will weaken the Schelling point.
Yes, I think this is where we had most of our initial disagreement.
Voltaire
(Will Sawin pointed out that this also works if you replace “God” with “computers”; I agree, since in the limit they mean the same thing.)
Insofar as the heavens manifest computers. Though I suppose we can treat that part as pure poetic frippery. Of course, if we do that, the quote also applies to high-speed cargo rail.
I’m not sure what Aquinas would make of the idea that one perfection of God is “high-speed cargo rail-ness”. Computers are a lot more like gods than trains are; hence Leibniz’s monadology, which is about both God and computer programs. A similarly compelling metaphysics involving trains instead would be kinda hard to pull off, I imagine.
I’m not claiming that trains are particularly like gods, I’m claiming that “If high speed cargo rail didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent it” is also true.
Ah, that makes even more sense.