If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Edit: When I said disembodied behaviors I didn't mean non-material. I was referring to more base substrates than the full human body, animals, etc.

Yes, I understand, but it's a flawed method of causal reasoning. Just because something comes first doesn't mean it's better, or more important, etc. It doesn't even mean it's necessary, in fact. Dak suggested that without life there's no language--but I pointed out that computers use language, and they're not alive according to most definitions.

Just because things happened the way they did doesn't mean they had to happen that way, or that another combination of contingent events couldn't give rise to similar circumstances. This is a familiar critique of causal reasoning in philosophy going back to Hume. The privileging of origins, or of more original states, awards a higher value to earlier moments in time simply because they came first. There's no necessity there. It might be the case that our evolutionary past gave rise to the bodies/minds we now enjoy, but that doesn't mean it's impossible that similar (or the same) forms would have arisen from drastically different evolutionary conditions. On a related note, the exact same evolutionary conditions of one million years ago wouldn't necessarily give rise to the same socio-linguistic circumstances we experience today, if we were able to replay the tape (so to speak).

It's an aside but yes, there is computer language. Humans created the computer and the computer language. You don't have the computer to speak the language or the language itself without many prerequisites.

It's a specious move to say that "because things might have been some other way, how they actually are doesn't matter." It's very Rawlsian. It's true that theoretically there's no necessity, but not actually.

But aside from that, this whole argument about whether language is as important (or necessary...?) as concrete, or other material objects (a finicky definition, as language is material, whether spoken or written) is a red herring, and I always feel a bit silly when I engage in the debate. Even if life can go on existing without language, making the leap to life being more important than language is simply a non sequitur. Bear in mind, I'm not even trying to say that language is more important than life, or concrete, or anything else. In fact, my argument is that it's preposterous to make such arguments since you need language in order to conceptualize things like "life," "language," and "concrete." It makes no sense to think of importance outside of linguistic (or at the very least, higher-level representational) cognition. So from there we move from importance to chronology: "well, life existed prior to language, so without life there's no language." To that, I repeat myself:

a) It's not necessarily true that without life there's no language.

b) Without language (or some other, comparable expressive/cognitive mode) we couldn't even begin to comprehend what it would mean for life to come first, or exist without language.

It's also not necessarily true that there's no flying spaghetti monster. As far as Point B, I just don't see why you find this to be such an amazing argument. It's like arguing the territory only matters because we have a map. That's quite the perversion of "the map is not the territory."

 

[Einherjar86]

Edit: When I said disembodied behaviors I didn't mean non-material. I was referring to more base substrates than the full human body, animals, etc.

But behavior doesn't end at genes, cells, etc. It extends to more complex behaviors like speech, reading, social etiquette, etc.

It's an aside but yes, there is computer language. Humans created the computer and the computer language. You don't have the computer to speak the language or the language itself without many prerequisites.

It's a specious move to say that "because things might have been some other way, how they actually are doesn't matter." It's very Rawlsian. It's true that theoretically there's no necessity, but not actually.

I didn't say that because things could be different, how they are doesn't matter. In fact, I'm saying that how things are does matter. Language matters, social organization matters, communication matters--all as much as the ground we walk on. Just because our experience is contingent on a series of past events (also entirely contingent) doesn't mean our experiences don't matter. It does mean, however, that our judgments about our experiences are also contingent, and dependent upon our perceptions as much as they are dependent on material conditions (a porous distinction in the first place).

Whenever we have this conversation, you tend to extend my emphasis on perspectivism to a radical extreme: i.e. that nothing matters except what we perceive. That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that our perceptions exist as part of the material world, and are therefore as important as any other aspect of reality (however we define it).

Finally, it's not true that actually there's no necessity, as it's been defined scientifically and philosophically. Or rather, I should say that it's only possible necessity exists, and it's certainly not proven to exist; empirically speaking, it's impossible to observe,measure, or quantify. The statement "theoretically there's no necessity, but not actually" is, actually, a specious claim, as it's impossible for you to prove it. The very fact that things happened a certain way doesn't prove necessity; all it proves is that things could have happened one particular way (i.e. the way they did).

Scientific evidence supports contingency more than it supports necessity, given the variability of repeatable experiments. Of course, there's no perfectly repeatable experiment (that I'm aware of); but all signs point to the idea that if you could perfectly replicate past conditions, there's still no reason to assume things would turn out the same. That might be theoretical, but it concerns the actual. Your observation that things did happen a particular way is a value-less observation. You're attributing value to it based on the preconceptions you already hold.

It's also not necessarily true that there's no flying spaghetti monster.

Again, this is your fallback move. I can't disagree; but we're not talking about flying spaghetti monsters. You're retreating from logic and resorting to rhetoric.

As far as Point B, I just don't see why you find this to be such an amazing argument. It's like arguing the territory only matters because we have a map. That's quite the perversion of "the map is not the territory."

"Matter" is a fun word. Territory matters regardless of the map--mainly because it is matter (but then again, so is the map).

Again, you're twisting my words into meaning that language is more important than life, soil, rock, the planet, the universe, etc. etc. You're inverting the argument. I'm saying that words and language are also matter. They're figures on a page, on cave walls, they're sound waves issuing from our mouths, they're grooves in a phonograph. They also matter, and they matter as much as life, soil, rock, the planet, the universe, etc. etc. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of non-linguistic objects.

Your central point seems to be, as far as I can tell, that chronology bestows greater and lesser degrees of importance on various things. Example: Oxygen allows humans to live; without living humans, we wouldn't have computers. Ergo, oxygen is more important than computers. The logic of this statement is that oxygen permitted computers to come into being, and without oxygen computers would never have come into existence. This is where things fall apart, theoretically and actually. You're simply choosing chronology as your metric of importance, but nothing about it is absolute or guaranteed. You also can't prove that computers would never come into existence without oxygen.

If you want to be a true materialist (not in the Marxist sense, but in the scientific sense), then your best bet is to abandon the idea of an absolute, universal chronology grounding some kind of fixed hierarchy of value.

Whoo--sorry if there are errors or any other idiosyncrasies above, this is getting long and involved and I'm typing quickly.

 

[Dak]

But behavior doesn't end at genes, cells, etc. It extends to more complex behaviors like speech, reading, social etiquette, etc.

Well that's a given, but those are indeed "complex" in some sense, and are on top quite a large stack of prerequisites, contingent as they may be. As such, I'm very interested in that stack of prerequisites. In terms of outcomes, a very, very simplified example of this is the old ditty that starts with "for want of a nail a shoe was lost."

I didn't say that because things could be different, how they are doesn't matter. In fact, I'm saying that how things are does matter. Language matters, social organization matters, communication matters--all as much as the ground we walk on. Just because our experience is contingent on a series of past events (also entirely contingent) doesn't mean our experiences don't matter. It does mean, however, that our judgments about our experiences are also contingent, and dependent upon our perceptions as much as they are dependent on material conditions (a porous distinction in the first place).

Whenever we have this conversation, you tend to extend my emphasis on perspectivism to a radical extreme: i.e. that nothing matters except what we perceive. That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that our perceptions exist as part of the material world, and are therefore as important as any other aspect of reality (however we define it).

Finally, it's not true that actually there's no necessity, as it's been defined scientifically and philosophically. Or rather, I should say that it's only possible necessity exists; empirically speaking, it's impossible to observe. The statement "theoretically there's no necessity, but not actually" is, actually, a specious claim, as it's impossible for you to prove it. The very fact that things happened a certain way doesn't prove necessity; all it proves is that things could have happened one particular way (i.e. the way they did).

Scientific evidence supports contingency more than it supports necessity, given the variability of repeatable experiments. Of course, there's no perfectly repeatable experiment (that I'm aware of); but all signs point to the idea that if you could perfectly replicate past conditions, there's still no reason to assume things would turn out the same. That might be theoretical, but it concerns the actual. Your observation that things did happen a particular way is a value-less observation. You're attributing value to it based on the preconceptions you already hold.

Well then maybe the difference is that you hold everything as equally as important, and I don't hold things as equally as important as each other. But when you say that you can't have value, (or perceptions, arguments, etc.) without language or without them being processed in language, I think you could see how I might interpret that in the extreme case.

Again, this is your fallback move. I can't disagree; but we're not talking about flying spaghetti monsters. You're retreating from logic and resorting to rhetoric.

We aren't talking about flying spaghetti monsters, but the logic is the same, which is my point (i.e., I don't want to divert the conversation to FSMs). I'm fine with using counterfactuals in some cases, but they aren't useful when talking about how things are. And I think that might be where the main divide is.....

"Matter" is a fun word. Territory matters regardless of the map--mainly because it is matter.

Again, you're twisting my words into meaning that language is more important than life, soil, rock, the planet, the universe, etc. etc. You're inverting the argument. I'm saying that words and language are also matter. They're figures on a page, on cave walls, they're sound waves issuing from our mouths, they're grooves in a phonograph. They also matter, and they matter as much as life, soil, rock, the planet, the universe, etc. etc. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of non-linguistic objects.

Your central point seems to be, as far as I can tell, that chronology bestows greater and lesser degrees of importance on various things. Example: Oxygen allows humans to live; without living humans, we wouldn't have computers. Ergo, oxygen is more important than computers. The logic of this statement is that oxygen permitted computers to come into being, and without oxygen computers would never have come into existence. This is where things fall apart, theoretically and actually. You're simply choosing chronology as your metric of importance, but nothing about it is absolute or guaranteed. You also can't prove that computers would never come into existence without oxygen.

If you want to be a true materialist (not in the Marxist sense, but in the scientific sense), then your best bet is to abandon the idea of an absolute, universal chronology grounding some kind of fixed hierarchy of value.

Why would I need to? I don't need "universal chronology". I'm simply pointing to the only chronology we received. You keep referring to the theoretical multiverse, or wanting to play time-traveler. Those are of no help here. The universes that we don't live in are irrelevant in this context. The timeline or universe where the bridge doesn't collapse is irrelevant in this timeline in this universe.

 

[Dak]

https://qz.com/africa/1333946/globa...hest-rate-of-modern-day-slavery-in-the-world/

Slaves in Africa in 2018: 9.2mil
Slaves shipped to the US during the TAST: 388k. Even extrapolating for persons born into slavery in the US, it would seem that Africa has a worse slavery problem within the continent in 2018 than the US ever had in terms of numbers of persons.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well then maybe the difference is that you hold everything as equally as important, and I don't hold things as equally as important as each other. But when you say that you can't have value, (or perceptions, arguments, etc.) without language or without them being processed in language, I think you could see how I might interpret that in the extreme case.

Outside of human cognition, the closest theory I can think of that purports value in the world is Jakob von Uexküll's biosemiotics. According to Uexküll, we can intuit something like value within any given organism's worldview, or umwelt. For example, wood and other materials possess some kind of value to the beaver, as it uses such materials to build dams. This is value outside of human perception, but it doesn't make wood any more or less valuable than anything else; it only makes it valuable for the beaver.

Even limiting our discussion to human experience, saying that oxygen is more important than computers (for example) simply because without oxygen humans wouldn't have emerged and wouldn't have invented computers (most likely) is, I'm pretty sure, a fallacy of irrelevance. Computers might never have existed if the planet didn't have oxygen, but that's not a reliable metric of their importance to modern human society. It's simply a non sequitur to leap from prior existence to qualitative importance.

Why would I need to? I don't need "universal chronology". I'm simply pointing to the only chronology we received. You keep referring to the theoretical multiverse, or wanting to play time-traveler. Those are of no help here. The universes that we don't live in are irrelevant in this context. The timeline or universe where the bridge doesn't collapse is irrelevant in this timeline in this universe.

They are helpful because they make plain the lack of substance in issuing some kind of objective--or even anthropocentric--value to things that came first in our history/evolution. Importance doesn't derive solely from order of appearance. I'm not sure how else to say it. The contingency of something happening prior to, and giving rise to, something else doesn't automatically place it in a higher tier of importance; and something's importance might vary from person to person.

To go back to our concrete example, someone could easily argue that language is more important because it's only through discourse that knowledge of the bridge's integrity (or lack thereof) is made widely known.

 

[Dak]

Outside of human cognition, the closest theory I can think of that purports value in the world is Jakob von Uexküll's biosemiotics. According to Uexküll, we can intuit something like value within any given organism's worldview, or umwelt. For example, wood and other materials possess some kind of value to the beaver, as it uses such materials to build dams. This is value outside of human perception, but it doesn't make wood any more or less valuable than anything else; it only makes it valuable for the beaver.

Even limiting our discussion to human experience, saying that oxygen is more important than computers (for example) simply because without oxygen humans wouldn't have emerged and wouldn't have invented computers (most likely) is, I'm pretty sure, a fallacy of irrelevance. Computers might never have existed if the planet didn't have oxygen, but that's not a reliable metric of their importance to modern human society. It's simply a non sequitur to leap from prior existence to qualitative importance.

Well I am not familiar with "biosemiotics", but it seems to describe my anthropocentric position so I'll allow it as described. I should reiterate that my position is always anthropocentric, while I know yours is/may not be, which is another point of departure. I disagree with the second paragraph entirely. Using your example: There are a practically uncountable number of things which depend on oxygen, both through and without humans, aside from the computer(s). Humans can do perfectly fine without computers. There are even arguments that computers worsen the human condition. That may not be said about oxygen.

They are helpful because they make plain the lack of substance in issuing some kind of objective--or even anthropocentric--value to things that came first in our history/evolution. Importance doesn't derive solely from order of appearance. I'm not sure how else to say it. The contingency of something happening prior to, and giving rise to, something else doesn't automatically place it in a higher tier of importance; and something's importance might vary from person to person.

To go back to our concrete example, someone could easily argue that language is more important because it's only through discourse that knowledge of the bridge's integrity (or lack thereof) is made widely known.

Bridges existed prior to language as far as we know (even if simply a log spanning a divide, which one could test for rottenness without language). I'll agree that order of appearance doesn't by itself transmit importance. Some things are extinct and good riddance (or extinct and some person might miss it). But there are things which are fundamental for humans in given (and mostly universal contexts within our actual timeline and universe), which have their own fundamental prerequisites. Now, it is true that in certain environments, that optimal resources and mixes of various more base materials are different than others, e.g., different types of road construction are required depending on a variety of factors. That's not a counter though, as what I'm saying does scale down locally when we talk about details.

 

[Einherjar86]

Humans can do perfectly fine without computers. There are even arguments that computers worsen the human condition. That may not be said about oxygen.

Modern humans can't do perfectly fine without computers. If all the computers instantaneously vanished, a lot of people would die.

Also, too much oxygen can cause hyperoxia.

Bridges existed prior to language as far as we know (even if simply a log spanning a divide, which one could test for rottenness without language). I'll agree that order of appearance doesn't by itself transmit importance. Some things are extinct and good riddance (or extinct and some person might miss it). But there are things which are fundamental for humans in given (and mostly universal contexts within our actual timeline and universe), which have their own fundamental prerequisites. Now, it is true that in certain environments, that optimal resources and mixes of various more base materials are different than others, e.g., different types of road construction are required depending on a variety of factors. That's not a counter though, as what I'm saying does scale down locally when we talk about details.

One can test a log for rottenness without language, but good luck getting tests done on modern bridges without some form of written communication.

Just because humans could get by in preliterate cultures without written language doesn't mean language is less important than building materials as of today. It's this transcendence of importance across millennia that doesn't hold up.

EDIT: but I appreciate the conversation, and I'm not sure what more we'll be able to say on the topic.

 

[Dak]

Modern humans can't do perfectly fine without computers. If all the computers instantaneously vanished, a lot of people would die.

Also, too much oxygen can cause hyperoxia.

I'm going to ignore the latter statement because we aren't talking about that. We are talking about absence, not forced overabundance. It is true that if computers all suddenly vanished many people would die. That's precisely why I hold my position - computers are important, which makes what keeps them available and working even more critical. The computer is the modern human's "kingdom lost". So I'm interested in things like nails and shoes. I'm not interested in calling a nail something different because reasons.

One can test a log for rottenness without language, but good luck getting tests done on modern bridges without some form of written communication.

Just because humans could get by in preliterate cultures without written language doesn't mean language is less important than building materials as of today.

Like with computers, erasing language entirely would be a catastrophe, but not human-erasing, like the erasing of oxygen would be (in around 4-26 minutes). Language also isn't homogeneous. There are many languages. So I'm also interested in what happens with the inability to communicate due to language differences. Also, it's true, one can't test for rottenness in modern bridges without not only language, but a stack of complex knowledge of math and materials. This stack has multiple failure points, including not understanding the language the knowledge is compiled in. I'm very interest in failure points. The fact that there are things like failure points also provides weights on importance.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm going to ignore the latter statement because we aren't talking about that. We are talking about absence, not forced overabundance.

Sorry, I took your comment about computers being a bad thing to be implying that we can have too many computers, or too much computerization.

It is true that if computers all suddenly vanished many people would die. That's precisely why I hold my position - computers are important, which makes what keeps them available and working even more critical. The computer is the modern human's "kingdom lost". So I'm interested in things like nails and shoes. I'm not interested in calling a nail something different because reasons.

But a lot of people are interested in it. There's no universal metric of importance to be found in the geological layers of the earth. Importance derives from social conversations about what things mean to us at any given moment. You can say "Without oxygen, we couldn't even be having this conversation!" But that's pretty irrelevant to the matter itself.

Like with computers, erasing language entirely would be a catastrophe, but not human-erasing, like the erasing of oxygen would be (in around 4-26 minutes). Language also isn't homogeneous. There are many languages. So I'm also interested in what happens with the inability to communicate due to language differences. Also, it's true, one can't test for rottenness in modern bridges without not only language, but a stack of complex knowledge of math and materials.

Absolutely (although mathematics is also a language). Mathematics, raw materials, and non-computational language are all equally important for building bridges. Assigning greater or lesser value according to "fundamentals" is non-provable and non-empirical.

 

[Dak]

But a lot of people are interested in it. There's no universal metric of importance to be found in the geological layers of the earth. Importance derives from social conversations about what things mean to us at any given moment. You can say "Without oxygen, we couldn't even be having this conversation!" But that's pretty irrelevant to the matter itself.

Absolutely (although mathematics is also a language). Mathematics, raw materials, and non-computational language are all equally important for building bridges. Assigning greater or lesser value according to "fundamentals" is non-provable and non-empirical.

I agree that importance isn't "universal" because things fluctuate and change across time (such as which materials, what math, what language, in this example), not to mention plenty of people have ignorant and/or high time preference based value systems (like people who rank relabeling as highly important). I'm not sure why you keep pushing for valuations to either be universal or if not therefore fraudulent or baseless. Everyone places higher or lower values on things, even you, despite claims to the contrary. Since all decisions regarding behavior involve opportunity cost, regardless of claims to value everything equally, one simply cannot actually value everything equally, and I'm arguing that there are in fact good reasons to weight values towards something like actually functioning roads and bridges and away from whose name gets slapped on them.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

PoliticalCompass.com has always been a joke but lmao, this is the best one yet

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree that importance isn't "universal" because things fluctuate and change across time (such as which materials, what math, what language, in this example), not to mention plenty of people have ignorant and/or high time preference based value systems (like people who rank relabeling as highly important). I'm not sure why you keep pushing for valuations to either be universal or if not therefore fraudulent or baseless. Everyone places higher or lower values on things, even you, despite claims to the contrary.

I don't think I claimed that I don't place higher and lower values on things. I said (or implied) that I don't attribute "natural" or pre-experiential values to things. I definitely value things differently, but those evaluations derive from considerations of what things mean to me in a given context and moment.

And I'm not saying that values are either universal or fraudulent/baseless. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite: things are meaningful. I took issue with what I perceived to be your attempt to ground values in a kind of positivist hierarchy. That doesn't mean your values are baseless.

 

[Dak]

I don't think I claimed that I don't place higher and lower values on things. I said (or implied) that I don't attribute "natural" or pre-experiential values to things. I definitely value things differently, but those evaluations derive from considerations of what things mean to me in a given context and moment.

Well I did state/agree with the fact that you value things differently/differentially, but you also stated that all things that go into bridge building matter equally. I suppose that you could say that you value bridges differently than other things, but not things that go into bridge-building. But that's not how valuations work, as nothing solely goes into bridge-building. Maybe you didn't consider that point, and would wish to amend your point here; however this is - while a valuable example - also getting caught up in minutiae. I consider the existence of (good) bridges more important than the symbolic naming of bridges, or the symbolic naming of other things.

And I'm not saying that values are either universal or fraudulent/baseless. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite: things are meaningful. I took issue with what I perceived to be your attempt to ground values in a kind of positivist hierarchy. That doesn't mean your values are baseless.

I don't see my positions as representations or examples of positivism, but I can see how my defense might have given that impression. I don't see them as "value-free", but I do see them as superior in a high/low time preference dichotomy/continuum conflict.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well I did state/agree with the fact that you value things differently/differentially, but you also stated that all things that go into bridge building matter equally.

They all do matter equally--absent anyone evaluating them. I took you to be saying that some things just are more valuable when it comes to bridge-building. I was saying that what matters for bridge-builders depends on the bridge-builder and on the context of any given bridge being built.

 

[Dak]

They all do matter equally--absent anyone evaluating them. I took you to be saying that some things just are more valuable when it comes to bridge-building. I was saying that what matters for bridge-builders depends on the bridge-builder and on the context of any given bridge being built.

Well that clarifies some points of disagreement, and maybe I wasn't clear enough. Of course evaluations require not only an evaluator, but other relavent information that must be evaluated. But this is when we zoom into bridges specifically, or to some other thing specifically. I stated that what I mean scales down, but it also scales up. Referring back to the originating disagreement again, and referencing opportunity cost, the Berkeley city council spending time debating labels rather than addressing more concrete concerns is a disservice not only to the general public via things like bridges and roads (with infrastructure being a thing always thrown in the face of libertarians), but also low-income/racial minority persons who will see no dollar-based benefit in these policies.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Have heard about this story over the last several days but just ignored it at the time. lmfao this video. I think it's ironic that so many Democrats blame Reagan for shuttering the asylums when the initial reason people wanted them closed was that blacks were being disproportionately interred over diagnoses of schizophrenia.

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure what schizophrenia has to do with the Thomas Hate Hoax.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

She seems extremely delusional and unhinged to me based on that video, massive persecution complex. But maybe it's just 100% narcissism, I dunno, I'm not a shrink.

 

[Dak]

She seems extremely delusional and unhinged to me based on that video, massive persecution complex. But maybe it's just 100% narcissism, I dunno, I'm not a shrink.

Just looks like personality problems and probably not exactly the highest IQ. Says she studied at a "Seventh Day Adventist HBCU" (lol), but doesn't say she even graduated. Cognitive limitations and consuming intellectual garbage along with AA policies can go a long way towards the development of delusions that aren't psychotic.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Based on what?

kavanaugh "sexual predator" - Google Search