[FRIAM] do animals psychologize?

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I've always wondered why Peterson equates moral relativism with nihilism.  The two seem fundamentally different to me.  I'm re-reading this:

  What is complexity?
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12447974

wherein Chris makes the (kindasorta obvious) point that meaning is always relative to some reference structure.  So... it makes sense that nihilism might be the admission that all reference structures are arbitrary or even fictitious.  And moral relativism is the admission that morals only make sense when/if the relation and the referent exist and are identified.  Nihilism, then, is a discrete thing.  You're either a nihilist or you're not.  Moral relativism seems to span the gamut *between* nihilism and realism.  A moral relativist may well think that some reference structures are just stupid, others are questionable, and others are fairly reliable.

So, is his (false) equivalence just more of Peterson's disingenuity, in an attempt to pose as the "wise father figure"? Or have I missed some bit of reasoning that shows they're equivalent?

As for Harris' argument, he's relying on a common trope amongst people like him (including Pinker's recent book, Shermer's standard presentation, etc.).  As horrific as the local 7-Eleven parking lot might be, it doesn't compare to what's happening in places like Yemen or Syria.  Subjective horror shouldn't be discounted, of course.  But those who claim to be realists will probably argue that objective horror is worse.  A dualist could easily argue that what we should be optimizing are *qualia*, which may be unbound from their binding context, yet remain meaningful and real. So these "objective" numbers cited by Pinker would be largely irrelevant.  Horror is invariant across the landscape.  I know people who truly believe their lives are horrible, despite having their own car, a place to live, a big screen TV, beautiful children, etc.  [sigh]


On 09/13/2018 05:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> How did they forget to invite a nihilist to that Harris/Peterson panel? 
> 
> A nihilist might observe that a multi-cellular organism can have billions of states and the interactions between billions of different organisms is exponentially larger still.
> There's no reason to think in the evolution that led to humans to this point has tested all possible ways for groups to form and dissolve, or even sparsely sampled the possibilities.   To Peterson, that God is the wisdom of humankind (and mostly men it seems), is just confusing the samples that have been seen so far (and captured in some stupid volumes) with the samples that could be made if we are all Free to be You and Me.  But the samples cannot be even be taken in a socially conservative regime because it prevents it.
> 
> I have no idea what Harris is talking about things being obviously good or bad.   First world problems can be pretty horrific w.r.t. to addiction, suicide, and inequality.   Sit outside at a McDonalds in most any city for half hour or so and you'll eventually notice someone finishing out garbage for their dinner.   
> 
> So there,
> 
> Marcus


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ