[FRIAM] /Topic Latent in: Latent Topics was: enough sleep?

[glen∈ℂ]

On 4/10/19 1:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> https://sites.google.com/site/markshirey/ideas/golden-rule-and-prisoner-s-dilemma

Excellent article!  Thanks. Is it actually an article by Sagan?  Or a blog post by Shirey?

In any case, the "Tin Rule" targets my confusion well, because it's modal, using 1 rule for 1 context and another rule for another context.  What I don't understand is why anyone would even think in terms of fixed rules to begin with.  The concept of Universal Income is fantastic and I'd gladly give up a large portion of my salary to support it. But, like all these XYZ Rule siblings (ancestors?) of Kant's Categorical Imperative, they seem to imply a STATIC or at least high inertially stable equilibrium ... something stable enough to make a "good" rule yesterday remain a "good" rule today.

I don't know what world(s) you people live in.  But my world has never been that stable or well-defined.  This is the origin of my question: Why (or "what canalizes" for Gary 8^) people to expect their world to treat them well?  Why do people feel like their lives should be "pain free"?  Why do people think they don't deserve to die starving in dirty streets?  Etc.

What mechanism is responsible for these patterns of expectation, given (what seems to me) a co-evolutionary milieu far from equilibrium?  Is it simply Hebbian/reinforcement learning, an embodied type of (false) induction?  I'm skeptical because of your (Steve) question about the unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in modeling the world. Your mention of negentropy in this thread seems spot on.

But, like the Tin Rule, whatever answer is implied by such concepts must be at least modal, if not something more sophisticated like Aristotle's separation of causes (and/or Rosen's idea that some types of cause can be closed while the others remain open).  We're not looking for something as simple as reinforcement learning.  We're looking for principles of the universe robust to ... something yet fragile to something else.


On 4/10/19 1:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> 
>> One of you said:
>>
>>   
>>
>> */and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to
>> think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist
>> ... if even that./*
>>
> I didn't say it but I will defend it.  Probably in one (or two) of my
> idiosyncratic ways:
> 
>   1. I believe this was presented as more of a deep existential point
>      rather than a progressive social one. E.G.:  "Does this rock, the
>      planet earth or for that matter *any planet* *deserve* an
>      opportunity to exist?"
>   2. Even as a progressive social point, I think it is critical to notice
>      that "what one deserves" is not commutative with "what a given
>      society might choose to extend".
> 
> It would seem that "the Golden Rule" is reflexive but I contend that "Do
> unto others because you think others will and should (be required to?)
> reciprocate in kind" is not the same as "Do unto others as a way to
> participate in forming a desireable collective ethos which supports a
> cultural milieu in which I believe I would enjoy a favorable
> existence".  I believe that "the Golden Rule"'s  *gold* is in emergence.
> 
> Here is an interesting blog post on the topic of metal-metaphor rules
> (golden, brazen, iron, etc.) and the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
> 
>      https://sites.google.com/site/markshirey/ideas/golden-rule-and-prisoner-s-dilemma
> 
> and of course the ever-popular variation on Tit-for-Tat: MOTH  ;/
> 
>      https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/My-Way-or-the-Highway%3A-a-More-Naturalistic-Model-of-Joyce-Kennison/5ab1a937d62363f3816c6b80a53aba5730ef5806
> 
>> *//*
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> Lurking in the back caves of my liberal bleeding heart lurks a troll
>> who responds badly to "entitlement" and its close relative "victimhood."
>>
>> Every entitlement enjoyed by one person relies on an obligation taken
>> on by others.  So the conversation should start with deciding what
>> obligations we want to take on so as to afford a reasonable sense of
>> safety and protection for others.  I happen to think that I, and my
>> children, and grandchildren will be happier there are basic supports
>> to limit poverty, disease, and despair in the population around us.
>> And, I am also glad when I think that those supports will be available
>> for me and mine, should they become necessary.   But is there a "moral
>> hazard", here?  Will I drive less cautiously because I have automobile
>> insurance, smoke more and drink more Pepsi because I have health
>> insurance, spend more freely because there will be food stamps?  I
>> suppose there's data on that, somewhere.