TP:
this is nuts
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001838
INTERLOCUTOR:
Given the relative increase in complexity and capability of the human brain, how much our environment differs from that of zebrafish, and the fact there are so many different species of bacteria, I do wonder how fruitful that research can be when it comes to applicable behavioral or probiotic therapy for humans
I also would add that behavior differing from 'normal' isn't necessarily 'bad,' and I didn't see any reason to think that changes to microbiota would keep anyone from being happy or even reproducing
It does still suggest there's more of a connection between us and our microbiota than most people realize though
Like, not only the current culture in our gut, but whether or not they're present during development
But maybe they do just have an enzymatic effect, and maybe they're also self-serving, so maybe you can still end up normal without having had them during development, and it's possible that in humans, maybe we don't necessarily need them after development, if at all
TP:
So my main takeaway was that microbiome manipulates zebrafish to be more prosocial
then my mind went towards what can be induced from this fact
Your first argument there seems something like
P1. zebrafish are significantly different from humans
P2. phenomenon in one creature are not guaranteed in another creature that is significantly different
C. Humans are not guaranteed to have the same phenomenon as zebrafish.
quite reasonable at face value
but my understanding is that it has been proven that humans are largely influenced by their gut microbiome, often in behavioral and emotional ways
INTERLOCUTOR:
I think they're saying the presence of certain microbiota may have a positive effect on microglial (bacteria?) that do some pruning of synaptic connections in certain brain regions, to promote more efficient development of more useful connections
TP:
so if this is true, humans are not significantly different from zebrafish at that level
so, my mind jumped to evolutionary logic
why would the microbiome be motivated to do such a thing?
symbiosis
INTERLOCUTOR:
I agree with you up to there, but if you're then saying that if other animals can't overcome the influence of microbiota, then nor can humans, then I don't initially agree
TP:
overcome is a very flexible word
INTERLOCUTOR:
break whatever self-serving chain they establish without losing necessary benefits of it
assuming that's possible
TP:
lots of religious people will say something like "i had a feeling in my gut" as a type of premonition or deep wisdom
I believe that gut bacteria has a very complex connection to the gut neurosystem, and there are intelligent communications going back and forth
it is in the gut bacteria's interests to give intelligent information to the brain
if the brain can make better decisions, the gut bacteria can better survive
so, symbiosis makes bacteria our ally
they want to improve our brains
they want to make us wiser
they want to make us more prosocial (for better survival and success)
they are like a mini evolution booster within us
INTERLOCUTOR:
Just remember that these descriptions are only useful metaphors for understanding how these bacteria function
They don't actually want anything, as you know
arguably, nor does anything
TP:
lol yeah of course
we need a new word
INTERLOCUTOR:
well therefore there is a breakdown of the applicability of that statement at some level of analysis
TP:
I really like the word telos because it subtracts consciousness from the word "purpose"
so you can say evolution has a telos
and not infer consciousness to evolution
but "want" needs a replacement word that subtracts consciousness
INTERLOCUTOR:
or the sentence just needs reframing. "It behooves them to do xyz" for instance
maybe not such an elegant phrasing tho
TP:
lol not bad
quite an awkward topic for the free will perspective tho, fas to how much our will is manipulated by bacteria lol
INTERLOCUTOR:
I still don't like taking those descriptions as axioms on which to base conclusions about what should happen in the universe
So they do xyz because it behooves them--so what? Doesn't mean for certain that it's better to have them or that they would not just as soon harm us if it behooved them more
Ultimately, it's up to us what we 'should' do, since 'shoulds' need to be pulled out of our asses
TP:
I don't believe I was making a moral argument, is there some moral argument you inferred that you don't like?
INTERLOCUTOR:
I believe your argument is against the assertion that we can be moral agents, as opposed to slaves to bacteria and chemistry
TP:
My moral perspective is that evolution designs the definition of good, since goodness is a subjective calculation, based on a brain that evolution builds for us. To the extent that it is in our evolutionary interest to hold each other morally accountable, our brains will generate the idea of moral accountability. So the evolutionary benefit will design our moral calculations to conclude that "moral accountability" is within the web of good things. Our brains can be designed to like moral accountability by natural selection or by bacterial manipulation. Neither process is free. We are manipulated either way. Yet moral accountability can still be good despite no free will.
INTERLOCUTOR:
Except that's not 'real' 'objective' good. That may cover tribes or maybe countries, and may be limited to certain environments or gene pools, but that's not a basis for any sort of universal good. Still leaves us with plenty of room for plenty of problems between people
TP:
Right, its not a transcendent definition of goodness
I largely think of the word objective as meaning measurable. You can measure the definition of goodness in one person. You can measure it in another person. It is objective at the individual level. Zoom out and it's not as objective. But there is still an objective telos - a north star for the evolving definition of goodness
Thats why bacteria have evolved to help us - cooperation is the evolutionary north star.
If the bacteria attack us, they selfdestruct. If they find a way to harm us without selfdestructing, they begin an evolutionary arms race with us, were we both waste resources trying to fight eachother, when we could be more resource efficient by cooperating.
INTERLOCUTOR:
but which group is going to be graded on resource efficiency at the end of the world?
TP:
what do you mean
Also, have you heard the argument that even predator-prey relations are actually manifestations of species-level cooperation?
INTERLOCUTOR:
I'm just not seeing why there being a North star 'should' matter to anyone. Either species could just end, and who cares?
TP:
This statement acts like each person is a blank slate that gets to choose what they value. But I don't believe we are blank slates. We come from millions of years of evolution with blueprints of values like "I value my existence" "I value reproduction" "I value wellbeing" - once you have these value systems, you are a slave to the north star. Its not a matter of choice. You are already in the game.
INTERLOCUTOR:
I might not have heard that argument. Is the prey cooperating by feeding the predator in exchange for having the weak culled from their gene pool?
TP:
I think the argument goes something like, if rabbit populations are unrestrained, they will eat all the plants, and hence reproduce until they extinct their own food source. Predators help modulate prey populations so they don't extinct their own species.
INTERLOCUTOR: *referring to blank slate*
I have personally manipulated some of those values in myself. I would say, just as people had no trouble dropping and throwing things before there was a theory of gravity, I have no trouble believing that I have free will before there's a theory of free will. I consider it an observable phenomenon regardless of whether there's an explanation
As for when something is free will, and to what extent, those are hard questions, but I don't think that means it can't be a thing
TP:
i dont think changing values is evidence of freewill, its evidence of neuroplasticity
in order to change a value you have to appeal to a deeper value and congnitively calculate that the superficial value is not supporting your deeper values
INTERLOCUTOR: *referring to animals*
my issue with that idea is that species go extinct all the time, so I don't understand calling it cooperation
I don't think rabbit gene pools are experimenting with different capacities to escape predation in order to hypothetically find a sustainable balance--I think species just do or don't achieve that balance by chance, and we've lost millions of failed ones
But it feels like I'm probably missing something
TP:
So the rabbit/wolf cooperation - that is what accidentally succeeded. Yes, species go extinct all the time because they fail to follow the north star. Only that which accidentally and programatically submits to the north star will survive. Non-conscious species-level cooperation is the strategic landing point that they have arrived at in order to survive.
INTERLOCUTOR:
That last sentence loses me--what's the strategy in how they're proceeding from here? They're still just all trying to survive and whatever balance they've achieved can always be lost from here, and then they all eventually die
TP:
Maybe or hypothetically some rabbits have evolved posion to kill all the predators in their area. Those rabbits don't exist anymore cuz they were didn't cooperate with the wolves.
INTERLOCUTOR:
and neither of them "care"
TP:
cooperate in the non-conscious way of course
INTERLOCUTOR:
even unconscious, I don't see the justification for saying 'cooperation' since from this point forward, they can still proceed to failure
they're not helping each other not to fail
they just either do or don't, right?
TP:
If the wolf evolves to be 100 times faster, they will extinct the rabbits
the fact of evolving too fast = not cooperating
INTERLOCUTOR:
so as the prey population dwindles and the predator population dwindles as a result, are the faster wolves at a disadvantage?
TP:
they will extinct themselves
only the cooperative wolves will exist
INTERLOCUTOR:
I think they'll continue to wreak havoc on the prey population until both species are extinct
TP:
right
INTERLOCUTOR:
but maybe if the species, both prey and predator, are constantly splitting into sub-groups..
there could be some selection there of more balanced configurations
but none of them are cooperating to ensure the survival of both
if I'm understanding correctly
TP:
not consciously cooperating
but their dna configurations are de facto cooperating
by virtue of being balanced
INTERLOCUTOR:
but what is keeping them from being acted on by natural selection to become unbalanced again?
TP:
nothing, they can cease to exist again, but it would be in their interest to evolve DNA modulators that promote ecosystem balancing so that they don't keep ceasing to exist
INTERLOCUTOR:
How do they come back from ceasing to exist? That seems counterintuitive to me. Once the species goes extinct, they're just gone--like most species that have ever been
TP:
Because of geographic isolation
1000 islands with 1000 evolutionary systems
999 go exinct
1 survives and repopulates 1000 islands
balancing is being promoted each iteration
islands is just metaphorical to make it easier to understand
INTERLOCUTOR:
But that's no closer to cooperation than being in a stalemate due to deterrence
TP:
what about the word cooperation seems wrong
INTERLOCUTOR:
It seems to imply actions being directed at the good of another being. If no such end is the goal of any action undertaken, then it's not cooperation
Like, no rabbit is taking one for the team, and no wolf is going hungry to reciprocate
and I know you said it's not conscious, I'm just saying it's not cooperation whether or not it's conscious
I still don't understand the original assertion. What are prey and predator populations doing to benefit each other? They're lucky if enough of them remain to repopulate
purely lucky
TP:
thats a pretty cogent response, let me think about that
I think I am operating from the perspective of the DNA not the creature. Im not imputing cooperation to the creatures behaviors, but rather to the behaviors of the DNA.
INTERLOCUTOR:
I can understand predator groups who have common prey cooperating with each other to avoid conflict, and perhaps risking a little hunger as a result--like by forming and respecting separate territories, dunno if that's relevant
Do you mean DNA in general, as in all DNA-based life?
TP:
im not sure I see the distinction here
INTERLOCUTOR:
I meant, are you operating from the perspective of one or both of these species' specific DNA averages, or from the perspective of all DNA-based life
Trying to understand the scale from which this cooperation might make sense
I mean from which 'cooperation' as a descriptor might make sense
TP:
i tend to think that the DNA relationship between rabbits and wolves can scale out to the relationship between other organisms, but there will be different dynamics depending on the ecosystem
the underlying principle or north star is the same, just different manifestations or failures to manifest
INTERLOCUTOR:
I don't really take issue with naturalistic explanations of what occurs when people think they're changing their mind or exercising agency, I'm just not convinced A) that there's no room for anything more, or B) that anybody has the non-contingent right to interfere with the operation of another brain
You can only trust people up to a point, but they can always secretly betray the rules for a split second and kill you. You can trust your fellow citizens up until they vote to persecute you. In either case, the telos of evolution can chug along toward that North star without you--so to me, it seems the only way to really trust people is to believe, and believe that others believe, that there is a being with the requisite qualities for having moral authority and judging us according to a perfect law
It may be wired into us to feel like that's true, or to want it to be true, or to encourage others to agree with it, but that all doesn't mean it can't be true
I suppose it's a similar assertion to yours ("you're already in the game"). I guess one could say "you are a member of a religious species that lives a faith-based life"
TP:
I think I largely agree with the second half here
I think I take most issue with this portion - "You can only trust people up to a point, but they can always secretly betray the rules for a split second and kill you. You can trust your fellow citizens up until they vote to persecute you. In either case, the telos of evolution can chug along toward that North star without you--so to me, it seems the only way to really trust people is to believe, and believe that others believe, that there is a being with the requisite qualities for having moral authority and judging us according to a perfect law"
I believe that the majority of behavior is deeper than cognitive. My understanding of moral psychology is that people use their emotions to figure out their opinions, and then they use their cognition to randomly come up with excuses for their moral conclusions. So, I don't think it is hugely necessary for a cognitive structure of a God, rules, and justice in order for humans to have the correct prosocial moral emotions to guide their behavior. Most morality is 100 times more complex than the ten commandments anyway. The moral rules of religion are largely useless for guiding morality in my opinion.
"thou shalt not kill" is a perfect example of a completely useless moral precept
what about self defense?
what about war?
what about animals?
what about serial killers?
what about rapists?
what about those who work on sunday?
What about fetuses?
What about suicide?
What about voluntary euthanasia?
What about removing life support?
What about not providing resources for life?
What about if the king tells you to kill?
its so vague that pretty much gives people license to interpret it however the hell they want
So the other thing is trust -
yes humans can "violate the rules for a second to get an advantage" but this is where game theory comes in
is it truely advantageous to "violate the rules" for a second?
I would argue that it isnt. And that is why the majority of us have evolved emotions that tell us to not do it
So because of game theory, because we are a social species that relies on cooperation to survive, because we have empathy as an evolutionary tool for cooperation, we can trust eachother. We dont need anything more than evidence of basic humanity to grant trust.
Yes, 4% of humanity is sociopathic or psychopathic. That is a huge number. Those people can't be trusted because their basic humanity is broken.
Way more psychopaths than people with brain tumors that warp their behavior.
So we need to be cautious - and look for signs of empathy in eachother, then we are good.
I think religion is largely useful for regulating sociopaths and psychopaths, because it gives them a higher order level of punishment and pleasure, so it forces them to care about others because not caring about others gives them divine punishments.
In a population 1 million city, there will be 40,000 people who need extra regulating
INTERLOCUTOR:
"then we are good" to what extent? I think most of us wish we could trust others more, and we act like that should be possible; and if we don't really believe that, some of us will plot to have others persecuted, and rationalize it to ourselves
TP:
Im not sure what type of answer you are looking for here
You see religion as a tool to help build social trust, and the lack of it makes trust harder, so we should have religion?
I actually am not against religion, because I agree we are a religious species.
I am mostly against harmful religion.
I actually think that we need a new digital age religion to guide us through the most complex age in our evolutionary history
I think ancient religions haven't evolved fast enough to keep up the pace with human progress
INTERLOCUTOR:
Does that moral theory go far enough to satisfy what people require to justify living and feeling the way they do? I think human beings go further and want more than can be justified by your model, without including an acknowledgment of the need for us to believe in something like what people have reasoned God must be like
One thing I like about lds is it being more recent and having current figures that can advance things
TP:
that is true - it is like Christianity updated with 1800 years of western philosophy and science
but our progress from 1800s till now has been exponential
The last 200 years has been more impactful than the past 1800
Are you saying that an evolutionary perspective on purpose and morality is too vapid for the human soul?
have you seen this video of mine - htTPs://youtu.be/p7YjsITNeuA
this is my attempt at a rational and secular perspective on our purpose, to me it seems sufficiently fulfilling for the soul
INTERLOCUTOR:
But with the ability built in for modern men to expand doctrine to accommodate modern situations. Living prophets. Might be hard to trust them as such, but I admire the boldness of lds Christians to be able to say 'hey, if you can't believe in a modern prophet, you probably wouldn't have believed in the ancient ones in their respective times either"
That alone makes them better Christians to me
Jordan Peterson recommends joining a church all the more if you don't like something about it
TP:
in my opinion, the problem is that there is only so much cognitive dissonance people can tolerate before ideologies go bust
i think Mormonism is set up for extinction due to being founded in a time when it was normal to be racist, homophobic, etc - defunct values are too close to its core foundation
thats just the values cognitive dissonance
not to mention the epistemic cognitive dissonance
how most truth claims central to its founding are patently false
Christianity's advantage is that their value system is more vague and their epistemology is further back in time. So its easier to warp vague values and justify truth claims when evidence is long gone.
Mormonism is more recent, more specific in their values, and epistemically exposed to modern evidence
the best thing for mormonism would be a collapse of the modern world
rebuilding from the rubble
collapsed globalization means its okay to go back to semi-racist values etc and evidence / science are no longer a threat since those institutions collapsed
then the virtues of mormonism would thrive in rebuilding with their emphasis on disaster preparation, asceticism, discipline, emergent cooperation via churches, emphasis on birthing, etc.
they could probably dominate the future if that happened
INTERLOCUTOR:
On Mormonism, a couple of points. First, from my own journey, I would expect that you are going through a honeymoon period with the secular world, or with the non-theistic worldview generally. You are perhaps inclined to give more credit than is due to non-religious people and ideas. You may be more impressed with so-called skeptics than they deserve
As an example, there are issues and controversies about which many atheists have views that are either rooted in no valid basis, or are internally-contradictory. You will probably one day find that non-religious people simply take religious thinking and correct certain inconsistencies with what they've been taught in school or youtube videos. However, as you said before, they're still guided by their emotions and pro-social evolutionary imperatives
As you (may) gradually lose faith in the non-religious just as you did in the religious, you may start to see both groups as equally lost and foolish. At that point, you can just choose between a coercive system that demands your compliance, and a voluntary system that asks for your obedience
You can believe very flawed, incomplete narratives supported by the consensus of human authorities and based on often dubious physical evidence, or you can choose to believe narratives that at least don't change with the times, subject to the politics of the day
You can believe that you have to be the source of your own meaning and purpose, even though nothing will last or ultimately matter, or believe in objective, transcendent meaning and purpose that will always matter
I'm a bit at a 50/50 tipping point regarding whether or not I believe God exists, but I choose to take on the benefits of living and behaving like he does and allowing my mind to mold itself around that version of reality--though I'm conscious of whether I'm applying that in helpful or unhelpful ways. If I'm doing enough to be on God's good side, great. If he's not real, I'm still living optimally and thriving. On the other hand, I was always going to be an island, an anomaly, and a person who always carried the notion that consciousness ends and nothing ultimately matters
I don't have faith that most humans can adopt your views, just because I don't think they can understand them enough to benefit themselves or others more often than not. I do think something like the LDS church can be adapted. My church only talk about a few specific topics relating to personal growth using Christ and scriptural stories as examples
The process of going to church and being in that community and focusing on progress is helpful and not offset by the possibility that some people will depend on the accuracy of certain historical claims in order for them to agree to participate in the process
And as far as racism and homophobia go, I'd like to know your view on 'old' science that didn't rule out such attitudes. Why is science trustworthy now, but if you trusted it then, it was bad? You don't have to answer that, it's not a hard argument. The point is that we always seem to be overconfident in our scientific understanding. Sometimes intuition from experience is useful and science can be confusing as to be misleading
So where does racism come from, what's the function of it, what's wrong with it nowadays, and what makes you certain it's against the telos of evolution?
TP:
Per DNA cooperation, yes, this is a hypothesis of mine. This hypothesis being true would justify the "dna behavior aimed at intraspecies cooperation" argument. My perspective on cooperation is more loose than yours though. Even if this hypothesis is false, I would accept a balanced status quo between species as de facto cooperation, even if the dna doesn't have any proactive behaviors towards establishing and maintaining this status quo.
by the way I'm loving this conversation, you are a worthy interlocutor haha
Per "[Religious people], as you said before, they're still guided by their emotions and pro-social evolutionary imperatives."
- I am somewhat inclined towards thinking that religion actually supresses some of our basic humanity. Instead of doing good because of normal human empathy, it becomes about divine imperative, or heavenly reward. The correct reason for behaviors gets supplanted by religious reasons and reprograms the psyche to bypass empathy. Comparatively, I felt way less empathetic and less human while I was a religious person and feel that the non-religious people that I have met seem much more human that the religious people I grew up with. But that is hard to measure, religous people actively motivate themselves to do lots of actions that imply/excercise empathy, perhaps they are only 30% empathetic and 70% duty bound while they do charity, but an atheist would be 100% empathetic 0% duty bound while doing charity, but the atheist might do less charity, so I don't know how the math should balance out, and I'm not fully confident on this point.
Per "At that point, you can just choose between a coercive system that demands your compliance, and a voluntary system that asks for your obedience"
- I don't feel like I've ever had to choose between these.
Per "You can believe very flawed, incomplete narratives supported by the consensus of human authorities and based on often dubious physical evidence, or you can choose to believe narratives that at least don't change with the times, subject to the politics of the day"
- I don't feel forced to choose between these 2 options either. As in, I have always found a comfortable path that isn't coercive and that isn't dubious.
Per "You can believe that you have to be the source of your own meaning and purpose, even though nothing will last or ultimately matter, or believe in objective, transcendent meaning and purpose that will always matter" -
I think humans are looking for something transcendent to attach their meaning systems to. I don't believe they need to be attached to religion, they can be attached to other things like "the tribe", "our lineage", "technological legacy", "humanity", "consciousness", etc. Any source of meaning beyond the self could be considered a transcendent meaning, at least in the fact that it transcends the self. To think that if things don't continue existing forever then things don't matter is just an incorrect perspective in my book. Each finite experience is eternally etched onto the fabric of space-time. So, even 1 billion years into the future, it still matters how many people suffered in the holocost, because those horrible things actually happened. It would be a better timeline to have removed that suffering during the holocost.
Per "I don't have faith that most humans can adopt your views, just because I don't think they can understand them enough to benefit themselves or others more often than not. "
This is something I am very concerned about. This is why I think a digital age religion could be helpful - a more simple framework for social organization.
Per "So where does racism come from, what's the function of it, what's wrong with it nowadays, and what makes you certain it's against the telos of evolution?" -
My answer is actually in this video as well lol - https://youtu.be/p7YjsITNeuA
Basically, human ability to cooperate creates in-groups and out-groups. Since morality is based on game theory, and maximal feasible cooperation is the most successful game theory, the largest possible group size is always the most moral social strategy.
As human societies evolved, it was not always possible to cooperate with more than 150 people, when cooperative capacity is limited to 150, the correct bias is to have preference for your 150 and bias against everyone else.
but we continually expand our cooperative capacities, so it becomes immoral to not cooperate with those that we have the capacity to cooperate with
in an age of globalization, we have the capacity to cooperate with all races and nations, so it is immoral to do otherwise
but if society collapses, cooperative capacities will collapse, so old bigotries might become moral once more.
"Why is science trustworthy now, but if you trusted it then, it was bad?" -
If one has a worldview where the attribute of trustworthy is dogmatic and black and white, if the only options for trustworthiness are 0% and 100%, then it can seem quite foolish for someone to flip flop between 0% and 100% over the history of science, i.e. 0% confidence in Newton, 100% confidence in Einstein, etc. But I believe this is a very flawed way of viewing reality. Confidence must match the level of epistemic rigor involved. Confidence should never be at 100%. My epistemology is to operate on "highest confidence available theories". So for example, I might have to vote for Trump or Biden. In the Trump Russian collusion investigations, I haven't follwed all of the trials, I havn't seen the evidence, but I still have to make a decison - whether or not to allow these accusations to influence my vote. So I have to put forward some theories - Theory Red "Trump had benign interactions with Russians due to being a billionare, and the angry democrates are attempting reputation destruction", Theory Blue "The democrates are being clear headed, epistemically cautious, and accurate in their accusations of Trump". Then I have to assign confidence levels to each theory. Perhaps I have 1% confidence in theory blue, and 10% confidence in theory red. I don't have 100% confidence on either, but I have relative confidence in theory red, so I make my decisions based on theory red. Similarly with science, in Newton's day I would have 10% confidence in Newtonian physics, but only 1% confidence in Aristotelian physics, so I would make decisions based on Newtonian physics. But when Einstein comes along, I will have 20% confidence in general relativity, and consequently make decisions based on the new best/most rigorous theory.