Although alpha itself is simple enough at the molecular level, the derivation is complicated, its exposition has been spaced out over several posts and, alas, several months, and a summary is in order. Besides, the girlfriend wants one. Now 100% formula-free!
In Part 1: Starting From Zero
The history of philosophy, ethics in particular, was reviewed and found wanting. It continues to stink of vitalism and anthropocentrism, despite the fact that the idea of a “vital force” was thoroughly discredited by the 1850s. No ethics to date has managed to improve on moral intuition, or explain it either.
What fun is a game with no rules? There must be some common structure to all living systems, not just human beings, and based on its track record, it is science that will likely discover it.
In Part 2: Rules — The Laws of Thermodynamics
We sought rules that are precise and objective without indulging dogmatism. The laws of thermodynamics are the most general we know. They are independent of any hypothesis concerning the microscopic nature of matter, and they appear to hold everywhere, even in black holes. (Stephen Hawking lost a bet on this.) Thus they seemed a good place to start. We postulated a cube floating through space and called it Eustace, in an ill-advised fit of whimsy. A little algebraic manipulation of the Gibbs-Boltzmann formulation of the Second Law produced a strange number we called alpha, which turns out to be the measure of sustainability for any Eustace, living or dead, on Earth or in a galaxy far, far away.
In Part 3: Scoring — The Alpha Casino
We laid out a scoring system for Eustace built entirely on mathematics using alpha, a dimensionless, measurable quantity. Alpha measures the consequences of energy flux. All is number. Along the way we explained, via Bernoulli trials, how complexity emerges from the ooze. The dramatic effects of probability biases of a percent or less are dwarfed by the even more dramatic biases afforded by catalysts and enzymes that often operate in the 10E8 to 10E20 range.
In Part 4: Challenges — Gaussian and Poisson Randomness
We introduced two general (but not exhaustive) classes of random processes. Gaussian (continuous) randomness can be dealt with by a non-anticipating strategy of continuous adjustment. Relatively primitive devices like thermostats manage this quite nicely. Poisson (discontinuous) randomness is a fiercer beast. It can, at best, only be estimated via thresholds. Every Eustace, to sustain itself, must constantly reconfigure in light of the available information, or filtration. We introduced the term alpha model to describe this process.
In Part 5: Strategy — Strong and Weak Solutions
Increasingly complex organisms have evolved autonomous systems that mediate blood pressure and pH while developing threshold-based systems that effectively adapt filtrations to mediate punctuated processes like, say, predators. We introduced strong and weak solutions and explained the role of each. Weak solutions do not offer specific actionable paths but they do cull our possible choices. Strong solutions are actionable paths but a strong solution that is not adapted to the available filtration will likely be sub-optimal. Successful strong solutions can cut both ways. Paths that served us well in the past, if not continuously adapted, can grow confining. An extreme example, in human terms, is dogmatism. Alpha models must adapt to changing filtrations. Each generation must question the beliefs, traditions, and fashions of the generations that preceded it.
In Part 6: The Meaning of Life
We finally arrived at the universal maximization function. We introduced the concept of alpha*, or estimated alpha, and epsilon, the difference between estimated and actual alpha. Behavior and ethics are defined by alpha* and alpha, respectively. All living things maximize alpha*, and all living things succeed insofar as alpha* approximates alpha. From here we abstract the three characteristics of all living things. They can generate alpha (alphatropic). They can recognize and respond to alpha (alphaphilic). And they can calibrate responses to alpha to minimize epsilon (alphametric).
That’s it. An ethics, built up from thermodynamics and mathematics, in 700 words. The entire derivation from premise to conclusion was presented. Can anyone find fault with the sums?
(Update: Jesus von Einstein comments.)
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments.
Here:
What if being dishonest, cheating, lying, corrupting, torturing, arson, rape, murder, all maximize alpha-star?
But before answering this, consider Epsilon. Epsilon as I understand it, allows for error based on the completeness of information.
This is tricky, as the formulation tells us that Epsilon is Filtration dependent*.
(*NB I might have this last bit wrong. If so, please correct me.)
Untoward or unethical acts may have a deleterious effect on alpha-critical, and therefore, be overall alphadystropic.
And what of filtration? Is Filtration energy dependent?Empirically, I believe this to be true.
Note was made above about recovery, a fine example. Recovery from addiction, remission from eating disorders, relief from chronic pain, treatment of neuroses, etc., are all highly energy dependent process.
One of the potential weaknesses of the formulation, is that Filtration (F@t-1)is energy dependent and the source and flux of this energy perhaps should be accounted for.
And no, the question is not to whom one is alpha-star maximizing, the Universe is only interested in flux.
Rather, why (to whom, how, and when) we selectively filter, is the more appropriate question.
Again, I do not understand the mathematics (set theory and the like), but I do know quite a bit about the neurophysiology, the human nervous system, and human behavior. Perhaps to "bridge the gap" leave consciousness out of it for a moment, and reconsider the validity of the use of F@t-1 and its derivation.
Does pursuing alpha* in the afterlife by utterly sacrificing this life count?
Mr. MeTooThen,
Untoward or unethical acts may have a deleterious effect on alpha-critical, and therefore, be overall alphadystropic.
Not quite. For any Eustace at any given time, there is a finite amount of free energy available. There is a theoretical max alpha that can be generated by this available free energy.
The amount of alpha that Eustace actually does generate is alpha-star. The difference between alpha-max and alpha-star is epsilon.
Alphadystropic behavior increases epsilon and brings the system closer to alpha-critical. The observer doesn’t change the energetics of the system–so if the observer draws the "wrong" system boundaries, the system doesn’t care. If the system reaches alpha-critical it collapses.
And what of filtration? Is Filtration energy dependent? Empirically, I believe this to be true.
A filtration is the set of all available information at a given time. It is Universe dependent.
One of the potential weaknesses of the formulation, is that Filtration (F@t-1)is energy dependent and the source and flux of this energy perhaps should be accounted for.
Not exactly. But you are right in pointing out that searching for information does have alpha consequences. Anything that happens has a thermodynamic consequence.
The formal definition is something like "A family of sigma algebras indexed by a partially ordered set so that F_i is contained in F_j when i is less than j"
Filtrations occur in the theory of stochastic processes, which describe random events occurring over time. At a given point in time we can know certain things because they have already happened or because they can be predicted from what has already happened. The information that we have at a given point in time can be described by the set of events such that we know whether the event has occurred/will occur. This is a sigma-field. We can construct such a sigma-field for every increment of time. This collection of sigma-fields is a filtration. In fact any collection of one sigma-field for each time point is a filtration but the useful examples are of the sort described. Filtrations are almost always
required to be "increasing", which means that an event in the sigma-field for time t is also in the sigma-fields for all times after t. the Borel sigma-field is the smallest one that contains all the open sets. This makes it very important, as the open sets define concepts such as continuity.
Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot of very good resources on the internet but the book by Bernt Oksendal is a good start.
And no, the question is not to whom one is alpha-star maximizing, the Universe is only interested in flux. Rather, why (to whom, how, and when) we selectively filter, is the more appropriate question.
Exactly. Although be careful about using filter and filtration this way. Eustace is an alpha-model and events change Eustace’s configuration. I believe you are using the verb ‘filter’ to describe this process but keep in mind that ‘filtration’ has the formal definition above.
Perhaps to "bridge the gap" leave consciousness out of it for a moment, and reconsider the validity of the use of F@t-1 and its derivation.
Consciousness is a very dear and personal notion but it is safe. Note how none of the derivation attacks it but some of us are feeling threatened nonetheless. Consciousness just isn’t necessary at this point. No one at any point has denied that consciousness exists. Nevertheless, leaving consciousness out of the equation is clearly making some people apoplectic.
Does pursuing alpha* in the afterlife by utterly sacrificing this life count?
Good nose, Mr. Valliant. You are on to why eschatological religious authority can be so insidious. When faith means ignoring the filtration, epsilon goes through the roof.
Mr. MeTooThen,
One more thing about filtrations. The convention
F@t-1
is just that, a convention. It should really be
F@t-d
where d is greater than 0. In other words, there will always be some latency with the information available in the filtration. The number ‘1’ was merely used to keep things simple.
Mr. Bourbaki,
My "nose" is only suspecting that alpha* really need not be the meaningful object of actions taken by remarkably flexible agents. Those suckers can act with reference to the least alpha-oriented goals imaginable.
The notion of consciousness is no more "personal" than the the basic concepts made use of in this theory. It has not been assailed–not a finger has been (agnostically) laid upon it, right?–no, the only "threat" is aimed at an allegedly ethical theory that ignores it. If you feel threatened by this, my sympathies.
This is bit of sci-fi example, sure, but what about the evil genius who seeks to destroy his own life, his species survival, and, indeed, all life on earth? Can he be said to be pursuing alpha*? In a meaningful way?
Those suckers can act with reference to the least alpha-oriented goals imaginable.
Precisely. Complex systems can have some very complex problems. The little calculator I use to figure out tips will never steer me wrong. Of course, it won’t do much else.
A multi-factor term structure model running on a cluster of computers calculating and executing trading strategies can destroy a great deal of wealth. Of course, it can (and has) generated fortunes.
no, the only "threat" is aimed at an allegedly ethical theory that ignores it.
And you are most welcome to point out the error with evidence. But why the premature hand-wringing? You should get some sleep.
This is bit of sci-fi example, sure, but what about the evil genius who seeks to destroy his own life, his species survival, and, indeed, all life on earth? Can he be said to be pursuing alpha*? In a meaningful way?
There is usually more to the arc of this story. Typically, the evil genius wasn’t always evil. There is almost always some backstory that involves radiation-induced insanity, betrayal, humiliation or other misdeed that sets the genius on an "evil" path.
At least that is how it worked in The Incredibles.
When we consider things from his perspective, we are the source of his pain and suffering. To him, we are "evil" or we are "inferior". And this "blight" must be cleansed from the Universe. Not exactly a low epsilon solution.
In these stories, if the evil guy comes around to being "good" again, it tends to be more interesting than some static, squeaky-clean, goody-goody hero.
Man–I am really jumping the shark here.
Mr. Bourbaki,
You got some nerve, champ: "And you are most welcome to point out the error with evidence." "Error" in the system? Or the gross error of believing that consciousness and volition can be simply ignored–in ethics!? The evidence of consciousness and volition is more overwhelming than any evidence for any of the concepts used here. I have offered example after example, and argument after argument, demonstrating that volition/choice is the prerequisite of ethics. It certainly is the prerequisite of any moral judgment of any kind. I have also shown why ethics is possible only to beings possessed of consciousness. Indeed, it has been effectively conceded that all of the non-human Eustaces of which we are aware would find alpha-theory (and any other ethical system) entirely useless. You have not answered any of this even once.
As to my example, I call a rank foul! I never gave you permission to add your own cheezy "psycho" backstory like some pathetic Public Defender whining for his client’s life. This is MY comic book, so he doesn’t feel that at all. No, he hates the good for being the good; people are not a source of pain for him. He seeks destruction for its own sake. Now, go!
Mr. Bourbaki,
I’m frankly shocked that you should even invoke psychology, when we were told that we can ignore consciousness altogether. In alpha, there’s no such thing as "psychology," friend! So don’t be tellin’ me what people feel, think, consider or anything about their childhood traumas, either. It doesn’t matter, cannot be invoked in alpha theory, and may not even exist, being a quaint and "personal" notion, perhaps pure mysticism!
Computers do not break down or self-destruct because of their perceptions and opinions about the universe, do they? Computers that seek their own destruction via ritualized suicide? I’d like to see that, too!!
This attack on the history of ethics strikes me as the assertion that while molecules, ants and mice have been busy "doing alpha," those mystic dummies, humans, have not. If this theory is true, then every previous semi-coherent attempt at ethics, of course, has been "doing alpha" (and all without math! But I honestly wonder how human sacrifice or cannibalism are even alpha*-related…?) It sure seems that humans have been aggressively and rapidly (to put it mildly) innovative in a rather unprecedented way at "doing alpha." This remarkable facility needs more alpha-analysis, boss.
I have offered example after example, and argument after argument, demonstrating that volition/choice is the prerequisite of ethics.
But what is the prerequisite for volition/choice?
I’m frankly shocked that you should even invoke psychology, when we were told that we can ignore consciousness altogether.
I admitted as much when I stated that I was jumping the shark. We were talking about sci-fi storylines, right?
Computers do not break down or self-destruct because of their perceptions and opinions about the universe, do they?
Really?
We’re just kicking some ideas around. If alpha theory is bunk, bull, or nonsense that’s cool. Let’s understand why and dump it. If not, let’s explore it.
I think the only unsatisfying option would be to let it sit. I think it’s great that you’re passionate about these things. Not many people are. And I think it’s great that there’s a blog that makes sharing these ideas very, very easy. And it’s totally cool to trash the idea. That’s how ideas evolves.
But it sounds like you’re really getting ticked off over a thread in a blog. If we did cross paths in person, maybe we could chill out over a beer?
"Or the gross error of believing that consciousness and volition can be simply ignored–in ethics!?"
Mr. Valliant: let me just ask you why consciousness is necessary for anything that has been stated about alpha so far?
Yes, yes I know it is axiomatic to ethics afayac, and you see no way to construct an ethics without it but what has been offered that there is a need for it? You say ethics does, but what in alpha does? I know you foresee that there will be such a need, but unless there is something that has been offered re:alpha so far that requires it, I ask you to abstain discussion of it. You are adding more to the solution than is necessary at this point.
It will have to be addressed (if for no other reason than because it is such a big deal to so many) but at this time, no conclusion derived from alpha has any need for such a cluttered and misunderstood concept as ‘consciousness’. Let’s not muck about with it unless we have to and unless you can *prove* otherwise (more is required for proof by the way than distaste), alpha does not at this point need it.
"In alpha, there’s no such thing as "psychology," friend! So don’t be tellin’ me what people feel, think, consider or anything about their childhood traumas, either. It doesn’t matter, cannot be invoked in alpha theory, and may not even exist, being a quaint and "personal" notion, perhaps pure mysticism!"
In response to this I invite you to read more about filtration. I think then you will see that your hysteria has gotten the better of you.
"so he doesn’t feel that at all. No, he hates the good for being the good; people are not a source of pain for him. He seeks destruction for its own sake. Now, go"
Again see filtration as well as the difference between alpha and alpha*.
After some consideration I cannot think of a single instance wherein I or anyone I know has acted in any way but one intended to increase alpha*. The strength of this statement is not lost on me, but I cannot come up with anything. Can anyone else?
Mr. Valliant,
This is MY comic book, so he doesn’t feel that at all. No, he hates the good for being the good; people are not a source of pain for him. He seeks destruction for its own sake. Now, go!
I missed the ‘Now, go!’ part. I wasn’t sure if you wanted me to disappear or to explain the story with more information. If it’s the former, then please ignore the following.
Although this wasn’t part of your evil genius story, this is also conceivable in alpha terms. In Part 5, we discussed how we have an ambivalence toward strong solutions. Strong solutions are a realized path. Taking one path means giving up the freedom to follow the other paths. Although we have evolved the ability to course correct pretty rapidly. (Q: How do we course correct?)
Nevertheless, we sometimes have great trouble committing to a strong solution when it’s our own decision. Can’t commit to […] (fill in the blank with any big decision). It is even harder to see the benefits of following a path when that path originates externally. Especially if it’s our parents. And especially if it means wearing stuffy hats and gloves in the winter. And we are right to be skeptical.
It is conceivable for someone to see the good as bad. Strong solutions can be viewed as incomprehensible or confining or suffocating or exclusionary. We are complex and we do break down. I believe that’s why idealized utopias always fail and why even "smart" people do stupid things (strong solutions that were good once didn’t adapt). Sometimes less is more. Free people. Free markets.
OK–I jumped the shark again. But hey, at least it’s Friday and we can fill in the blanks with all the fun, non-work-regimented possibilities for the weekend.
Bourbaki,
So, consciousness is a myth for human beings, but it is a clear reality for computers that occasionally break down simply due to opinion and mood? Do they commit suicide because their honor is impugned, like traditional Japanese? Do they commit mass-suicide because of their religious zeal, like the ancient Jews at Masada? Do they commit suicide because they wish to avoid ostracism or execution, like Socrates? Do they commit suicide because the world doesn’t understand them, like a teenager? Do they do, well, anything because they have low self-esteem??? Does counseling ever dissuade them from such a course???
I must not be making myself very clear… so, no more irony!
Yeah, just kickin’ around some crazy ideas, that’s all…
Look forward to the beer, but maybe we should avoid this topic of conversation..?
C.T.,
No, nothing so far in alpha theory requires any reference to consciousness or volition (apart from the obvious assumption of consciousness that every statement makes). This is the problem, not the solution, for alpha as a theory of ethics — exactly. No, it’s no problem for a theory of physics, but the ambitions here were stated to be much greater than that.
And, of course, "filtration" makes no reference to feelings, thoughts or consciousness, either … or does it? Was this the back-door admission of the unavoidable concept of consciousness? I expect there to be no talk of feelings or thoughts, if, that is, alpha can really claim to do without consciousness.
Mr. Valliant,
Pardon me while I suit up for another jump. Each attempt is riskier than the last!
Let’s consider suicide in alpha terms. We have Eustace who is an alpha-star maximizer but with no ingrained instincts to give him predefined strong solutions (purpose?), and a bad model or a bad lot (high epsilon). Eustace views all possible paths as alpha-dystropic. No matter what poor Eustace does, things always get screwed up.
Let’s consider two responses. One, Eustace responds externally and tries to destroy the environment (strong solution) in which he can not thrive. Two, Eustace responds internally and realizes than any action is futile so he stops getting out of bed in the morning and exhibits other classic signs of depression.
Eustace will probably use some combination of the two responses. If things go haywire, Eustace is trapped with only alpha-dystropy ahead and so he chooses to experience nothing.
Man, these sharks look hungry!
If things go haywire, Eustace is trapped with only alpha-dystropy ahead and so he chooses to experience nothing.
I should rephrase this. The only available alpha-star maximizing path is "no path" since all other paths appear to Eustace to be alpha-star minimizing.
Bourbaki,
Are y’all sure that consciousness and volition are not necessary features of ethics? E.G.:
1. "Eustace views all possible paths as alpha-dystropic." He "views"–without consciousness?
2. "Eustace responds externally and tries…" He "tries"–without choice?
3. "Eustace responds internally and realizes…" He "realizes"–without consciousness?
4. "…exhibits other classic signs of depression." He "experiences" "depression"–without consciousness?
5. "…so he chooses to experience nothing." He "chooses"–without choice? He "experiences" without consciousness?
It’s all really just "linguistic history" getting in the way, Aaron?
No problemo. My language skilz are even worse than me math skilz.
We started this particular thread discussing evil geniuses in sci-fi plots and comic books because it was clear that the slow, deliberate development using math and science was too boring for you. I can sympathize–that stuff can be mighty dry.
Yesterday when I asked you for an example of an action from the past where you did not attempt to maximize alpha-star, you blew a gasket.
Mr. CT reiterated the question.
So why not return that line of questioning? If Alice asks Bob what he did last weekend, Bob normally offers a list of actions he performed e.g. laundry, nap, bowling, etc. He doesn’t respond with "I didn’t do the following set of possible actions (X : 1..N where N is large)."
So, if you’d like to return to our pre-shark jumping line of questions then please answer the following:
1. Give us an example of some action you’ve taken in the past that was not alpha-star maximizing. Not in hind-sight, mind you, but conditioned on the filtration available to you at the time you took the action.
2. I asked this above but you probably missed it. You stated volition/choice is the prerequisite for ethics. But tell us, what is the prerequisite for volition/choice? If you don’t know, where would you look? We don’t want to smuggle it in, right? And, only in terms of results, what ends do volition/choice offer that would improve on what we have already?
Two (ok, three) questions. Again, take all the time you need but don’t be a wall like me.
Mr. Bourbaki,
No, sir, your language skillz are just fine. But it appears that Aaron was right: language itself is a big obstacle to this theory. I have finally grasped that admission. Do give a shot at reconfiguring our entire language, though. It would help us folks not of the priestly class understand what is being said.
Once again, you ignore everything I have said about alpha and then demand that I answer your questions. That is what I blew a gasket at, remember? And here you are doing it again, and after I have raise several more–unanswered–questions.
If alpha* pursuit in the afterlife counts, then there’s a good example of alpha* being a meaningless idea. Every living organism pursues something. If alpha means "something" then everything you, or anyone else, has ever done is obviously after alpha*. But, then, I say "duh" to the most empty and banal of concepts. Was your demand a trick question, or what?
Can you now grasp how what I said above was the very "answer" you were seeking all along?
And I will again bore the more attentive by reminding you for the umpteenth time that consciousness and volition are axioms, i.e., things that lie at the base of knowledge and are therefore not epistemologically derived or derivable from any previous knowledge. They are perceived directly, like you perceive the objects in front of you right now. As with all the directly perceived, they are conceptualized after the initial awareness of them, but form the implicit base of subsequent knowledge.
But, perhaps, your question was not epistemological, but metaphysical. In this regard, as I have already suggested, I have hope for alpha. It must, however, acknoweledge–as you cannot avoid acknowledging here on this page–that people have thoughts and feelings. It will not render alpha-theory any less objective or any more mystical, I assure you. But it must do so.
Indeed, when this pseudo-scientific superstition subsides, alpha might actually demonstrate how biological teleology, including evolution, is simply an expression of thermodynamics. Next, that consciousness is a still more efficient expression of the same thing. Then, finally, how volition and self-consciousness are a still better refinement of the same process–and without even being shy about using such evaluative terms as "better," especially since we will have increased the precision and objectivity of moral concepts.
I.E., it might lead us to the physical "prerequisites" for consciousness and volition. There is such an answer, and biological evolution has already begun to suggest it. I hope that Aaron can help complete it.
O.k., now will YOU begin to answer anything I’ve ever tossed out? Or must I repeat myself over and over and over again without a single attempt at a response from you?
Again:
The "bridge" Jim is seeking (or demanding) lies in F.
Nowhere in the formulation presented is consciousness, choice, or intention omitted. Rather, all of these aspects of human functioning are present, implicitly so.
When one compares alpha-star, or energy flux in mitochondria, orchids, gnats, and fungi, one must assume that the structure and functioning of these closed systems are different.
Why then make demands for additional assumptions regarding humans?
The ways in which each of these systems employs its energy is distinct. So too, with humans.
Therefore, maximizing alpha-star, or minimizing Epsilon, allows for the inherent workings of the system. There is nothing to add mechanistically.
The answer lies, therefore, in F.
Filtration is likewise distinct for each system. Chemotaxis versus arson, for example.
It can be agreed upon than human behavior, and the ways in which decisions are made, and how those decisions are implemented, are more complex for humans than say the actions "taken" by algae.
But the formulation allows for both human and algae to act, according to its Filtration. Nothing more, nothing less.
As commented on above, the difficulty in measuring the success of this formulation lies in the successful calculation of F. And the calculation (or estimation) of F must allow for greater complexity, energy flux, and randomness in humans than it does in algae.
Whether or not there needs to be an additional or different derivation of F, will be left to the mathematicians.
Lastly, and this is the best part, it may be that the secret to successful minimization of Epsilon comes from the no-mind, or from the suspension of the illusion of control from the self.
Hence, the no-path of alpha-star, may be reliant on the no-mind of the Buddha.
Bride close, MeeTooThen! Ethics deals with the uniquely and distinctively human application implicit in all of this. One that cannot avoid the language and the reality of thoughts, feelings and choices, that is, when we come to every single moral judgment we make about human beings, including ourselves. Buddha comes in many subtle and varied forms to a being like us. Qua physics, if this turns out to be true, absolutely.
Bourbki and Jim are into it so heavy I have come to believe Bourbaki is really Aaron. Is this the case?
Bill,
Aaron is an old buddy of mine from way back. We once dwelt in the same ancient Brooklyn apartment building, sharing many a breakfast of bagels, O.J. and rich conversation. Bourbaki, I have never crossed paths with, and his identity I must leave for him to say, but I am certain that they are not the same.
At the risk of interrupting the fun you all seem to be having chasing your tails, I remind you that this series was supposed to demonstrate three propositions:
1. That all living things flourish insofar as they pursue a dimensionless, theoretically measurable quantity, which we can define with precision and which we call alpha.
2. That since it is impossible, in practice, to pursue this quantity directly, they act on models, which we call alpha models, to approximate it. The more efficiently an alpha model incorporates new data from the available filtration, the more successful it is, since success lies in continuous adjustment of one’s path in light of the best data available.
3. These models produce an approximation of alpha, which we call alpha*, and which all living things maximize.
We are now several hundred comments deep, many of them critical, and none of these propositions has been challenged in any way, except for 3, and only with derision. This disappoints me. I would expect so radical a theory to elicit numerous substantive objections. So far, zero.
These propositions, if true, add to knowledge that we have about living systems, including human beings. They emphasize the constant course corrections required for people to succeed, and the difficult recursive probability problems that cause them to fail. They help us understand the world. This is more than I can say for jumping up and down and yelling "We are conscious! We have free will!"
You consciousness and choice mavens may, if you like, exclude proposition 1 from ethics. Of course you are twisting the ordinary meaning of the word beyond recognition, and the claims about me and language in the thread lend this fact a certain piquant irony. But hey, that’s your problem, not mine. It means only that the interesting work will be done elsewhere.
Elsewhere we are investigating the following questions. What is optimal behavior for living systems? What is actual behavior for living systems? Why and how do they differ? I don’t care how you classify this; but "as physics" might stand improvement.
Aaron,
Thank you for your comments.
OK, I really must be lost.
I have stated above that empirically, I agree with the notion that the alpha model is approachable, but that I cannot assail the math.
And, that (without derision I hope) I raised a concern about the complexity (or efficiency/reliability/variability) of F.
BTW, I understand, and think appropriate F@t-1, as the function is phenomenologic, not diachronic.
In fact, I have used the concept of the Second law of Thermodynamics in my lectures to approximate some of human behavior.
Although considered non-substantive, please remark on my above queries with regard to F, even if only to correct any misunderstandings I may have about its original derivation or meaning.
MeToo: My comments were not directed at you, and I apologize if I created that impression. In fact I agree essentially with everything you’ve said, and your conception of F, which I did not regard as a criticism, differs in no way from my own.
Apart from the validation of alpha itself, I am working on it still, it is clear to me that human models and filtrations do not necessary approximate, or even necessarily "tend" to approximate, alpha. Examples are numerous. Moreover, the different modes of reconfiguration makes this sharp difference apparent: e.g. biological evolution is a different mechanism than conscious choice. This different modality renders human beings capable of anti-alpha behavior. Human action can be intentionally alpha-dystrophic, systematically aimed at anti-alpha ends. That is, if alpha is actual health, the alpha* can often be disease and destruction.
Even if this were not the case, these considerations do not adequately–not even close–provide any normative guidance for humans being whose unique modality of reconfiguration has been thus far ignored.
Then, you have abandoned trying to construct an ethics, as you claimed?
To do that, of course, many, many, many big issues still stand in the way. Just to start off:
Why should humans pursue alpha? Why alpha and not something else? What not sometimes pursue alpha and sometimes not? Some combo emotionally satisfying to me? Why shouldn’t I act alpha-dystrophically?
To do that, of course, many, many, many big issues still stand in the way.
Many, many, many indeed. I think, given your predisposition for high drama, you should start with a play. I referenced it before but it’s clear that you didn’t follow the link (or any other link that doesn’t lead back to the mothership).
Molire: Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme
"A modern interpretation of the classic comdie-ballet about the misadventures of a vain, credulous, and ignorant bourgeois seeking to pass himself off as a man better than he is and making a laughingstock of himself in the process."
For example:
Why should humans pursue alpha? Why alpha and not something else? What not sometimes pursue alpha and sometimes not? Some combo emotionally satisfying to me? Why shouldn’t I act alpha-dystrophically?
These are all the same question. Re-read Parts 1-6.
If that doesn’t work, maybe we can follow that up with a Helen Keller play and then fill fortune cookies with half a dozen or so deeply useful concepts: "I exist, existence exists, I’m off my meds"?
When we break them open, we can pretend it’s an epiphany.
Bourbaki,
No, they are not. One can pursue alpha consistently. One can ignore alpha. One can pursue alpha selectively, when it emotionally suits, knowing that alpha-improved outcomes will only be partial. Or, one can consistently pursue the explicitly anti-alpha. All are different possible policies. Only the most dogmatically-minded, arrogant followers of the Church of Alphaism could assert otherwise. Your habit of glossing and evading, and then shooting off accusations in pathetic ignorance is the laughable thing!!
Your absurd panic is best expressed by your constant and compulsive need to irrelevantly attack Rand.
It was you who started all of the (unnecessary) insults, and I tried my best to avoid them until you made that impossible.
I continued discussion with you only at Aaron’s request. That ends here.
Mr. Valliant,
Hey. The motto is "don’t panic" not "don’t be a wise ass". It appears you’ve missed the punchline, to your own question.
Why should humans pursue alpha? Why alpha and not something else? What not sometimes pursue alpha and sometimes not? Some combo emotionally satisfying to me? Why shouldn’t I act alpha-dystrophically?
Alpha dissipation means you stop existing i.e. you die. (something he pointed out was "obvious"). Even the axioms of Objectivism don’t mean much if you don’t exist.
I continued discussion with you only at Aaron’s request. That ends here.
Now how will we learn seventeenth century thinking? I’m attacking Rand because it’s not that it’s right or wrong but rather how it is right or wrong. Unless it’s just your personality, Objectivism produces a religious deluge of vague, self-confirmatory rhetoric with nothing new. It’s frozen.
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true."
–Homer Simpson (Disconsolation of Philosophy, Springfield)
Norbert Wiener was calling bullshit on this stuff way back in 1954. John Locke, at the end of the seventeenth century, considered that the content of the mind was made up of what he called ideas. The mind for him was entirely passive, a clean blackboard, tabula rasa, on which the experiences of the individual write their own impressions. If these impression appear often, either under circumstances of simultaneity, or in "certain sequence" or in situations where we attribute cause and effect, then according to Locke, these impression will form "complex" ideas, with a certain positive tendency for the component elements to stick together.
The mechanism by which these ideas stick together lies in the ideas themselves; but there is throughout Locke’s writing a singular unwillingness to describe the mechanism. Locke’s ideas can bear only the sort of relation to reality that a picture of a locomotive bears to a functioning locomotive.
Locke’s "theory" was a diagram without any working parts. This is not remarkable when we consider that it was conceived in the 1600s. But the world has progressed. And beyond Freud’s "Mystic Writing Pad" as well.
Ancient science was dominated by the Aristotelian impulse to classify and lacked the modern drive to uncover the ways in which phenomenon actually function. (Unfortuantely, you need something more than pop science and quotes to do that.) Sure classification is important but if that’s all you can offer, you’ll be boxed-in by your own choice of categories. For Linnaeus, species and genera were fixed Aristotelian forms rather than signposts for a process of evolution.
That’s why you can only circle round-and-round over concepts that have no demonstrable effect on the conclusions implied by alpha theory. There is a lot of huffing and puffing with adjective-laden rhetoric (e.g. many, many, many) but no real counterargument.
The real problem is that it is no longer the seventeenth century and idle speculation is much more difficult because of all of this pesky experimental data we’ve accumulated.
If alpha means "something" then everything you, or anyone else, has ever done is obviously after alpha*. But, then, I say "duh" to the most empty and banal of concepts. Was your demand a trick question, or what?
Of course. alpha-star does mean something. And, again, you came up empty with an example. No facts. Just rhetoric.
It’s an empirically derived quantity. In this quote, you are saying that we have no "choice" but but pursue alpha-star? That doesn’t sound like much of a choice. If the variabilty we observe is simply a consequence of how we adapt to the filtration as it flows through feedback mechanisms, then where is the choice?
It is easy to make a simple machine that will run toward a light or run away from it–and if such machines also contain lights of their own, a number of them together will exhibit very complicated behavior.
The nervous system and these machines are similar in that they are devices that respond to thresholds on the basis of dynamic state. Feedback is a method of controlling a system by resinserting into it the results of its past performance. To be alive is to participate in a continuous stream of influences form the outer world and respond according to an alpha-star model.
The highest latency feedback systems are endocrine and limbic. These homeostatic feedbacks have one general difference from our voluntary and our postural feedbacks: they tend to be much slower. There are very few changes in physiological homeostasis–not even cerebrial anemia–that produce cerious or permanent damage on millisecond time scales. Accordingly, the nerve fibers involved in homeostasis–the sympathetic and parasympathetic–are mostly non-myelinated. We learned that throught experiment. And it may circle back to change how we view our own composition.
The typical effectors of homeostasis–smooth muscles and glands–are likewise slow in their action compared to striped muscles involved in voluntary or postural activity. Many of the signals of the homestatic system are carried by non-nervous channels–the direct anastomosis of the muscular fibers of the heart, or chemical messengers such as hormones; and, except in the case of the heart muscle, these too are generally slower modes of transmission than myelinated nerve fibers.
Now speed the process up again. In the brain, this system gets exponentially more complex.
So how are choice/volition distinguishable from highly-complex, high-speed optimizations? If choice and volition don’t change our conclusions about alpha theory, what other goodies do they offer? In other words, why can’t we consider them implementation details if we can prove they exist?
Is there a conclusion from the existence of choice and volition that contradicts a conclusion implied by alpha theory?
This is not the same as saying they don’t exist–although, above, you seem to implying that they don’t. With your "duh"–every living thing obviously does it. Do we just happen to do it with such agility that the synthesis of all those threshold stimuli appear like we’re choosing? What is this "choice" based on?
Do we need it so we can morally judge our actions? But how is that not already covered by the utility function in Part 6?
O.k., now will YOU begin to answer anything I’ve ever tossed out? Or must I repeat myself over and over and over again without a single attempt at a response from you?
Fair enough. But I can’t find any of your questions. You impute responses and then you blow a petulant gasket.
If you can point out the questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Or not. Of the three possibilities of vetting alpha theory, I overlooked the fourth–and least appealing option: the echo chamber.
Bourbaki, your breathtaking ignorance of Objectivism (confusing Locke and Freud with Rand?) and some amazing notions about Aristotle (who is known as a "functionalist," after all, in some quarters, though I would hesitate to pidgeonhole a mind of that scope) is hard to deal with, here. Where would one begin?
Modern empirical science is equally appreciated by Objectivists. We love it. A good philosophy does not need to change with the march of science, however. A good philosophy, like Rand’s, allows for the acquisition of knowledge, including scientific knowledge. If alpha theory turns out to be objectively true, it will be consistent with Objectivism, whatever it says, even if it has not been anticipated by Objectivism. (Indeed, even apart from his errors, Aaron’s theory seems to be inspired in many ways by Rand’s thinking.)
So I suggest, rather than dismissing Rand with an Olympian flick of the wrist, crack a book and find out what she really said.
The application of Alpha to human beings is simply going to have to take into account consciousness and volition. I think you might find that the feedback loop from conceptual human thinking is greatly accelerated for this reason. You describe the surface effect (that is the process moves faster) but you have yet to put your finger on the mechanism. The differences between humans and other Eustaces permits humans to pursue death. Does that mean they are pursuing Alpha*? The fact is that human consciousness is a wild card that can greatly accelerate the process reducing Episolon, but it can also pursue death, which rather maximizes Epsilon. This is why they, alone among Eustaces, require ethics.
Richard Dawkins, in formulating his theory of "memes," began with the observation that 99.999% of human cultures have gone by the wayside through human history. He was attempting to describe the non-genetic aspect of inherited human culture that leads to disaster and death or to survival. Thus even after Alpha theory is well understood, and has even achieved consensus in the scientific community, human beings will be able to alter course and go in the most suicidal death-oriented Alpha* direction possible.
I might also observe this parallel to Aristotle in the premise of your argument. You seem to be saying, as Aristotled did, that if a man knows what is good he will necessarily do it. This was a contradiction for Aristotle, as he believed humans have free will. This does not appear to be a contradiction for your model, however.
Aaron,
Do you view the following statement as true, false or meaningless:
Alpha theory is to ontology as Richard Posner’s work is to jurisprudence.
Mr. Fahy,
Bourbaki, your breathtaking ignorance of Objectivism (confusing Locke and Freud with Rand?) and some amazing notions about Aristotle (who is known as a "functionalist," after all, in some quarters, though I would hesitate to pidgeonhole a mind of that scope) is hard to deal with, here. Where would one begin?
Objectivists are certainly a breathless lot. Look at Tremblay’s post way in the beginning of this thread.
And expanding my knowledge of Objectivism with tapes and seminars would give me what new capabilities and explanatory power? Will I too gain the confidence of a practitioner with the depth of a dilletante?
Will I be able to engage in arguments in economics, math, physics, biology, chemistry and computer science and know that I can win objectively? To me?
The Catholic Church was a big fan of Aristotle, too. Objectivism sets off my bullshit detector. Just like religion. Is it possible to be more anti-intellectual? It is confirmation bias without the trouble of even confirming. Again, I think passion for this stuff is super but as an intellectual framework, based on what I see here, Objectivism is a train wreck.
I suspect that’s why there’s very little real data in any of your arguments. Weak analogy and hand-waving argument from exception don’t get you very far. Neither does point after point of anecdote and quote. And the histrionics and drama and hero-obsession are just creepy.
Modern empirical science is equally appreciated by Objectivists. We love it.
Then you might want to start learning it rather than playing Bartlett-ball.
A good philosophy does not need to change with the march of science, however. A good philosophy, like Rand’s, allows for the acquisition of knowledge, including scientific knowledge.
A world view that does not adapt to new evidence? Objectivism is religion, dude. That explains why there is so much huffing and puffing so little blowing the house down.
If alpha theory turns out to be objectively true, it will be consistent with Objectivism, whatever it says, even if it has not been anticipated by Objectivism.
You wonder why people think you are in a cult?We are all heroes, objectively. I don’t need an emotional crutch to get my ass out of bed in the morning. I want my $19.95 back but I’m keeping the t-shirt.
(Indeed, even apart from his errors, Aaron’s theory seems to be inspired in many ways by Rand’s thinking.)
If Objectivism is who you are, I’m sure this is true. And if you’re a Christian, no doubt that Jesus inspired alpha theory, too.
I can most definitely say that this is bullshit.
The underlying thermodynamics originated with the ideas of Clausius, Clapeyron, Maxwell, and Boltzmann. The chemistry and molecular biology from Ostwald, Watson, Crick, Pauling and Perutz. The probability was provided by Bernoulli, Gauss, Kolmogorov, Ito, Levy and Wiener.
It is the tools of this "priestly" class that are used in the derivation. Not some fruity notions about why we should know their results to be true to us. Objectively. You are free to ignore their work but to make progress you need to explain why they are wrong. Each of these developments including the concept of continuity and the notion of atoms was challenged by philosophers. And the philosophers lost. Every time. Not a good track record.
So if there’s a way to apply science to new issues, I think I’ll stick with the odds-on favorite.
So I suggest, rather than dismissing Rand with an Olympian flick of the wrist, crack a book and find out what she really said.
I’ve heard that Helen Keller play mentioned several times. Do you guys all watch it together? There is an entire field of neuroscience that is actually figuring out how this shit works and you’re telling stories about hot stoves and mittens.
From what little I know about her, she started out in Hollywood so I understand the drama and hero worship. But worth studying? Sorry, I’m just not that maudlin.
The application of Alpha to human beings is simply going to have to take into account consciousness and volition.
Why? Adding "simply" to a statement doesn’t make it true. In this instance, I’d be willing to settle for a story, anecdote or analogy. Give me something.
I think you might find that the feedback loop from conceptual human thinking is greatly accelerated for this reason.
You can think a lot of things. Only solipsism can make them all true.
You describe the surface effect (that is the process moves faster) but you have yet to put your finger on the mechanism.
Please read and understand Parts 1-6.
If you have trouble with the content, I’m certain many people on this board would be happy to clarify it. Worst case, you’ll learn some new science–and that’s good since you are a lover of it.
The differences between humans and other Eustaces permits humans to pursue death. Does that mean they are pursuing Alpha*?
Yes. You will understand after you grok the theory. If you can find a hole in the theory that says otherwise, that would be great, too.
The fact is that human consciousness is a wild card that can greatly accelerate the process reducing Episolon, but it can also pursue death, which rather maximizes Epsilon. This is why they, alone among Eustaces, require ethics.
The "fact" that it is a "wild card"?
more degress of freedom == more capabilities
more degrees of freedom == more ways to screw up
Unfortunately, there’s no way to separate the two.
Give me one example where this wild card produces a desirable outcome that is different from the utility function from Part 6. Then we can start getting somewhere.
Richard Dawkins, in formulating his theory of "memes," began with the observation that 99.999% of human cultures have gone by the wayside through human history.
And human culture is about 10,000 years old. That’s about 0.00003% of the history of living systems.
Thus even after Alpha theory is well understood, and has even achieved consensus in the scientific community, human beings will be able to alter course and go in the most suicidal death-oriented Alpha* direction possible.
You seem to be saying, as Aristotled did, that if a man knows what is good he will necessarily do it.
Here is the problem. You are looking for the keys where the light is best–not where you lost them. Some things take time and patience to understand. And that can be very unsettling. Just re-read your me-too nonsense on the other thread.
The problem with Objectivism is that there is too little Doctor of Philosophy and too much Dr. Phil.
Bourbaki,
You need help dude. It may be chemical help, or it may be other kinds of help, but it should be professional.
OK,
Admittedly I’m slow, and not the brightest bulb on the tree, and for reasons known and unknown, I have read and reread the above.
Again, it has been pled that in order for us to glean ethical meaning from the formulation presented above, there must be the additional or independent allowance for consciousness.
And as suggested before, consciousness is already present when Eustace is a human. Just like, voltage-gated ion channels are present for a neuron.
It’s in there.
Energy flux and, therefore, human behavior, are partially quantified and partially estimated, in the formulation, and each is dependent on the currently available information at some time(F@t-d, d>0).
Successful human behavior in terms of optimization of its energy flux will by necessity be ethical.
That’s it, right?
This proposition does not it any way disallow for consciousness, in fact it is entirely dependent on it, as this is part of the human system.
The intentional pursuit of rape, or arson, torture or cruelty, is unethical. Whether or not these same actions are energetically successful is what is being questioned.
All of the sidetrack debating is amusing (or annoying, take your pick).
Can anyone find fault with the sums?
MeTooThen,
I don’t see how it disallows consciousness, either. Quite the opposite.
Jim,
OK, I’m dumb.
If you don’t see how the formulation disallows for consciousness, then what’s the problem?
Now remember I’m dumb, so please explain it to me in a way that 90 comments have failed to do.
I think that the theory is easily cleaned-up of this stuff, but: when Aaron calls consciousness, volition, and teleology "slippery" concepts, or, when he declares that ethics "turns out" to be objective, then I sense fallacious reductionism at work. I have never objected to alpha itself in this regard. Indeed, Aaron appears to have carefully avoided (insofar as he can) the error that Bourbaki so frequently makes: calling molecules and contemporary computers "agents," while suggesting humans to be non-conscious and non-volitional robots. (In this regard, I agree with Mr. Fahy, I think Rand’s influence is in part to be credited here, since contemporary science usually makes Bourbaki’s same mistake.) But it is NOT an objection to the theory itself, so far. When I remind folks that to give any normative advice to homo sapiens, the theory must continue to at least implicitly assume volition and consciousness in humans, even if it does not explain these obvious facts. (I still hope that it can, at least in part– so there are also my own hopes at play here.) It cannot say, for example, as has been repeatedly said here, that since the theory doesn’t use those concept that they are superfluous. Newton’s mechanics does not need them, either. This does not make them fictions. The concepts to which I refer are a necessary part of the validation of ethics, if not this theory (whatever its classification), and ethics, contrary to Aaron’s statement cannot be "objective" without them. This all began as a simple caution, not as demonstration of a fatal flaw, by any means.
Jim,
OK, so you and I (and Aaron and anyone else who wishes to) agree that the formulation assumes consciousness and volition, or in your words,"When I remind folks that to give any normative advice to homo sapiens, the theory must continue to at least implicitly assume volition and consciousness in humans, even if it does not explain these obvious facts.
But where then, is the objection?
Is there an objection?
I mean, besides arguing the importance of "agency" or how to assign it and to whom, or to what, is there any objection to the formulation as it currently stands?
Is the math wrong? (BTW, with regard to the math here, I’ll leave to the experts)
Yes or No?
The formulation does not assume either consciousness or volition. I personally believe that people are obviously conscious, but nothing in alpha theory requires it. The theory restricts itself, so far, to alpha models, abstracting from their source. I presume this is why people are upset.
It has been stated countless times on this thread, most recently by Jim, that "to give any normative advice to homo sapiens, [alpha] theory must continue to at least implicitly assume volition and consciousness in humans." A simple thought experiment will show this, with regard to volition, to be false.
Johnson is reported to have said to Boswell, "The trouble with you, Boswell, is that you believe the last thing you read." Imagine a Boswell-like creature who always does the last thing he is told. (Not too outlandish. This is exactly how computers behave, and I know people who aren’t too far from it either.) Our pocket-Boswell does not have volition in any sense in which my Objectivist friends would admit the term. Yet it certainly pays to advise him, normatively or otherwise. He can follow your advice. In fact he will, until someone tells him different.
You might reply that you’re not giving "normative advice" in this case, you’re giving "instruction" or some other term you prefer. Which leaves you in a nice tight definitional loop. "Normative advice" can be given only to volitional beings. And how do we distinguish my "instruction" from your "normative advice"? Simple! My "instruction" is given to automata, and your "normative advice" is given to volitional beings!
Casey Fahy ran into a similar problem on the other thread with rats learning to run mazes. If you modify human behavior, that’s "teaching." If you modify rat behavior, that’s "training." Why? Because humans are humans, and rats are rats. The medieval scholastics wasted several centuries on arguments of this type.
Once you have volition, as Jim has pointed out, you are free NOT to pursue alpha, and in fact view the avoidance of alpha models as piety. History is full of such people. Ascetics, gnostics, Amish, Mennonites, Islamists and radical tree-huggers are but a few. Even Orthadox Jews on the Sabbath avoid alpha maximization. What is your point then?
In game theory all actions are defined as either cooperation or defection. If there is an optimum alpha model, why do not all creature have the same model?
(You must read Robert Axlerod on this).
Aaron,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
OK, the theory does not assume consciousness per se, but it does not disallow it, and as I understand it (and please tell me if I’m wrong), the formulation allows for each system as it is, whether dog, alfalfa, bacterium, or man.
Therefore, it is in there. The theory doesn’t require it, but the human system does.
So, it’s in there.
Now I am repeating myself.
Sigh.
Bill Kaplan,
How do you know that keeping the Sabbath, or keeping hallal, or any taking Communion, is not alpha-star maximizing?
More to the point, how do you know that religious observance of any kind isn’t successful in terms of energy flux?
And yes, all systems do have the same model, they may be different systems, but the model under which they operate is the same.
MeTooThen,
My objection is not to the theory, at least as presented so far, but to such comments as Aaron’s last post. "The theory restricts itself, so far, to alpha models, abstracting from their source. I presume this is why people are upset." No, this is not the thing that I object to (and certainly not what ever made me upset, as the history of my posts demonstrates.) Alpha’s self-restriction in this regard is what I like about it, not what I object to at all. (But there are what we lawyers call some "dicta," certain linguistic quibbles, that are easily fixed, I think.)
However, Aaron is dead wrong when he denies that consciousness is assumed by the theory. All knowledge assumes it and relies upon the truth of it. This is what it means to be an axiom. How can he think about it (or anything) without assuming that he is conscious? How can he communicate it (or anything) unless he assumes that someone else is conscious? Every theory assumes the fact of consciousness–and assumes it to be real–admit it or not, whether the theory pertains to it or not. Most theories don’t need to address it explicitly as such–like this one–so far. But it’s assumed by every item of knowledge.
He is still more mistaken about volition–and he won’t even concede its "obviousness." Normative advice inherently assumes volition. "Advice" of any kind assumes an available alternative. Computers cannot be "given advice." They are not even told what to do. They are MADE TO DO IT. There is nothing even slightly compelling about the "thought experiment." I can only believe that Johnson’s assertion about Boswell was made in the hope that Boswell would change his ways. Otherwise, why tell Boswell?
Like consciousness, volition is an observed fact: I consider alternatives, weigh possible futures and their outcomes–i.e., I choose. I choose to attend to these things, or I choose to evade them. When we fail to exercise our reason, our volition, we do indeed act like determined automatons, buffeted by the forces of environment and genes. When we think and consider things, we learn, we consider alternatives, and we open up new possibilities. Computers, at least the ones we have so far, do not need and cannot use ethics. Only beings with choice can be praised, blamed, criticized, etc. Only humans can be given options, tips, advice, of any kind.
Still more interesting is your question about religion and alpha. I am curious what kind of response we will get!
OK, Aaron, you goaded me back into posting.
The experience of a rat’s consciousness as it "learns" a route through a maze to some cheese is comprised of experience of stimuli propelled by instinct. It moves through the maze it is plopped into mainly to get out, is forced through passageways that allow alternatives, it takes one based on stimuli and the instinct to continue finding a way out, then catches a whiff of cheese, then is motivated by hunger, then reaches a dead end then turns and continues pursuing the source of the cheese smell, until it finds it. When put back through the maze, the experience is recalled through sense memory; it may make mistakes, but the next time it runs the maze the sense memories will be stronger. On the outside looking at the rat it seems to be problem solving in the way that we do.
To a large degree human consciousness operates on the same level as the rat. We take in an enormous amount of sensory information, we remember visual and other cues, we head toward rewards instead of disappointments; but there is a narrative layer of consciousness directing us that the rat does not share: "Aha! They’re testing me… oh, I see, they want me to memorize the route… I don’t even particularly like cheese… what if I just sit in a corner and ruin their experiment?"
This is the layer I’m talking about — it doesn’t exist in rats, at all, not even a faint little gradation of it. This is the layer we are operating at via the Internet on this blog. This is wholly unique to human beings. That is why our experience of "learning" is different from the rat’s — absolutely different in this regard, which is the regard, and the importance of same, which I’m trying to get at, here. That’s why I point out a difference in kind between what we call "learning" in a rat and "learning" in a human being. Hence, the word "training." We have animal trainers, not animal teachers, because teaching humans is a whole different ball of wax.
Now fire away at this hopeless Objectivist dilettante!
MeTooThen,
All the cults (yes, that is a value laden word) I mention eschew modernity and the use of labor saving devices. If alpha is derived from the laws of thermodynamics, then maximization means either using the products of intellect to minimize human labor or rejecting these products and increasing it. These are different stances with respect to alpha, despite what Selmer Bringsjord might say. If they are not different stances, then alpha is meaningless–a likely proposition. How likely is it after all that alpha maximization is that towards which all things aim, yet it was just discovered a month ago?
And why on earth do you think all systems have the same model? Really, I would like to know.
"For me, life is just like a machine – a machine with a computer program. There’s no more to it than that. But not everyone shares this point of view," he told the BBC.
The properties of alpha are purely physical and manifest in dynamic system sustainability. That’s it. The Eustaces that survive happen to be in a configuration that prevented their dissipation.
Now it’s game theory and no mention of Von Neumann and Morgenstern?
In game theory all actions are defined as either cooperation or defection. If there is an optimum alpha model, why do not all creature have the same model?
For the same reason all investors don’t have the same portfolio. The state space for this game is beyond any closed-form solution. The optimum alpha model is always contingent on the filtration. And the filtration is always changing and there is a cost to adapting to it.
No strong solution is always alphatropic. In other words, there are no universal strong solutions.
There is always new uncertainty and variability.
A Eustace adapted to hydrogen sulfide in black smokers at the bottom of the sea will have a different configuration than a Eustace adapted to photons via electron cascade at the surface. And committing to those strong solutions will make each less adapted to the other’s environment.
A configuration persists insofar that it reduces epsilon i.e. it improves the probabilities of survivial. But if the filtration changes, an alphatropic configuration may become alphadystropic. This is the dichotomy between strong and weak solutions from part 5.
Orthodox Jews and "tree-huggers" both pursue alpha-star according to their respective alpha models. The alpha models are adapted to the filtration in different ways and result in different epsilon. Consider the sabbath (as a strategy against strong solutions of daily routine) in the context of Part 5.
Also, recall the dramatic effects of subtle biases in Bernoulli trials from Part 3. If we consider each day as a Bernoulli trial, and add a slight bias that improves how well a model is adapted, the effects can be very significant.
Of course, the doctrinaire aspect of it has its own problems. You might notice this pattern. There is a tendency to take strong solutions adapted to a particular filtration (F@t-d) and freeze them as though they have become independent of the filtration (F@t+d).
Ascetism is not necessarily alphadystropic; it may be a response to restrictive strong solutions. Strong solutions can become confining; just look at all of our silly social customs. So, is an ascetic a heretic or a rebel?
And yes, all systems do have the same model, they may be different systems, but the model under which they operate is the same.
That’s right. Constant course correction of a system based on adaptation to the filtration, circumscribed by inviolate physical laws.
How likely is it after all that alpha maximization is that towards which all things aim, yet it was just discovered a month ago?
Physical theories have a funny way of working that way. Do you think people were immune to gravity until someone formulated a theory for it?