What’s alpha all about, Alfie? Why are you boring us with this?
The great biologist E.O. Wilson wrote a little book called Consilience, in which he argued that it was past time to apply the methods of science — notably quantification — to fields traditionally considered outside its purview, like ethics, politics, and aesthetics. Any blog reader can see that arguments on these subjects invariably devolve into pointless squabbling because no base of knowledge and no shared premises exist. Alpha theory is a stab at Wilson’s program.
What kind of science could possibly apply to human behavior?
Thermodynamics. Living systems can sustain themselves only by generating negative entropy. Statistical thermodynamics is a vast and complex topic in which you can’t very well give a course on a blog, but here’s a good introduction. (Requires RealAudio.)
Don’t we have enough ethical philosophies?
Too many. The very existence of competing “schools” is the best evidence of failure. Of course science has competing theories as well, but it also has a large body of established theory that has achieved consensus. No astronomer quarrels with Kepler’s laws of planetary orbits. No biologist quarrels with natural selection. Philosophers and aestheticians quarrel over everything. Leibniz, who tried to develop a universal truth machine, wrote someplace that his main purpose in doing so was to shut people up. I see his point.
Not a chance. Anyway, what’s alpha got that we don’t have already?
A universal maximization function derived openly from physical laws, for openers. Two of them. The first is for the way all living system ought to behave. The second is for the way they do behave. To put the matter non-mathematically, every living system maximizes its sustainability by following the first equation. But in practice, it is impossible to follow directly. Living beings aren’t mathematical demons and can’t calculate at the molecular level. They act instead on a model, a simplification. That’s the second equation. If the model is accurate, the living being does well for itself. If not, not.
Sounds kinda like utilitarianism.
Not really. But there are similarities. Like utilitarianism, alpha theory is consequentialist, maintaining that actions are to be evaluated by their results. (Motive, to answer a question in the previous comment thread, counts for nothing; but then why should it?) But utilitarianism foundered on the problem of commensurable units. There are no “utiles” by which one can calculate “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” This is why John Stuart Mill, in desperation, resorted to “higher pleasures” and “lower pleasures,” neatly circumscribing his own philosophy. Alpha theory provides the unit.
Alpha also accounts for the recursive nature of making decisions, which classical ethical theories ignore altogether. (For example, short circuiting the recursive process through organ harvesting actually reduces the fitness of a group.) Most supposed ethical “dilemmas” are arid idealizations, because they have only two horns: the problem has been isolated from its context and thus simplified. But action in the real world is not like that; success, from a thermodynamic perspective, requires a continuous weighing of the alternatives and a continuous adjustment of one’s path. Alpha accounts for this with the concept of strong and weak solutions and filtrations. Utilitarianism doesn’t. Neither does any other moral philosophy.
That said, Jeremy Bentham, would, I am sure, sympathize with alpha theory, were he alive today.
You keep talking about alpha critical. Could you give an example?
Take a live frog. If we amputate its arm, what can we say about the two separate systems? Our intuition says that if the frog recovers (repairs and heals itself) from the amputation, it is still alive. The severed arm will not be able to fully repair damage and heal. Much of the machinery necessary to coordinate processes and manage the requirements of the complicated arrangement of cells depends on other systems in the body of the frog. The system defined by the arm will rapidly decay below alpha critical. Now take a single cell from the arm and place it in a nutrient bath. Draw a volume around this cell and calculate alpha again. This entity, freed from the positive entropy of the decaying complexity of the severed arm, will live.
What about frogs that can be frozen solid and thawed? Are they alive while frozen? Clearly there is a difference between freezing these frogs and freezing a human. It turns out that cells in these frogs release a sugar that prevents the formation of ice crystals. Human cells, lacking this sugar, shear and die. We can use LHopitals Rule to calculate alpha as the numerator and denominator both approach some limiting value. As we chart alpha in our two subjects, there will come a point where the shearing caused by ice crystal formation will cause the positive entropy (denominator) in the human subject to spike through alpha critical. He will die. The frog, on the other hand, will approach a state of suspended animation. Of course, such a state severely reduces the frogs ability to adapt.
Or take a gas cloud. “You know, consider those gas clouds in the universe that are doing a lot of complicated stuff. What’s the difference [computationally] between what they’re doing and what we’re doing? It’s not easy to see.” (Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science.)
Draw a three-dimensional mesh around the gas cloud and vary the grid spacing to calculate alpha. Do the same for a living system. No matter how the grid is varied, the alpha of the random particles of the gas cloud will not remotely match the alpha of a living system.
Enough with the frogs and gas clouds. Talk about human beings.
Ah yes. Some of my commenters are heckling me for “cash value.” I am reminded of a blessedly former business associate who interrupted a class in abstruse financial math to ask the professor, “Yeah. But how does this get me closer to my Porsche?”
The first thing to recognize is that just about everything that you now believe is wrong, probably is wrong, in alpha terms. Murder, robbery, and the like are obviously radically alphadystropic, because alpha states that the inputs always have to be considered. (So does thermodynamics.) If this weren’t true you would have prima facie grounds for rejecting the theory. Evolution necessarily proceeds toward alpha maximization. Human beings have won many, many rounds in the alpha casino. Such universal rules as they have conceived are likely to be pretty sound by alpha standards.
These rules, however, are always prohibitions, never imperatives. This too jibes with alpha theory. Actions exist that are always alphadystropic; but no single action is always alphatropic. Here most traditional and theological thinking goes wrong. If such an action existed, we probably would have evolved to do it — constantly, and at the expense of all other actions. If alpha theory had a motto, it would be there are no universal strong solutions. You have to use that big, expensive glucose sink sitting in that thickly armored hemisphere between your ears. Isaiah Berlin’s concept of “negative liberty” fumbles toward this, and you “cash value” types ought to be able to derive a theory of the proper scope of law without too much trouble.
Still more “cash value” lies in information theory, which is an application of thermodynamics. Some say thermodynamics is an application of information theory; but this chicken-egg argument does not matter for our purposes. We care only that they are homologous. We can treat bits the same way we treat energy.
Now the fundamental problem of human action is incomplete information. The economists recognized this over a century ago but the philosophers, as usual, have lagged. To put it in alpha terms, they stopped incorporating new data into their filtration around 1850.
The alpha equation captures the nature of this problem. Its numerator is new information plus the negative entropy you generate from it; its denominator is positive entropy, what you dissipate. Numerator-oriented people are always busy with the next new thing; they consume newspapers and magazines in bulk and seem always to have forgotten what they knew the day before yesterday. This strategy can work — sometimes. Denominator-oriented people tend to stick with what has succeeded for them and rarely, if ever, modify their principles in light of new information. This strategy can also work — sometimes. The great trick is to be an alpha-oriented person. The Greeks, as so often, intuited all of this, lacking only the tools to formalize it. It’s what Empedocles is getting at when he says that life is strife, and what Aristotle is getting at when he says that right action lies in moderation.
Look around. Ask yourself why human beings go off the rails. Is it because we are perishing in an orgy of self-sacrifice, as the Objectivists would have it? Is it because we fail to love our neighbor as ourselves, as the Christians would have it? Or is it because we do our best to advance our interests and simply botch the job?
(Update: Marvin of New Sophists — a Spinal Tap joke lurks in that title — comments at length. At the risk of seeming churlish, I want to correct one small point of his generally accurate interpretation. He writes that “alpha is the negative entropy generated by a system’s behavioral strategy.” Not exactly. Alpha is the ratio between enthalpy plus negative entropy, in the numerator, and positive entropy, in the denominator. It is not measured in units of energy: it is dimensionless. That’s why I say life is a number, rather than a quantity of energy.)
MeTooThen,
I don’t know if I’m simply seeing this idea everywhere (monomania or consilience?), but alpha appears to be nothing more than a precise description of a process that has been eloquently and qualitatively described by people in many other fields. Christopher Alexander is a professor emeritus of architecture at Berkeley. He wrote a series of books on patterns and developed a pattern language in architecture.
Some excerpts from The Timeless Way of Building:
We see, in summary, that every pattern we define must be formulated in the form of a rule which establishes a relationship between context, a system of forces which arise in that context, and a configuration which allows these forces to resolve themselves in that context.
1. It is a process that brings order out of nothing but ourselves; it cannot be attained, but it will happen of its own accord, if we only let it.
2. There is a central quality that is the root criterion of life and spirit in a man, a town, a building or a wilderness. This quality is objective and precise, but it cannot be named.
3. The search we make for this quality, in our own lives, is the central search of any person, and the crux of any individual person’s story. It is the search for those moments and situations when we are most alive.
4. In order to define this quality in buildings and in towns, we must begin by understanding that every place is given its character by certain patterns of events that keep happening there.
5. These patterns of events are always interlocked with certain geometric patterns in the space. Indeed, as we shall see, each building and each town is ultimately made out of these patterns in the space, and out of nothing else: they are the atoms and molecules from which a town or building is made.
6. The specific patterns out of which a building or town is made may be alive or dead. To the extent they are alive, the let our inner forces loose, and set us free; but when they are dead, they keep us locked in inner conflict.
7. The more living patterns there are in a place–a room, a building, or a town–the more it comes to life as an entirety, the more it glows, the more it has that self-maintaining fire which is the quality without a name.
8. And when a building has this fire, then it becomes part of nature. Like ocean waves, or blades of grass, its parts are governed by the endless play of repetition and variety created in the presence of the fact that all things pass.
…
18. Now we shall begin to see in detail how the rich and complex order of a town can grow from thousands of creative acts. For once we have a common pattern language in our town, we shall all have the power to make our streets and buildings live, through our most ordinary acts. The language, like a seed, is the genetic system which gives our millions of small acts the power to form a whole.
Bourbaki,
"I don’t know if I’m simply
seeing this idea everywhere…
It is to laugh.
Me too, then.
It is everywhere.
Over the last many weeks, I am encountering alpha theory everywhere.
Certainly, I am keenly aware of F, my own and others.
And thank you for the reference. I will read Christopher Alexander.
A gentleman, still.
"I was only commenting on what appeared to be an anti-mainstream bias.
I’m not trying to discourage you from reading Sidis, Langan or
Wolfram but only suggesting that you balance them
with some mainstream sources."
Hawking’s Universe in a Nutshell recent enough, or is it already out of date?
I’m gonna give it a look at least.
"The underlying objective is to score points.
But there is no closed set of recipes that will ensure his team will win everytime–otherwise all teams would use this strategy."
That would change the strategy, as per your criteria no team can win all the time if another team could use its strategy against it to win. See?
Also, (in a more life interfacing based application of the analogy)if a (living) system can’t conceive of the process of filtration properly it will not use it. This means that though one coach might be able to understand, others might not.
Also, if the (living) system does conceive of something but misinterprets the consequences (thinks it’s still wrong)
because of an ingrown feeling of (justified) opposition to change.
This analagy has failed, at least in that part, to communicate what you intended. It is mired in perspective bias. I hate analogies, as you can see.
"Living systems are open systems."
The universe is conceptually an open system. Cause and effect are the ways we describe
the way the (parts of) the universe interact/s with the (parts of the) universe. No universe can exist outside of
what exists within it. No universe can separate itself from language as human language
can literally be seen as being symptoms of universal interaction (alpha as we are seeing)
Sums my theories about langauge up. Langan might take it a step further, but his methods start here.
"Only that sustainability of a system is a necessary one." (for the system to continue)
This is precisely true. I wouldn’t look for much more yet.
…barely on the edge of sustainability is less able to adapt
to changes in the environment.
Good, but let’s see proof. There are proofs of this, but using alpha to do is would be alpha defining itself. We need a proof outside of what
alpha says of itself, right? Or am I conceptually creating an unnecisary tautology.
But "Any outcome that maximizes this utility function is to be preferred"
in a large enough context (of systemic process[happening]) I’d say sure.
A business’s prospects are not so hot if it operates simply to watch
its expenses to pay its bills. However, no business can be successful
if it doesn’t meet its obligations to its creditors.
"Prospects not so hot"
seems to me it depends on the intent of the buisness and the obligations. I again say that
these analagies CONFUSINGLY CREATE CONTEXT for alpha that do not actually apply to alpha but rather to an interpretation of it, which seems out of hand, as you know. And they even confuse the effective transmital of your point of view.
"We can only grasp the latter by speculative means."
Langan is trying to show how the rules of our speculation can in no way (logically) be separate from our understanding of the universe, for though UNIVERSE might exist independant of us, we do not exist independant from our speculation or the composition (logic parts) of it *nor actually, from UNIVERSE*. And if we do not exist separate from the universe the universe (to us) is in no way WHOLLY separate from us, and therefore we are neccessary for the universe (from our perspective). So if humans exist, it would seem, humans then, are neccessary for us to exist. Sounds true, is true.
We see, in summary, that every pattern we define must be formulated in the form of a rule which establishes a relationship between context, a system of forces which arise in that context, and a configuration which
allows these forces to resolve themselves in that context.
Precisely what Langan would
argue, and I would say he goes rather a good ways in so doing, such that even if one
were to disagree with his conclusions, his method might still provide example. Thus, I
mentioned him. I think he might even give precise example of alpha in his writing, but I read it after being up for so long I have forgotten the passage. More on this later.
"happen of its own accord, if we only let it."
I would say we can do nothing but "let it" as IT (if the analagy holds for alpha) is a description of thermodynamic
consequence, which is the only way we may measure time (since we are thermodynamic consequences).
Perhaps you were refering specifically to a/n (more) optimal occurence. Alpha describes all
consequential (does not mean relevant but rather anything that occurs as of a cause) occurences for living systems.
It is the search for those moments and situations when we are most alive.
Really? (but it is the search, is privelaged, and also, come on, SEARCH, are we to say SEARCH now for filtrate, doesn’t seem quite the same). Approaching maximal alpha IS when we are most alive, yes, (most alpha star) but not neccessarily reflecting our feelings on the
matter (as in, was this preferable). Perhaps that is what was meant by letting it "let it"(self). Letting it let itself seems to be what he is saying happens. Duh, but also, hrmm, I don’t see the analogy to filtration.
It seems I am not understanding a lot. This could be because I am right in questioning its logic or stupid and not seeing the validity of the logic, for certainly a majority of the above mentioned quotes are hardly WHOLLY logicly irrelavant or ACTUAL (verifiably accurate), but rather, they are not WHOLLY SO, and the, ahem, holes I see in them are my reasoning for believing them. So while I am not saying they do not convey what Bourbaki means, and are not also right, I am saying they are not PRECISELY WHOLLY so, and should not be taken as literal (english language definition for")alpha, or even "properly contextual".
"geometric patterns in the space." This seems privelaged to the perspective?
"They (the patterns) are the atoms and molecules from which a town or building is made."
This sounds like Langan, in that atoms are simply patterns we can observe. Interesting.
"6. The specific patterns out of which a building or town is made may be alive or dead.
To the extent they are alive, the let our inner forces loose, and set us free; but
when they are dead, they keep us locked in inner conflict.
7. The more living patterns there are in a place–a room, a building,
or a town–the more it comes to life as an entirety, the more it glows,
the more it has that self-maintaining fire which is the quality without a name."
Woah. I disagree somewhat with this interpretation of a thermodynamic consequence.
Fire: sounds like the Greek usage there that you mocked as being the technological
standard.
the more it comes to life as an entirety…
Life is life. A room is not coming to life if more life is in it, in fact, as living systems dissipate,
if anything the more life the more it is coming to death.
Although life can be described with alpha I would not say that a room can come to life more by having
more life in it. I would say life is life. The room is more full of systems that are
defined through their alpha. Both effected and affected right?
As a matter of fact, if you look back at my old old posts from part 2 I believe that is my main arguement, that alpha must account for language. I see now that I misunderstood alpha, but not the importance of accounting for langauge. Rather, it was a misapplication of trying to separate alpha from language. Neither could exist without the other. Isn’t that funny. If alpha does not exist (at least if it is an accurate description of thermodynamic consequence, so if thermodynamics did not exist, where they mean consequential interactions of energy, so if energy did not exist, or interact) then there would be no human language. Language is neccessary for alpha to exist, if not actually neccessary for the universe (though of course for OUR universe, where that means what we understand it to be, langauge is A MUST)
Post mods might argue that there is no proof of there even being a languge, but then, how would they argue it without one? heh. I am failingly cute, right.
Remember to think as large (as close to massive) as possible, for you must always remember alpha is a description of TINY TINY TINY things interacting with other TINY TINY TINY things in patterns that are governed by MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVELY applicable laws (universal laws) but that describe almost impossibly SMALL SMALL SMALL things that have almost impossible to conceive of relevance to the idea that these small things, in large enough quantities, and in large enough perspective of interaction, ACTUALLY describe what is happening when we see it.
THIS is what alpha is, guys, the description of the small in so many bunches (according to certain rules we understand to be universal) that it defines US.
I say again, stop trying to SEEK the perfect PROCESS for yourself and start realizing what alpha does, which is link us inseprably from the universe, which is of course in accordance with my theory that language does so also. SO you can see that linguistically (logically via langauge) it is logical that we are not separate from the universe but a very relevant part of it (for there could not be much life in the universe, even if it were infinite, because, DUN DUN DUN, life is an exception to the 2nd law of thermodynamics in that sometimes we use energy to make more complex energy interactions,) and life isn’t everywhere, but, see, this theory stops all that:
how can we know life exists bullshit.
We have language to KNOW that life exists in direct and relevant relation to the universe, but what scientific grounds that language exists at all. Well, according to alpha theory, life does exist, and alpha is how. Language says the whys, and alpha describes the "universal" hows.
OK. So though the above might be slightly illogicly tautological, (much more on it later, I am not sure I precisely logically am accurate there) we must acknowledge that to some degree the way the universe interacts with itself and the way we describe the INTERACTIONS of the universe, and ourselves, is to a degree a tautology hinging on the idea that we actually EXIST, and that we EXIST as a (very relevant it now seems) part of the universe but not ALL OF IT. We are not the universe, we are we, but WE now see how we BOTH relate to and DESCRIBE the universe and ourselves within it.
This seems very valuable to me. So, while I can see this, I hope you can too.
As for all that normative shit. Well think of what KNOWING all that I mentioned above can do for you. Then thank your lucky ALPHA STARs. Please, kick my logical balls some, this seems to be furthering the debate rather well.
So long as ethics describe the way that ALL life can continue to exist, alpha is ethics. On a smaller scale, I would not say that alpha actually tells us anything about human ethics, other than what occurs when a human (or human society) act in what they think of as an ethical or unethical way. It does not give you the way, save in hindsight, but does describe how one might go about considering the way(the context) in which they see their actions. Filtration. It even provides units vital to the flow of the logic and therefore vital to following that flow (transition).
But is this, as Jim might say, REAL ETHICS. Where I take it he means A WAY TO DETERMINE HOW BEST TO ACT FOR MY BEST SELF INTEREST. Because, you see, Jim, like most of us, is astute enough to see that he HAS HIS OWN SELF INTEREST AT HEART, always, I am paraphrasing him. (I comment on that idea of his earlier, and so it must fall somewhere around where I comment upon it if you want to find exactly what he said, but that was the main idea.)
But, see, sadly, for astute guys like Jim, alpha cannot give him what he wants, because alpha talks in systems TOO LARGE (or complicated with interconnection of thermodynamic consequence) that to measure it in any way but conceptually via algebra where *where the description might measure anything*.
It is funny to me that it is actually easier for us to SEE truth by looking at something that can literally describe any quantity of system in the universe *which might still be infinite, but prolly isn’t, but is still big enough to not be able to be thought of from any one component level* (which is why we try to define it via a combination of all of them) than it is for us to conceive of a small (very very very small even) part of it in concrete realital terms. The actual amount of money and time and ingenuity it would take to actually measure a real and defined (limited) system is staggering.
This is because there is so much interaction that it is staggering to put it all together, even in small systems, save where we are talking in terms of definitive *generalities*.
Am I talking stupid? Someone say if they don’t get what I mean or if they do and think I’m still being an idiot. Thanks for your time guys, your comments help further my contextual understanding every time. Even Bourbaki and his (terrificly, terribly) exhaustive links and confounding at-the-same-time-properly-logical-and-failingly-logical analogies which I struggle to critique because I find in them both illumination and fallacy, sometimes within the same sentence.
Luckily, as Metoothen says, he is a gentleman.
However, Metoothen, I think alpha is both a (consequential)descrition of "everywhere" that exists within some specific "when" as well as a thing of definition that illuminates so much of what we encounter and attempt to describe in our everyday lives and their (not neccisarly so) "everyday" occurences.
Where "everyday" means something to the effect of: an occurence that is now a recognizable pattern in reality observed to occur at least once within a measured 24 hour period that is still known to be something
"separate" and "isolated" from all other occurences that mirror the (above defined) pattern, though each of the separate and isolated components, via their existence, are the DEFINITION for the pattern, and also the grounds for its (continued) existence under the heading "everyday".
Wasn’t that a fun digression? This site rules…
I have realized something I think.
When Bourbaki, who has been most prone to analogies, is using them, he is almost always using them to further the understanding of someone who had a question or had a "gap" in their logic that was stopping them from grasping precisely what Aaron was trying to say.
My theory is that, in those instances, the analogies fit the "gap" and expressed and enhanced discussion, thereby helping the individual.
But, to everyone who was not stuck at that understanding, who did not possess the gap or was not currently stuck at that precise point of knowing… that too often, the analogies HURT FAR MORE THAN THEY HELPED for others reading the comments.
This is because though they (analogies)are instances of similarly patterned logic (and instances of smiliar systems and their similar processes) they are not EXACTLY the idea, but rather an analogy to it. THINK: everything is similar to something else to some degree, And Every Logical Connection is Similar to Another Logical Connection to Some Logical Degree, but in this understanding lies the trouble with the analogies: the analogy acts by attempting to CONNECT a lack of logical understanding to a state of mind possessing an abundance of logical understanding by pointing out an instance in which IT IS EASIER to see the (true)degree of logical similarity between a POINT of understanding and another POINT of understanding, where POINT can mean instance or system or formula or even composition (systematic composition).
Most people then, that are not stuck at the gap, will misinterpret this instance of analogy as being possessive of the MEAT OF THE IDEA, as being the idea, or being possessive of the precise context of the idea, instead of being possessive of the revealatory "part to fill the gap" (a means to show the similarity of logical transition from POINT to POINT in the analogy to POINT to POINT in the instance of alpha) that would actually allow that person with the gap to Grasp the logic of the idea.
This seems like a lot of words to say something, and it is, because I am taking you logically through my arguement. A summary would be this:
In effect, being that an analogy can never fully be (and therefore fully convey) precisely what the idea is *else it be the idea, and not an analogy to it*, the analogy will always have parts that are counterproductive to it(where IT is whatever example was used as analogy) actually being the embodiment/actuality of the idea PRECISELY, and therefore PRECISELY transmitting the exact implications and instances and all the other etcerteras of the idea, instead of being essentially a reference to these implications that shows how logicaly similar their logical process is.
Here is where I could be all wrong though: The showing of similar logical process can even include actual relevant examples to both parts of the analogy, and should, honestly. And, therefore, a perfect analogy would be something that says the same thing in two ways but that are still examples of the same thing AND still different, where each example implies the same thing AND intends to imply the same thing but is not actually the same thing etc etc. Therefore, perhaps it is possible to craft a perfect analogy, but then, if the analogy were perfect, the person would need to already understand Alpha to understand its perfectly analogous example, lets call it ZETA.
So, understanding Zeta would mean understanding Alpha, and this would actually just be "saying the same thing twice". So, it would be repeating alpha theory in different words (formula) but meaning the same thing.
Thus, it seems to me, if it is even possible to recreate the formulas as being exactly the same and still different, one who possessed the gap that necessitates the analogy would need yet another analogy to explain Alpha and Zeta, or, how Alpha and Zeta are instance of the same thing.
But, again, I could be wrong, and analogies could be what is called for. Like I said, they work in specific, but not in abundance, I think.
Anyone got another take on it? And, ironically, my saying this might actually confuse the issue more than it furthers the understanding of it by casting doubt on analogies that might otherwise have helped someone or by confusing someone who might otherwise have understood what was being talked about here.
Damn.
Tommy,
I use analogies when people say that they aren’t familiar with the derivation. Analogies are better than telling them to go off and learn the tools without any motivation. The analogies may convince them that the tools are worth learning.
Analogies are never meant as substitutes to the real thing. You can set up analogies between anything. Just check out all those books on the Tao of [physics, motorcycle repair, needlepoint…]
Hawking’s Universe in a Nutshell recent enough, or is it already out of date?
It depends on what you want to learn. I don’t know of an especially painless way to learn cosmology. If you’re willing to work at it, try Geroch’s book, General Relativity from A to B. This doesn’t require math beyond algebra. But I would first get through Waldrop’s Complexity.
Cosmology is a very roundabout way to understand what’s presented in this series of posts.
And, please, forget Langan and Sidis for now. I finally had a chance to look at Langan’s 50-page PDF.
He’s theory is an awful mess. He makes so many mistakes; how can you tell where the errors end and the theory begins? He’s over-excited, over-stimulated and all over the map. His text is filled with pleading modifiers. I find him difficult to read because he’s talking out his ass. Pop-psychology says that he found out he had a high IQ (whatever that means) and is now trying to make up for lost time by swinging for the fences. He declares and expounds and uses and abuses language in a way that makes it impenetrable and imprecise.
It means using language as a mathematical paradigm unto itself.
This is bullshit. What the hell is a mathematical paradigm? How about saying that math is a linguistic paradigm? I’m sure he can restate it in yet another way, and another, and so on. Philosophers have been doing this for 2000 years.
Langan falls into the language trap. Some philosophers have a deep-seated belief that our words reflect very precise and distinct ideas, and if we just think hard enough, we can define our terms exactly, so that there will be no fuzzy borderline cases, no ambiguities. Language seems to have rules and structure, but this is often something of a mirage. It is infinitely plastic, and any attempts to achieve absolute precision by defining words in terms of other words is impossible.
All language is folk language, and if you are obsessed with stating things absolutely precisely, you can always find ambiguities and potential contradictions in even the clearest statements. You can chase your tail forever tracking down all these ambiguities and contradictions. This is why philosophy never progressed much beyond the Greeks, while science has left Athens in the dust. I would rather learn new things than invent perfectly precise ways of talking about things everyone already knows.
After all is said and done, what can Langan explain that we couldn’t explain before?
He abuses set theory.
This paradox can only be resolved by considering Cantor’s "set" to be a dynamical entity in the process of self-inclusion, which equals self-description by semantic duality. ("Cantor’s set" is just a convenient abbreviation of "the set of all sets" and is not to be confused with "the Cantor set")
And through a tortuous stream of nonsense, ends up "proving" the existence of God.
God is indeed real, for a coherent entity identified with a self-perceptual universe is self-perceptual in nature, and this endows it with various levels of self-awareness and sentience, or constructively creative intelligence.
Mathematical terms are cool because it’s easy to make them seem like science. They make Langan sound worthy of his heavily advertised IQ. All the IQ bullshit is simply another manifestation of appeal to authority. Sound theories don’t need all that bling-bling.
Unfortunately, the mathematical content of the article is awful and the philosophy is a rehash of old ideas. By using mathematical words and relating claims to mathematical theories Langan makes the reader believe that everything is correct and difficult.
Advice: Stay away from people who advertise their IQ. They took down the "Mega" test and replaced it with the "Titan" test. I’ll take Feynman’s 120 over Langan’s mega-IQ any day.
Some of the greatest achievements in physics have come as a reward for eliminating the games of metaphysics. When Einstein tried to reduce the notion of "simultaneous events occuring at different places" to observable phenomena, he revealed a metaphysical prejudice that this concept must have scientific meaning. By discarding it, he found the key to relativity.
Any philosopher of the day would never have any reason to toss out that premise. "Is is clearly a fact. I’m keeping my feet on the ground."
When Niels Bohr analyzed that active physical observation must be accompanied by an effect of the observing instrument on the observed object, it became clear that sharp simultaneous fixation of position and velocity of a particle can not be made arbitrarily precise.
In the nineteenth century everyone believed that mechanical forces and motions of particles in space are things in themselves while electricity, light and magnetism should be reduced to or "explained" as mechanical phenomena, just as had been successfully done with heat.
The "ether" was invented. But no matter what properties they gave this ether, the properties of electricity and magnetism could not be explained. Finally, the billiard ball model of the universe was abandoned for ideas like gauge theory and fields. But this looks like techno-mumbo-jumbo too. The difference is it works, in great detail, from designing drugs to manufacturing integrated circuits.
Unfortunately, billiard balls live on into the 21st century as a straw man for philosophers.
If you think I’ve missed something in Langan’s article then please take a cue from Mr. Haspel and lay it out in a series of short, clear posts in the thread prior to this one (200 posts). I’d be happy to walk through the theory to learn what I missed.
Tommy, learning this stuff takes time. I don’t know any shortcuts and you’re not going to put the pieces together by restricting yourself to lone, solitary voices like Langan, Sidis and Wolfram.
Cut down on the mega-stream of posts. It makes it very difficult to respond in a timely manner. Smaller pieces and smaller steps will make life easier for everyone.
Bourbaki,
Everywhere.
Here:
I paraphrase:Billy Beane
"People mistake for permanence what is temporary."
He is, of course, talking about a baseball player’s performance. After you click on the "Here" link, scroll down to Dec. 11.
Again, F@t-1.
Some more re: Billy Beane and SABRmetrics andHere.
Everywhere.
"All language is folk language, and if you are obsessed with stating things absolutely precisely, you can always find ambiguities and potential contradictions in even the clearest statements. You can chase your tail forever tracking down all these ambiguities and contradictions."
Yes.
"Cosmology is a very roundabout way to understand what’s presented in this series of posts."
But not the context of the ideas.
Bourbaki, I want to know what your opinion is about what I say about alpha. All that other stuff I said I will no longer be discussing, as I’ve said why I think it is and is not relevant. Now I’ll only post about Alpha.
"So long as ethics describe the way that ALL life can continue to exist, alpha is ethics. On a smaller scale, I would not say that alpha actually tells us anything about human ethics, other than what occurs when a human (or human society) act in what they think of as an ethical or unethical way. It does not give you the way, save in hindsight, but does describe how one might go about considering the way(the context) in which they see their actions. Filtration. It even provides units vital to the flow of the logic and therefore vital to following that flow (transition).
But is this, as Jim might say, REAL ETHICS. Where I take it he means A WAY TO DETERMINE HOW BEST TO ACT FOR MY BEST SELF INTEREST. Because, you see, Jim, like most of us, is astute enough to see that he HAS HIS OWN SELF INTEREST AT HEART, always, I am paraphrasing him. (I comment on that idea of his earlier, and so it must fall somewhere around where I comment upon it if you want to find exactly what he said, but that was the main idea.)
But, see, sadly, for astute guys like Jim, alpha cannot give him what he wants, because alpha talks in systems TOO LARGE (or complicated with interconnection of thermodynamic consequence) that to measure it in any way but conceptually via algebra where *where the description might measure anything*."
What of this? Am I wrong here/not fully right?
"As mathematician David Berlinski writes regarding the material and informational aspects of DNA:
We quite know what DNA is: it is a macromolecule and so a material object. We quite know what it achieves: apparently everything. Are the two sides of this equation in balance? More generally, Berlinski observes
that since the information embodied in a string of DNA or protein cannot affect the material dynamic of reality
without being read by a material transducer, information is meaningless without matter."
What does alpha theory say of this?
In information theory:
"information is defined as a measure of ones freedom of choice when one selects a message."
"In information theory, information and uncertainty are closely related. Information refers to the degree of uncertainty present in a situation. The larger the uncertainty removed by a message, the stronger the correlation between the input and output of a communication channel, the more detailed particular instructions are the more information is transmitted."
"A related term, entropy, is also important in information theory. Entropy refers to the degree of randomness, lack of organization, or disorder in a situation."
"Now the fundamental problem of human action is incomplete information."
How is this a "problem". It is a fundamental reality, certainly. What about, for example, someone who kills themselves.
Perhaps "the fundamental consequence of human action is incomplete information". What then?
Also: I’m sure you are aware of Derrida’s assertions on the undecidability of language where the transmission of "information"
as it is defined above is concerned.
I have never seen a convincing refutation of his concepts of binary opposition and language. It is for that reason (undecidability), as well as the fact that I can’t see alpha as anything other than the consequential quantity of life’s reflection in terms of energy (which as Einstein showed was, what, commensurable/convertable with matter) that I do not see
how it can ever truly VERIFY that most of what we believe is wrong is wrong.
I can see how it predicts that evolution tends towards optimal alpha star, or else it dies out, but I cannot see it actually saying HOW CLOSE WE AS HUMANS ARE to that point.
Hrmm.
Tommy,
What does alpha theory say of this?
You’re quoting more gibberish from Langan’s paper.
You will not be able to grasp, rather than parrot, these terms solely by surfing the Internet and reading on-line books written by eccentrics that haven’t been able to find a publisher.
The links that people post in the comments are meant only to corroborate points and illustrate the origins of their ideas. But a few comments and links aren’t going to cut it if you actually want to understand this stuff–there simply isn’t enough bandwidth on a comments section in a blog.
If you want to actually understand what you’re talking about, you’ll need to read real books and, if possible, find people with whom you can discuss these matters in person. It’s the only way to develop non-trivial understanding along with a healthy, personal skepticism to distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones.
I meant what does alpha theory say of this type of information.
The DNA information.
What about the rest of what I wrote?
Tommy,
Mr. Haspel took the time to point out the details of DNA and RNA’s role as catalysts. First read what Altman said and then track down and read more about it.
I can recommend a very good general audience book on the history of this stuff by Horace Freeland Judson. To really get this stuff, you’re going to have to do some work.
I have absolutely no interest in refuting Derrida just like I have no interest in refuting your mailman or butcher. I only care about what a given theory can explain better than other theories. I don’t care about how well someone complains about language.
You’re just dipping into the surface of a lot of different fields and throwing shit against a wall to see if it sticks–you’re only going to confuse yourself. You’re clearly very sharp but you need to focus your energy on something and take the time to really learn about it. The Internet is not a good place to do that because it’s too easy to get distracted.
Alpha theory cuts across a lot of different fields: math, physics, biology, chemistry–pick one and learn about it. Start with a general book if it’s interesting, you’ll be motivated to learn more of the advanced material. If not, try again on a different angle.
I don’t think you’ll ever find anyone who regrets the time they spent learning new things.
Gentlemen,
I accept Thermodynamics/Negative Entropy/Alpha Theory as a description of reality but couldn’t the Thomist just subsume it into his thoughts after the Big Bang
and then respond with "where did reality come from?" Tommy touched upon this earlier when he mentioned Christians would say it was from Jesus and I thought it was a good point.
Smithwrites
smithwrites,
"where did reality come from?"
That’s easy. First law. It was never not here. If the Thomist can destroy energy, then we have a ball game.
"I only care about what a given theory can explain better than other theories."
I mentioned Derrida because undecidability seemed to apply limits (contentions of boundary) to what Alpha might "explain", just like other Laws and Truths (RNA and DNA or the 1st law for examples)and much else do. I think perhaps you are shrugging the frenchie off too soon.
Thanks for the links, as always I’m a two-step behind the dance (but I’m convinced I no longer have 2 left feet).
Derrida says nothing seriously deleterous to alpha theory, and is just some context (slight refutation of information theory regarding humans it seems, but I got to read more about information theory, and it seems these are already in existence in other various guises also). As such, I agree with you that my walls are somewhat shittily splotched…I do not mention these ideas to sound like I understand everything or to be a reference whore/to confuse the issues, I do it to say what I think about alpha. What I think is what I am at that moment "understanding" about alpha theory. That comes out because I am curious what others would think about my thoughts regarding alpha (and context for it), and I am curious, of course, because I want to understand. Alpha seems simple as algebra, but the context for it is MASSIVE.
The internet is also distracting, as you mentioned. Seems everyone has their own personal take blah blah.
My butcher and mailman thank you by the way.
"…only people who haven’t read me say this. It’s a misreading of my work that began 35 years ago, and it’s difficult to destroy. I never said everything is linguistic and we’re enclosed in language. In fact, I say the opposite, and the deconstruction of logocentrism was conceived to dismantle precisely this philosophy for which everything is language." Derrida on Derrida.
Tommy,
Your feet are fine.
You just need to keep them on the ground and try to ensure you’re not walking in circles. Go get a book. I’ll recommend Waldrop again–for US$10, it’s a very good place to start. But that’s just my opinion–or go to the library and pick up a book from the list of Nobel prize winners–they don’t have a monopoly on truth but the odds of learning something that has been rigorously tested are in your favor.
I think perhaps you are shrugging the frenchie off too soon.
Derrida generally gets a raw deal but I still don’t see what he adds to alpha theory. Mr. Haspel already dedicated a full post to different kinds of randomness and the concept of thresholds.
At one point, wandering through Derrida’s library, one of the filmmakers asks him: "Have you read all the books in here?"
"No," he replies impishly, "only four of them. But I read those very, very carefully".
You haven’t demonstrated at all why Derrida is any more relevant than your butcher or mailman. Please explain what more there is to his idea?
Remember that alpha is presented as a series of mathematical equations derived from physical laws–the language (with all its "undecidability") is there to try to make it more accessible to anyone who is put off by the equations. We don’t need to suffer Derrida’s 35 year misreading; just ignore the words and learn the equations.
Alpha seems simple as algebra, but the context for it is MASSIVE.
You’re right–Alpha theory is purely empirical and quantitative. Based on what we know about the first and second law, alpha either goes up or goes down. If it proves true, it captures everything that makes life possible. But don’t conflate predicting what is going to happen (F@t+d) with the consequences of what has happened (F@t-d). Prediction is not a simple business.
In that respect, short of invalidating the derivation, there’s nothing to decide.
I actually wasn’t refering to Aaron’s language specifically when I mentioned Derrida. I was refering to what he said about
all language, for those who might say "alpha can only say etc….what it says" BECAUSE of language.
I think Derrida and his alpha star are a good contrast to someone like Langan’s, and I think Langan’s theories are a good
example of something it seemed to me the Alpha star idea was missing, which is that human filtration is not just
an example of OUR BEST EXAMINATION of "incomplete information", but also somewhere in their there is a choice to
accept/believe that you now understand (or know), and that in most of us this choice is being made by our desire to feel (be?)
certain and sure and to have always been that way. Ever meet people who try to twist what they said in the past to say what they say now like they’ve meant it all along? I meet them every day (sadly, I do it as well, sometimes without noticing).
At this point I’m pretty sure I understand the theory. In my posts I was trying to say something like this:
Sidis and Langan have interesting alpha star, a Genius’ attempt at alpha star, as each has lead a crazy life. One was a bouncer for 6000 dollars a year and has 22 inch biceps and a 52 inch chest (this is fucking huge: something around 6 foot 270), the other was the world’s smartest child, knew well more than 40 languages, and found kinship with American Indians after translating their wampums (written language) and writing the history of North America from their records.
Those nobel prize winners provide good description of thermodynamics and (micro)biology chemistry and evolution,
and thus, good (neccessary)context for alpha. Almost certainly, their lives are also fine examples at alpha star (as all of ours–individually, collectively–are from some vantages) but their’s in particular because of their time spent studying (and defining) exactly the scientific theories at the heart of our current discussion.
I am buying Waldrop’s book, as well as a book on thermodynamics by Fermi and a book on the history of evolutionary
theory. I will try to limit my posts to one a day or less until I am finished, in the chance that I have misunderstood something and would actually be hurting our collective understanding.
One last thing on Derrida: he describes our limitations to perfectly disprove (even describe) alpha (alpha theory) through language but not through conception (thinking concepts). Derrida makes it impossible for someone to use pure semantic
breakdowns of chosen (and therefore not chosen) words to show a flaw in alpha theory (back in part 2 this is what I tried
to do). They (the chosen words) certainly might show a bias, and therefore some more conservative form of flaw, but the formula is the only thing that must be disproven.
I guess to disprove the formula one must first: understand the formulas, and second: show how they are inaccurate descriptions of thermodynamics (or that thermodynamics are innacurate.) Is this correct?
Now, whether alpha proves evolution correct is one thing (alpha would seem to indicate a quantity to conceptually measure this theory by), but this is almost impossible in practice because of the nature of open systems of life at all it’s stages. (though evolution does seem to prove alpha theory)
Am that line of reasong sound? I’m not sure.
I will reread that part on limits and theorums and see did I conceptually jump the shark with my ideas on Derrida by repeating something said better already.
Wow, when I wrote those comments on Notepad they were perfectly alligned, and when I put them in the box I made sure they were also. Damn sorry guys.
Also, one last thing on Langan and "incomplete information": see, the reason I think he is illustrative is because he almost certainly possesses as much if not more information than anyone on this sight, because that he has near photgraphic recall. However, his DESIRE or NEED to be right and certain might actually make his abundance of information far far less beneficial than my own smaller lot of information. This is not conclusive or prolly even provable, but it seems logical and theoreticly sound. Let’s briefly discuss.
Thanks again all.
Bourbaki,
Thank you for the answer. I figured it had to be something like the first law but didn’t have the math/science background to call it by name and missed Aaron’s referral to it.
smithwrites
Tommy,
I guess to disprove the formula one must first: understand the formulas, and second: show how they are inaccurate descriptions of thermodynamics (or that thermodynamics are innacurate.) Is this correct?
That’s right.
There is no appeal to accept a premise because it is "self-evident". And there is no use of that most dishonest of conceits: blind faith.
It’s important to recognize that the "axioms" of alpha theory are really just empirical laws. Each and every step of the theory openly avails itself to refutation.
Now, whether alpha proves evolution correct is one thing (alpha would seem to indicate a quantity to conceptually measure this theory by), but this is almost impossible in practice because of the nature of open systems of life at all it’s stages. (though evolution does seem to prove alpha theory)
This is premature. Alpha theory turns a philosophical problem into an engineering problem. The idea that we could someday catalog the entire human genome once seemed impossible.
Unfortunately, we’re also very lazy and love ideas like "intelligent design" because it excuses us from being intelligent ourselves. Alpha theory cleanly provides a quantitative foundation for evolution. Creationism, because of its total lack of explanatory power, is just another a cop out for ignorance.
The mind/soul/matter dualisms that have given many philosophies and religions so much air time are resolved in alpha theory. You’ll notice an recurrent fear that alpha theory might advocate a life that might not be "worth" living. But the mental/spiritual anguish that manifests in an unsatisfying life is accounted for by the stress it causes in our body (especially our brain). Those consequences can not be ignored in the utility function.
Energy flux accounts for everything. Unless there’s a critical flaw with the derivation, alpha theory subsumes everything.
There is no first cause–energy is cause. There is no infinte regress e.g. if God created everything, who created God? All evidence indicates that energy has always been here. There are no particular spatial dimensions for energy. It’s all around you and you are free to attempt to create or destroy the tiniest bit of it to disprove the first law.
With a handful of equations, alpha theory defines the "good" without leaving the physical realm and without bullying appeal to anything that is "self-evident". The conceptual simplicity of alpha theory lays a very heavy burden of proof on any religion or dualist philosophy.
Skepticism for such a comprehensive theory is not only justified but required. Don’t use what you read on this site as your only point of reference. Read other reputable sources (don’t attack a crank theory with another crank theory). Talk to people who know the underlying science. Use what you learn to invalidate the theory.
Only then can you really begin to understand its scope. And if you do succeed in breaking it, you’ll have learned some pretty cool stuff along the way.
Now go hit the books.
Bourbaki,
All of alpha theory is based on the notion that Helmholtz’s law is true. I would argue that Helmholtz’s law while in theory is falisable, is not really so in fact. Accordingly, the truth of alpha theory is in doubt.
Pons and Fleischmann found anomolous heat in their now infamous "cold fusion" experiment. I have spoken with several scientists, Standford PhD’s in p-chem and physics all, who tell me there is NO DOUBT that excess heat has been created in numerous trials of the original experiment. However, the mechanism for the creation of such heat is still unclear and the fact that the amount of such heat has been wildly inconsistent is unexplained.
Lack of decay products suggests that the anomolous heat is NOT the product of fusion, cold or otherwise. Why then don’t we just say, "In this instance, Helmholtz’s accounting system just doesn’t work!" If there is no such accounting system, then we don’t have to "explain" using untenable explanations the excess heat. It is just an exception from Helmholtz’s law.
Mr. Kaplan,
It is just an exception from Helmholtz’s law.
That’s cool. Let’s see the evidence. Please show us how this "residual energy" significantly changes the underlying dynamics.
Remember that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle
dx dp >= h
Where h is Planck’s constant can also be written
dE dt >= h
where E is energy and t is time. So is it our measurement error or an interdimensional gateway for energy? Are the effects of significant scale to explain anything?
All of alpha theory is based on the notion that Helmholtz’s law is true.
So if Helmholtz law wasn’t true, then living systems wouldn’t require organization and coherence to exist?
You might want to understand how the pieces fit toghether before you try to break them apart. The first law puts severe limits on supernatural explanations.
You no doubt have read about and know many smart people.
Mr. Kaplan,
Apologies, I hit post too soon. I meant to say that I also know a bunch of smart people from snooty schools. I even attended a few myself. But credentials and epigrams don’t add anything to the discussion.
If the theory is wrong, please explain how and why it’s wrong. The consequence may be a reformulation of the derivation or an outright rejection of the underlying principles.
I consider any clearly explained resolution a good resolution.
Bourbaki,
Back up a couple of posts:
To say that something is "empirical" in basis IS to say that it entirely relies on "the self-evident," so the earlier comment was literally incoherent since this is a matter of mere tautology. And dualism needed none of this to be ably "refuted" long ago, of course; it was dualism that was never demonstrated.
More critically, this thoery does not define "the good" except by fiat. It re-defines "the good" to fit the theory, from what I can see. It merely sidesteps the traditional problem of "the good," by assuming that it is the problem so defined. Please define for us what you think "the good" is again, and why, and maybe I’ll see that I’m wrong. But I think you have simply evaded the original problem of "the good" by a redefinition and pretending that the original observations underlying it do not really exist. The origin of the concept of good is empirical, too, and it was a perfectly meaningful and natural concept before anything was ever known about alpha, but such observations don’t seem to cut any mustard around here.
For instance, define what makes life "worth living," as you put it and why it is so "worthy." Please, no empty accounts of how individualized F is, I want to know whether Joe’s life is "worth living," right now, or there is no way to evaluate your claims here. How does alpha help ME to determine if my life is still "worth living" at this time. My ethics helps ME define my own F, if you will, and thanks very much! Does alpha demonstrate what "worth," "importance," or "joy (?!) consist of…? This is p[recisely the part I’m still missing… Show me.
Mr. Valliant,
To say that something is "empirical" in basis IS to say that it entirely relies on "the self-evident," so the earlier comment was literally incoherent since this is a matter of mere tautology.
But saying something is "self-evident" doesn’t make it empirical. You’re still peering through 19th century spectacles. Back up a couple of more posts re. Einstein and Bohr.
When Einstein tried to reduce the notion of "simultaneous events occuring at different places" to observable phenomena, he revealed a metaphysical prejudice that this concept must have scientific meaning. By discarding it, he found the key to relativity.
But don’t take my word for it. Read the history of their discoveries in any number of excellent books.
More critically, this thoery does not define "the good" except by fiat. It re-defines "the good" to fit the theory, from what I can see.
Derrida was right–I must be more careful with my word choice. Alpha theory identifies the "good" as an empirically derived quantity.
You’re free to present an alternative. It would be really cool if you could define it in fewer steps!
For instance, define what makes life "worth living," as you put it and why it is so "worthy."
This is not my term. It’s Marvin’s. You should ask him on his site.
Marvin was understandably troubled by the possibility for some horrible draconian/utopian recipe for a "perfect" life. Not only is such a recipe impossible, I also pointed out that his dissatisfaction would be a real and significant negative cost.
Bourbaki,
O.k., it’s painfully obvious that you do not what the hell I am talking about, as is so frequently the case. Calling something "self-evident" does NOT make something empirical and I never implied this at all. I meant just the reverse. The self-evident is ONLY the empirical. They are the same thing in my philosophy–it’s a matter of tautology. For example, that "all men are created equal" is anything but "self-evident," it is the product of a (contextually limited) logical inference. That all men do have rights (that no one "grants" to them to anyone else) is a profound truth, but a discovery of inference, not direct observation. But ALL observations are "self-evident," not just those you have chosen to consider. So, your comment on Einstein, whatever its merits, is beside MY point, at least.
We are here discussing ALPHA, not my ethics, friend, so please do tell me how it answers basic and particular value-questions. How does it answer whether MY life is worth living right here and now?? How do I calculate MY F, to use your terms–objectively. You see, MY ethics does help in this regard, and I should think that any ethics WORTH its salt should provide guidance here, too.
Whatever other folks’ positions are, I still want a straight answers to my questions (though I never do, so why do keep trying?) Can’t generalized guidance be found in more particularized, human circumstances–versus the claim that there are no strong solutions, period. Or, what about "rights," are they "nonsense on stilts"? All of my sincere queries just seem to evaporate from evasion…
Let’s start here: how do you tell me whether MY life, right now, is "worth living." Go.
Mr. Valliant,
Do you own a chain saw?
Thanks for the insightful response.
It seems to me, Jim, that you are answered rather comprehensively both by the articles and in the comments, though apparently not to your satisfaction. You might try attending to the answers instead of repeating the questions. Your life is "worth living" because, and insofar as, you are an alphatropic agent. When that condition terminates then your life will cease to be worth living. I already discussed this question with regard to suicide but perhaps you were out to lunch.
You wish to know whether "rights" I take you to mean "natural" rights, although you do not say so are nonsense on stilts. You could have figured this one out for yourself: of course they are. For all your campaigning against dualism you do a good deal of dichotomzing yourself, and here is such an instance.
Have you ever noticed how people, having joined a club, immediately campaign to set the bar to membership just below their own credentials? Rights are like that. Everyone at your level or higher joins the Rights Club; everyone else is excluded.
In fact this is a matter of thresholds, like everything in reality. Bright lines exist only inside the febrile brains of philosophers. Human beings merit a certain amount of consideration by virtue of the fact that they are alphatropic; chimpanzees, being less alphatropic, merit less; cockroaches less still. I trust that all of my readers, including my Objectivist friends, would be revolted by a man who poisoned stray dogs for a hobby. Alpha theory gives a clear answer: stray dogs are alpha agents too. Here’s the orthodox Objectivist answer: "Legally, since people have rights and animals don’t, no form of force initiated against animals should be outlawed, even if it is gratuitously cruel or if it is used to produce food that is not necessary for a person’s survival. Morally, however, gratuitous cruelty should be condemned because it reinforces the immoral habit of destroying other’s lives rather than promoting one’s own life." You don’t poison dogs, you see, because it reinforces bad habits, like poisoning dogs.
Imagine a species, like Douglas Adams’ Vogons or Karel Capek’s newts, as superior to humans as we are to the roach. How much consideration would we be entitled to from such beings? As much, relative to their fellow Vogons, as we grant cockroaches, which is to say not much at all.
Rights are a useful legal concept; law, being filtration-independent, necessarily deals in bright lines of this sort. The U.S. Constitution is an estimable document, but it has no metaphysical significance. Any more than that is indeed nonsense.
Finally, I never said, and took pains to deny, that "there are no strong solutions." Every action you take is a strong solution. What I said was that there are no universal strong solutions. Can "generalized guidance" be found in the particular? Sure, in the form of heuristics. Will this generalized guidance always be correct? I’m afraid not.
You appear to want assurance that you may continue to believe what you always have without fear of contradiction. None will be forthcoming.
Aaron,
Thanks for the answers. This was the clearest on these topics you have been to date. Dull, plodding me, I wanted you to say some implications out loud. These were largely implications that I wished to draw out for purposes of being able to clearly state my objections to alpha. Sorry, but it’s the lawyer in me, I suspect, just dotting a few I’s…
Alpha is a breathtakingly comprehensive and brilliant integration of so much science into a single unity of explanation, one must stand in awe. Its power could turn out to be immense.
Its formulators, as so many discoverers of the past, are convinced that, since it provides a unified explanation from a single perspective for "everything," Occam serves to eliminate the rest. But, of course, there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, more things directly observed and known and experienced, than are accounted for here. Things so real that they are painfully stubbing the toes of its authors in these essays, right and left, and at every opportunity, as is their wont.
In reality, bright lines exist everywhere. "True and false"–and "good and evil"–is the kind of dualism I can–and, of course, must–live with. Bright lines only vanish when we use abstraction to doubt sense-perception. Literal bright-lines I can draw. Abstract ones, still hard and bright–concepts–are necessary to get alpha, or anything like it, off of the ground.
Alpha the Carnivore cannot devour solid objects or solid concepts any more than Heraclitus–or Nietzsche–could–any more than Newtons Mechanics could–anymore than Darwinism, Social, economic or psychological, could–although many of their earnest followers tried to do just that. These thinkers were geniuses, too. Some took their thinking too far.
The more ground a theory covers, the more ground it loses in fine detail. We live at a level of fine detail squashed out by this side-stepping–and, yes, arid–approach to the question of human "values," to take but one instance. Like all reductionism, it thinks that it has explained away by giving a good explanation from one angle of the item so "explained." All is not process, alpha or otherwise. This IS self-evident.
And, Aaron, your sloppy misstatements of Objectivism, both in the essays and the answers here, must be corrected if this is ever to be published. For your sake, dude, in all sincerity.
Not really a challenge here, just a comprehension check to see if I’m on the right track.
I want to say something like: "alpha theory allows us to assess behavioral strategies for a defined system with respect to a defined filtration or context as of a given time. Any such assessment will be contingent upon our knowledge at the time, including whether or not we’ve defined the system correctly, along with that system’s relationships with all other systems."
Or: for a given system at a given filtration at t-1, alpha theory tells us which of several competing strategies for a system will yield the greatest increase in complexity/heat energy for the system.
We might have difficulty deciding how to define precisely the system on which we want to focus–how we do so is part of the filtration. We may have trouble deciding how much weight to give to various factors in the filtration, and our means for doing that is also part of the filtration. Our ability to create a predictive and accurate filtration is part of the strategy being measured by alpha theory.
Does that sound right?
If I’m on the right track, that leads me to ask a question about this:
Human beings merit a certain amount of consideration by virtue of the fact that they are alphatropic; chimpanzees, being less alphatropic, merit less; cockroaches less still.
Are cockroaches less alphatropic than humans? Humans individually are more complex, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that beetles in general (I’m not sure about cockroaches in particular — maybe this depends on how we define the system) account for much more of the earth’s biomass than human beings. Is that a fair comparison? I’m not sure. I seem to recall that fungi and bacteria also represent far more biomass than human beings. Humans individually are more complex but what about pound for pound? Are they more alphatropic after sheer mass and energy are taken into account? How should such a comparison be made? (For instance, do humans get to count machinery, and is machinery even a net bonus pound for pound when compared to live biomass?)
How one thinks about all this would be part of one’s filtration, I suppose; how one builds a filtration is always recursively a piece of the filtration. Hypothetically if humans were to decide that being cockroaches are a better evolutionary bet than being people, then humans might cease to exist — we could both "win" and "lose" simultaneously.
But of course no human interested in enhancing his life or his sustainability will equate himself or his abilities with 200 lbs. of bugs or live-culture yoghurt. So maybe the question is silly.
On the other hand the world is full of examples where size trumps sophistication —
Or is that really true? Does size ever trump sophistication as such, or does it just trump sophisticated systems that, despite their sophistication, have made the stupid mistake of allowing themselves to compete on size?
Clearly I’m still chasing the quantity vs. quality of life question, but I’m trying to put it in quantifiable terms that alpha would recognize…at least I think I am. I still don’t understand why my own dissatisfaction with a (hypothetical) alphatropic dystopia would count against that dystopia in the filtration. Or rather, I think I understand why it would count against; but I’m not sure it (being an indicator of mass dissatisfaction) would neccessarily count overwhelmingly against an alphatropic dystopia, which might have alpha-advantages I (but not the dystopian architects) haven’t yet articulated. Suddenly I can’t help but think of The Matrix — but of course that articulation is already part of the filtration.
Now I get the feeling that I ought to be led around in circles by questions such as this.
So maybe here’s the proper question to ask: how should one best pose a problem to alpha theory? I agree that the concepts of natural human rights and immutable moral laws are pleasant albeit useful fictions, so I don’t expect alpha theory to produce them (except perhaps as a kind of guidelines, as the pirates of the Carribean might say).
So mostly I see alpha theory as a tool for weighing possible strategies and consequences given the available information, which includes (ideally) all past attempts to analyze similar situations. It can’t tell us whose interests or which principles to emphasize except by helping us make sound comparisons with past events. It is "objective" to the extent that any predictions or analyses we make are rooted in valid scientific laws and sound observations, but the conclusions one draws from it will be inferential and conditional upon the filtration and will likely not have the status of any kind of "law."
Which would make it potentially very useful to people who don’t really believe in universal moral laws anyway, but blasphemous to those who do.
What the fuck is that bright line nonsense?
Jim read more Derrida, for your dualism querries. Bourbaki, bow to my Derrida :)
Actually:
"The very notion of good versus evil is not an artifact of material reality. Nor is it some deep, hardwired set of archetypes squirming around the human brain."
"It is an artifact of the Persian domination of the cradle of civilization." Zoroastrianism, apocalypse, and intermingling with Christian and Judao doctrine.
"Many of the greatest works of antiquity, for example, do not involve the conflict of good and evil. The epic poems and tragedies of ancient Greece are not concerned with such a struggle, and even the earliest books of the Bible posit evil as an over determined force-God, through a variety of agents, creates evil as an obstacle or mile marker on a path toward a closer relationship with the Divine."
In the Illiad, Hektor was as respected and admired, and as much of a protagonist, as any of the Greek heroes.
The Odyssey demonstrates the capriciousness of the gods not as a reflection of evil, nor were Odysseus’s struggles to reach his home and to stay alive considered such.
No mention of GOOD or EVIL as we know them in Sophocles, Euripides, or Aeschylus.
"Good does not rise up and conquer evil. Evil is not inexplicable, animal, unfair, or inescapable."
In The Eumenides, the spirits of vengeance the Furies turn Orestes, who killed his mother, over for trial. Athena acquits him and brings the spirits of vengeance with her to be goddesses so they will not infect the hearts of young men with evil or a thirst for revenge.
"She tells them "Do good, receive good, and be honored as good are honored. Share our country, the beloved of god."
The Furies balk and think they won’t be accepted because of all their grievances against the Gods and their commitment to reason, but are eventually persuaded using peaceful integration and debate. They show that powerful (human) emotions can be reconciled with reason and do not need to be cast out or destroyed.
Most of what we think is evil and good are just blanket ideas that we use to moderate and codify emotions that actually exist.
"gratuitously cruel or if it is used to produce food that is not necessary for a person’s survival. Morally, however, gratuitous cruelty should be condemned because it reinforces the immoral habit of destroying other’s lives rather than promoting one’s own life." You don’t poison dogs, you see, because it reinforces bad habits, like poisoning dogs."
Heuristics: Relating to or using a problem-solving technique in which the most appropriate solution of several found by alternative methods is selected at successive stages of a program for use in the next step of the program.
There are obviously solutions: where solution means an action. And each action has an alpha star, and, according to our theory, each action is an attempt to maximize it. But I am not convinced. Perhaps there is a biological time at which the body compels one to try to die, instead of trying to live. Or at which time the body suddenly veers from attempting to maximize alpha star to trying to, say, shoot for the middle. I am dumb at science, we can all agree.
In this respect, Derrida regularly suggests that a decision cannot be wise, or posed even more provocatively, that the instant of the decision must actually be mad. Drawing on Kierkegaard, Derrida tells us that a decision requires an undecidable leap beyond all prior preparations for that decision and according to him, this applies to all decisions. To pose the problem in inverse fashion, it might be suggested that for Derrida, all decisions are a faith and a tenuous faith at that, since were faith and the decision not tenuous, they would cease to be a faith or a decision at all.
"making bad habits" is one thing, but dont count out the inherent nature of man:
Every one of us is more or less suggestible. Man is often defined as a social animal. This definition is no doubt true, but it conveys little information as to the psychical state of each individual within society. There exists another definition which claims to give an insight into the nature of man, and that is the well-known ancient view that man is a rational animal; but this definition breaks down as soon as we come to test it by facts of life, for it scarcely holds true of the vast multitudes of mankind. Not sociality, not rationality, but suggestibility is what characterizes the average specimen of humanity, for man is a suggestible animal.
By suggestion is meant the intrusion into the mind of an idea; met with more or less opposition by the person; accepted uncritically at last; and realized unreflectively, almost automatically.
By suggestibility is meant that peculiar state of mind which is favorable to suggestion
"So mostly I see alpha theory as a tool for weighing possible strategies and consequences given the available information, which includes (ideally) all past attempts to analyze similar situations."
Eh. It seems like you are repeating something, but not maybe grasping it. Alpha theory describes the science of consequential energy fluctuation and how such a thing is a description of a lifes life cycle. I don’t see how it allows you to weigh the consequence any better than believing you can’t be hurt so long as you try not to be. I dont have a massive calculating and precise lab that could measure the energy change and see if I was doing it, and Heisenberg would seem to say I couldnt anyway. But again Im stupid at science. Basically, it seems alpha describes what WE DO, not HOW TO DO IT. And it stands then, as a logical THINGY, that we can sit next to our other ideas and use to tie them together.
All alpha says is that the result of any process of life will always be: an attempt at alpha star, as life is trying to continue and at the same time MULTIPLY. Right?
"It is "objective" to the extent that any predictions or analyses we make are rooted in valid scientific laws and sound observations,"
Naw. Alpha theory says everything you do is a prediction based on scientific laws (the 2nd laws WOOT), even if you don’t know it (not just our predicting and analyzing). Any life, in fact, any consequential fluctuation of energy, can be described with alpha. That is why it is nice: we can describe a star and a person using a similar THINGY. I am saying this because I am either right, or stupid and way way wrong. I hope its the latter, because I havent learned nearly what I want of the background to this theory to think I actually understand it. But, at least, Marvin, we can bandy our ideas back and forth until one of us stumbles our way into Unnerstandin, as my friends say.
The bright lines: what are you talking about? Why are they Bright. Why are they lines. Do lines even exist in space? Is a line even real? Why would it be bright if it was? Why am I so dumb? Damn I hate moments of clarity: they only make me ask four more questions
"Human beings merit a certain amount of consideration by virtue of the fact that they are alphatropic; chimpanzees, being less alphatropic, merit less; cockroaches less still."
This is in terms of their applicableness to the ideas of alpha, right?
I can see how it predicts that evolution tends towards optimal alpha star, or else it dies out, but I cannot see it actually saying HOW CLOSE WE AS HUMANS ARE to that point.
It seems humans havent been around that long. And there are becoming more and more of us with less and less development of the overall progression. Humans have taught themselves, with our alpha stars, how to MULTIPLY. But we are far from having learned how to live for as long as the fucking cockroach or the manatee. This is why alpha theory is important. It shows that on some levels our attempts at this are determining themselves without thought of collective progression, because EVERYONE seems to be out for themselves and a localized progression. Sorry about the multiple posts. I always do that, sorry.
SUNY (State University of New York) in Binghamton, NY now has a field of study called, "Psychobiology."
I understand that the intent is to quantify-qualify scientific analyses throughout various biological fields then apply that knowledge in order to better understand and control the psychology of people.
Here is the short intro to the curriculum :
" Psychobiology is the study of the biology of behavior. Because the production and regulation of behavior is largely the job of the nervous system, psychobiologists are interested in studying the brain and how it works. They also study the comparative and adaptive aspects of behavior in an evolutionary context. By its very nature, psychobiology is a multidisciplinary field. For example, psychobiologists routinely draw on the fields of biology, psychology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, and computer science in their work. That’s one of the things about psychobiology that makes it such an interesting and challenging field of study.
Students who major in psychobiology take a variety of courses across a number of departments. Most of the core courses are taken in the Psychology Department and in the Department of Biological Sciences. Distribution requirements are derived from the Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics Departments, and electives can come from departments such as Anthropology, Philosophy, and History.
Many students who receive a bachelor of science degree in psychobiology go on to graduate or professional school. Majoring in psychobiology provides a good background for master’s or PhD programs in a variety of disciplines, such as neuroscience, anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology, among others. Additionally, many students find that psychobiology is an excellent preparation for medical or dental school. "
The field of study which has been developed by Linda Spear at Bunghamton University provides an exciting chance for students to gain a more comprehensive understanding about human behavior rather than to be confined to just one or two areas, as has been taught in the past.
I think reviewing the coursework and the research performed in that department will enrich any discussion such as this … to know what is in actuality being pursued by real people – outside of blogs.
Mr. Valliant,
Its formulators, as so many discoverers of the past, are convinced that, since it provides a unified explanation from a single perspective for "everything," Occam serves to eliminate the rest.
Not quite. Two directions. Future and past. Future: no formal system of logic can capture all truths. We need the right side of our brains. We need art. We need "gut instinct." We don’t need technocrats. Past: What has happened can be captured. We can gauge its consequences with alpha. We can feed that information back into the system to shape our future consideration.
Marvin,
account for much more of the earth’s biomass than human beings.
It’s not linear. S = k ln W
Tommy,
I cannot see it actually saying HOW CLOSE WE AS HUMANS ARE to that point.
You already stated this. There is no set point. It’s contingent on available free energy and what actionable paths are available for an individual to follow. Tommy, I like your plan for posting no more than once a day. I think I’ll follow it myself. It may give everyone more time to actually read about this stuff.
Leah,
to know what is in actuality being pursued by real people – outside of blogs.
Thank you. You bring back some fine memories. I once had to write copy for my department to lure eager young minds. Oh, the stories we would tell! Unfortunately, my daily interactions are limited to academics from the People’s Republic of Cambridge, MA. I think real people have a lot to say–and a blog lets anyone have a go. Perhaps you can share a bit of what "real" people think?
Leah,
Nothing good ever came out of Binghamton University, except maybe grain alcohol. Never cite it to the snobby failed-to-graduate of Carlton College. He would only sneer.
I am thinking cannibalism is generally alphatropic, so long as you eat the dead and not kill. What say you?
Credentials, credentials, credentials
Or How I Stopped Letting the Fat Cats Do My Thinking For Me
Or Crackpots are Everywhere
In seventh grade, I was a pyromaniac. I don’t know if that qualifies as thermodynamics. I was mercifully spared tensor calculus and continuum mechanics until college.
I studied at Harvard over a summer when I was 16. I almost got kicked out for hacking their (then revolutionary) laser printers to produce fake ids. Who doesn’t have a story about getting kicked out of Harvard these days? I graduated with honors from Williams College where I studied chemistry and mathematics after switching from studio art (mostly illustration) and physics. My thesis was on chemical synthesis, specifically using organometallic catalysts to produce a single enantiomer (non-racemic mixture) of chiral compounds.
I followed up with doctoral research in at Columbia University where I worked on artificial organs, signal transduction, fluid physics, and statistical thermodynamics. I’d be happy to discuss "intelligent design" with any creationist. I came to know the scars of evolution quite well. If there’s some underlying a priori "design" for living systems rather than an adaptive process, this "designer" is an idiot. I think a better explanation is that creationists would rather forgo the intelligence needed to understand the evidence.
Eschatological religion screws you that way–you end up trying to reconcile two incoherent world views: one based on evidence the other on blind faith inherited from people who never managed indoor plumbing. Any new knowledge brings the threat of more inconsistency. You are forced to erect straw men to protect your ideas. What a waste of energy. As an emotional crutch, it seems to cause a lot of pain. But I’m open to reviewing any evidence I may have missed.
I left academia to follow a trail of money to Wall Street where I ran several quantitative trading strategies for some of the most highly-regarded financial groups in the world. I traded everything from equity derivatives to government fixed-income. My reps from investment banks took me to the snazziest restaurants and secured the best tickets. Although, I find the only real advantage to the owner’s box at sports stadiums that Mr. Kaplan mentioned are the surgically clean private bathrooms. The beer tastes the same. A couple of my friends started a drug discovery company. Several of my professional colleagues went on to make hundreds of millions of dollars (including one multi-billionaire).
On a whim, I studied to be a chef at the French Culinary Institute and managed to get my photo in the New York Times Sunday Magazine with the late, great Julia Childs. I studied the ideas of Auguste Escoffier and learned from world famous chefs including Jacques Pepin and Charlie Trotter. Their creative abilities in the kitchen were just as remarkable as any scientist’s in a laboratory. The difference is that the scientist aims to make ideas independent of the observer while the artist tries to bring them closer together. I did not pursue cooking professionaly–I wanted to learn to cook for family and friends.
I ran two companies and have started my third. I now work with math professors and engineers from MIT, business people from Harvard and computer scientists from Sun to research and develop quantitative techniques for use in everything from finance to genetics. In other words, high performance pattern recognition. Our clients include some of the largest companies in the world.
I have regular occassion to listen to talks at Columbia, Rockefeller, Harvard and MIT and have access to all the libraries and journals. Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, many of these same articles are available to anyone that is interested. I’ve maintained fairly close relationships with the biomedical community. I live with my girlfriend in a beautiful pre-war three-bedroom condominium in Manhattan between Riverside Park and Central Park. She has a graduate degree from Stanford and runs sales for a division of a large investment bank.
All of this can be vouched for by other people on this blog. But here’s the punchline. So fucking what? None of this has any bearing on the validity of anyone’s ideas or arguments. In the real world, it may change the venue where they are heard: school rankings, GPA, SAT, and IQ. These credentials are a necessary evil because people have limited time and resources. But curiousity shouldn’t be exchanged for dismissive, arrogant cynicism at graduation no matter how much you paid for the privilege.
On a blog, exchange is effortless. No one has to present their credentials or modify their appearance in order to share their ideas. The fact that we can pull together and cross reference so much evidence so effortlessly is revolutionary. Sure there will be plenty of noise but the cost of sifting through that noise is far less than the cost of silencing people because they don’t have the right credentials (whatever those are).
The Internet will not replace traditional learning but it does offer a medium of exchange that is free from unnecessary encumbrance. Mr. Valliant is completely free to call bullshit without any concern for social or professional repercussions. I can only offer more evidence so that our understanding might better align. Tommy may reveal a huge flaw in the theory. Or he may simply refuse to accept anything at all. Nevertheless, I’m convinced a blog is the best place for something as ambitious as alpha theory.
With a click of a mouse, Mr. Kaplan can forward the URL to the smartest people he knows. Alpha theory may turn out to be a crackpot idea–that’s fine. But I want real evidence for why it’s wrong. Not hero worship epigrams from dead people.
Alpha theory is not going to create a final recipe for how to live your life. Nothing ever will. Alpha theory states that such an aim is impossible. You must use your whole brain (right and left) to find the best strong solution for the current context. No matter how good that strong solution is for that occasion, it won’t be universally applicable. Old techniques will need to be re-evaluated regularly and may need to be revised or discarded. Life must constantly adapt.
Art, science and philosophy are better experienced as verbs than collections of trophies. If alpha theory is right, it offers a Universal explanation of life–but remember, that’s not the same as a Universal recipe for how to live it–although such knowledge surely helps to chart a course.
Anyone interested in credentials should head over to the alumni club. I’d prefer to forget credentials and concentrate on the ideas and the evidence that we can present to support them.
It was a great destroyer of traditional patterns of behaviour, a crucible of new social reforms and ideas, a huge and anonymous thicket in which men and women could escape the scrutiny of the priest, squire and neighbors that regulated rural communities. In this new sense, like that of medieval towns, city air, foul though it might be, made men free.
–J.M. Roberts on urbanization in the 19th century
Mr. Kaplan,
I am thinking cannibalism is generally alphatropic, so long as you eat the dead and not kill. What say you?
Is it? Compared to what other available alternatives? How likely do you think pathogens adapted to the immune system of another member of your species will find a way to adapt to yours? Is it more or less alphatropic than starving to death? How about compared to a well-balanced diet?
If we can work out sound principles of diet (recognizing that improved science will improve our principles as we go), maybe we can do it with some greater generality to human conduct. How about the possibility of a set of ethical principles that really are universally applicable to the human race? I am profoundly unconvinced of the undemonstrated, radical skepticism towards "universal strong solutions." It may be a limitation of alpha theory itself–though I suspect only a self-imposed one–and, for myself, I will continue to treat rights as the absolutes that they are. I suspect that the alpha-originators will, too–or remind me to avoid their parties. With the "official Objectivist position" being decided by Aaron to emit from anyone who hangs out a shingle on a very, un-official "Objectivist" website, since Rand herself can provide no ammo here, I wonder what the fate of alpha theory will be–the cause of future dictatorships, no doubt…
You know, and although you may not see it, Objectivism is perfectly consistent with the implications of alpha. (Ignoring for now all of the hidden metaphysical assumptions being denied.) Rand conceives of ethics exactly like the principles of good diet. Diet is to be evaluated in accordance with the needs of the human body–its present "configuration," if you like. As these change, say, one day with some genetic engineering of the human body, so the principles of good diet must change. Rand said that her ethics was the result of the fact that the human mode of consciousness, rational thought, was our species’ fundamental tool of survival, upon which all of the others depend. She conceived of rationality as the primary virtue only because it served the interests of human life. A whole series of principles of behavior stem from the needs of such a consciousness (including, but not limited to, I might observe, are "rights.") So long as human consciousness is "configured" as it is–and so long as rational thought is our primary means of closing the alpha*/alpha gap, as is the current, human "configuration"–such principles will obtain as (contextual) absolutes properly governing correct human behavior.
"and so long as rational thought is our primary means of closing the alpha*/alpha gap"
What?
At this point is it neccessary to begin testing this theory in a lab? Not testing the pieces to the theory, that has been done. Testing if it supports the assumptions we have presented.
"I’d prefer to forget credentials and concentrate on the ideas and the evidence that we can present to support them."
See you tomorrow.
Tommy,
That’s really sad. The very faculty you are using so hard to get this, dude, the faculty that has put humans at the top of the food chain on this planet. Failure to recognize THIS little thing would put alpha out of all bounds, indeed.
Humans most alphatropic behavior is the use of the same faculty that comes up with things like alpha. Birds gotta, fly, fish gotta swim, and unless you can get them to reconfigure themselves somehow… My OWN calculations must take my current configuration as a given, my nature, until I can actually reconfigure it. Indeed, reason is the human means of not having to wait for such physical or cultural evolution to change our filtration.
See, ethics involves the decision-making that I do. A committee doesn’t decide how I move my arms about, I do.
Indeed, Aaron’s comparison to utilitarianism is a much greater stretch: he hasn’t asked anyone to calculate the full impact of his own actions on anyone else, much less literally everyone else (a dauntingly impossible matter.) Alpha says "be alphatropic," it does not suggest any conflict between alphas will (or can?) arise, something utilitarianism simply assumes to be true. Aaron’s bizarre view of the orthodox Objectivist concept of rights aside, we curiously end up obeying the true Objectivist view.
Explain the following:
A thief has an opportunity to steal ten million dollars under circumstances that almost assure that he will not get caught (no, better still, under circumstances of certainty, he’s got the muscles of any law enforcement under control.) With this one, he can retire from theft. Now, the advantages to him of the money are clear. What exactly, according to alpha, (should/will/can) motivate him NOT to do it? The classic question: why should I be moral?
Bourbaki, Bourbaki, Bourbaki,
Where to begin? First, what you got right.
1)Surgically clean restrooms ARE good.
2)Charlie Trotter ROCKS!
3)Credentials don’t matter in making an argument or assessing the validity of an argument.
Now, what you got wrong:
1) I said cannibalism was "generally" alphatrophic, having anticipated the kuru gambit.
2)The inability to keep a job, Bourbaki, is no badge of honor.
3)You obviously mistake joshing for arrogance. I am a graduate of Binghamton University, or SUNY B as it was called then. LOTS of good things came from there. Richard Price taught there, as did Jean Casadesus (sp?)and Elmar Oliviera. One of my roommates was Chief Resident at Einstein Med and another got one of the most prestigious radiology fellowships in the country. As proof that darts, once thrown, must land somewhere, I was chosen by an otherwise estimable publication as one of the best lawyers in America. In one of your own fields, Susquahana Partners was born at SUNY B by Jeff Yass, my former bookie on campus. There is a very funny story about that which I won’t bore you with. Jeff’s senior guys are Binghamton alums. One, Andy Frost, was quite a competent philosopher.
As for the ungraduated one, well, what can I say. I read his writing and think about what he writes. Ain’t that enough? I wouldn’t and don’t do that for lesser mortals. Even when he is wrong–not an uncommon event–I learn.
4)You got the burden of proof wrong: I don’t have to prove alpha theory wrong, Aaron has to prove it right.
5) Although beer in owner’s boxes tastes the same, the food does not (although it still ain’t any good).
6) If she’ll have you, marry the girl. You ain’t easy to get along with and you ain’t gettin’ any younger.