Difference between revisions of "OCT 19"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==15: OCT 19==
+
==14: OCT 19: Unit 4: Free Will and Culture==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:*Haidt, Chapter 7, "The Moral Foundations of Politics" (34)
+
:*Dennett, Daniel. Chapter 2: "A Tool for Thinking about Determinism" Freedom Evolves. (300) (25-63) (Jo/Erik)
  
−
===Haidt, Chapter 7, "The Moral Foundations of Politics"===
+
===Dennett, Daniel. Chapter 2: "A Tool for Thinking about Determinism" Freedom Evolves.===
  
−
:*Homo economicus vs. Homo sapiens -- column a b -- shows costs of sapiens psych. commitments "taste buds"
+
:*Chapter 2: A tool for thinking about determinism
−
:*Note on Innateness and Determinism: "first draft" metaphor; experience revises - pre-wired not hard-wired. innate without being universal.  (Note this is the same anti-determinism disclaimer we got from Hibbing & Co.)
 
−
:*Notes on each foundation:
 
−
::*'''Care/Harm''' -- evolutionary story of asymmetry between m/f interests/strategies in reproduction, attachment theory (read def). current triggers.  Baby Max and stuffed animals -- triggers. 
 
−
:::*Implicit theory about "re-triggering" note red flag.  unexplained. Consider plausibility. 
 
−
::*'''Fairness/Cheating''' -- We know we incur obligation when accepting favors. So,... Trivers and reciprocal altruism.  "tit for tat" ; equality vs. proportionality.  Original and current problem is to build coalitions (social networks) without being suckered (exploited).  Focus on your experience of cooperation, trust, and defection (which could just be declining cooperation).  Public goods game research also fits here.  Libs think of fairness more in terms of equality, conservatives more about proportionality.
 
−
::*'''Loyalty/Betrayal''' -- Tribalism in story of Eagles/Rattlers.  liberals experience low emphasis here; note claim that this is gendered 139.  sports groupishness is a current trigger.  connected to capacity for violence.  Liberals can come across as disloyal when they think they are just being critical.  Note current culture conflicts over confederate symbols and statues fits here.
 
−
::*'''Authority/Subversion''' -- Cab driver story.  Hierarchy in animal and human society; liberals experience this differently also; note cultural work accomplished by the "control role" -- suppression of violence that would occur without hierarchy.  Alan Fiske's work on "Authority Ranking" -- suggest legit recognition of difference and, importantly, not just submission.  Authority relationships are a two way street (maybe esp for conservs?).  Tendency to see UN and international agreements as vote dilution, loss of sov.  (Digressive topic: Should we mark authority relationships more?)
 
−
::*'''Sanctity/Degradation''' -- Miewes-Brandes horror. Ev.story: omnivores challenge is to spot foul food and disease (pathogens, parasites).  (Being an omnivore is messy. One should not be surprised to find that vegetarians often appreciate the cleanliness of their diet.) Omnivores dilemma -- benefit from being able to eat wide range of foods, but need to distinguish risky from safe.  neophilia and neophobia.  Images of chastity in religion and public debate.  understanding culture wars.  The ability to “sanctify” something (bodies, environment, principles) is an important current trigger.
 
  
−
===Small Group Exercise: Working with the Moral Foundations in Political Contexts===
+
:*People go wrong in thinking about determinism. Three claims:
 +
::*1. Determinism doesn't imply inevitability.
 +
::*2. Indeterminism doesn't give you freedom or free will.
 +
::*3. In a deterministic world there are "real options".
  
−
::*'''Bumper Sticker / Slogan reading'''
+
:*Laplace's demon -- first modern expression of scientific determinism, idea of being able to predict all future states of a system from knowing the position and movement of everything at some moment.   
−
::*Extending Haidt's examples of using bumper sticks and slogans to illustrate the moral foundations, please follow these links [http://www.cafepress.com/+political+bumper-stickers] [https://www.zazzle.com/political+bumper+stickers] and browse political bumper stickers together. Keep these questions in mind as you browse:
 
−
:::*Can you identify specific moral foundations at work in some of the bumper stickers?
 
−
:::*Do you notice that some are based exclusively in denigrating an opposing view vs. making an affirmation?
 
−
:::*Why do so many people like to use bumper stickers? Do you? Why or why not?
 
  
−
===Tools for working with "Matrix Differences"===
+
:*Dennett suggests we design a "toy problem" to think about this image of the "demon".  Draws on Quine's concept of "democritean universe".  Really trying to model a "design space" (term from Darwin's Dangerous Idea) in the Library of Babel and the idea of "Vast" and "Vanishing"
  
−
:*A big problem that Haidt's "Moral Foundations Theory" (MFT) leaves us with is, "How do we interact with people with different matrices and different experiences, especially concerning political value differences, when we hold our own views with conviction and sense of their truth? In other words, how do we deal with the Paradox of Moral Experience?
+
:*34: You could makes some Universes deterministic and some indeterministic.  read.  Indeterminate universes exclude Laplace's Demon.  Determinism is just one kind of regularity a universe can display. Eliminable vs. Ineliminable probabilities. 
  
−
:*Why this is difficult...
+
:*36: To make the point a different way, he turns to Conway's Life World research. (Artificial life.)
−
::*We often unintentionally (and, for some people, intentionally) create "cognitive dissonance" in a discussion, leading people to find ways to stop the pain, rather than listen to the issues.  
+
:*translation rules are like physics in a real world.
−
::*We don't always have reasons for our convictions, but, as we know from the dumbfounding research, we "confabulate". We confuse intuitions with reasoned conviction.  This can lead us to "pile on" arguments, thinking they are persuasive apart from intuitions. But if you don't have those intuitions, the "pile on" can feel aggressive.
+
:*Initially, the deterministic "life worlds" look like our stereotype of determinism.  boring.
−
::*We don't all react the same way when our views are criticized.  (Remember Socrates' attitude here. Noble but difficult to achieve.)
+
:*But with more translation rules, we get more complex events.  At the ''design level'', we have persistent objects in motion, contingencies ("usually this happens"). But at the ''physical level'', there is no motion, only on and off.  (How do you design creatures that can survive?)
 +
:*43: Some objects in the life world have powers just by virtue of their shape (and the "physics").  Like walls.  “Avoidance” might be more expensive.
 +
:*Persisting might include "avoiding" impending harms that are predictable.  "The birth of avoidance." 43
  
−
:*1. Two Basic Strategies:
+
:*In this model, you still have "hacker Gods" designing the creatures. You could eliminate the hacker Gods by building the "r&d" into the creature. This is a move from the design stance to the intentional stance. This is also a feature of an evolutionary "life world". You might just need life worlds that can have "Universal Touring Machines" -- which means they can solve any computable problem.  Conway shows that his life worlds can instantiate Touring machines. (48)
−
::*A. Explore difference gently. Monitor your vital signs.
 
−
::*B. Find common goals or things to affirm.  
 
−
::*C. Model exploratory thought. (How do you do that, specifically?)
 
−
::*These strategies obviously move you in different directions in a conversation, but they can all be used together to manage "dissonance" and tension in a discussion.
 
  
−
:*2. Practice Sympathetic Interpretation
+
:*necessary ingredients for "avoiders" (Whom we might hold responsible?)
−
::*In general, sympathetic interpretation involves strategies that mix "identification" (peanuts for the elephant) with "critical engagement" (rational persuasion, value differences)
 
−
::*Try to understand where a view is "coming from".  Ask questions.
 
−
::*Restate views, checking for fairness.
 
−
::*Practice "strategic dissimulation" (controversial for some).  "I'm still working out my views here..." when you really have pretty well worked out views, even one's you are proud of and think to be true (Paradox of Moral Experience)
 
−
::*Use verbal cues that indicate (if possible) that views you disagree with are "reasonable" and/or "understandable".  That could mean:
 
−
:::*1. The view is reasonable, even if you disagree. Preface your disagreement by acknowledging this. 
 
−
::::*Example: "Reasonable and well-informed people disagree on this..."... "Well, your in good company..."
 
−
:::*2. The view seems unreasonable, but you focus on some intuitions that support it, even if you don't share these intuitions.
 
−
::::*Example: I can see how/why someone would feel this way..., but...
 
−
:::*3. The view seems unreasonable and false to you, but it is one that many people hold.
 
−
::::*Example: Acknowledging that the view is widely held without endorsing it.  You can also "deflect" to the complexity of the problem or human nature...
 
  
−
:*Other miscellaneous strategies:  
+
:*51: describes a feature of genetic history of dealing with parasitic genes: design problem, solution in design space, "actions taken".  (Note than design and intentional terms are very apt here, even when talking about fruit fly genomes that don’t really “know” what the hell is happening to them.)
  
−
:*Acknowledge that an opposing view may be insightful for others, even if not for you.
+
:*53:  A process with no foresight can invent a process with foresight. 
−
:*Cultivate diverse relationships if possible.
+
 
−
:*Avoid pejorative labels.
+
:*read at 54.  “We are virtuoso avoiders, …”
−
:*Views can change even if orientations don't.  Focus on views, not orientations.
+
 
−
:*Accept difference that won't change, focus on pragmatics and cooperation.
+
:*56: Core argument for “Determinism doesn’t imply inevitability”.
−
:*Humor, if possible.  Self-effacing first.
+
 
−
:*Acknowledge physio-politics in the discussion.  
+
:*56: Objections and Replies
−
:*Acknowledge your own orientation and expect it to be respected.
+
 
−
:*Don't "sugar coat" differences.  (Be true to yourself.)
+
::*1. It's not real avoidance because the object's fate was never in doubt.
 +
 
 +
:::*Determined avoidance is real avoidance. What's the diff?
 +
 
 +
::*2. It's not real avoidance.  Real avoidance changes something that "was going to happen" into something that doesn't happen.
 +
 
 +
:::*depends upon meaning of "going to happen".  Avoiding a baseball coming at you is real avoiding even if the ball was never going to hit you because of your avoidance system.  You can also avoid avoiding (get hit by the ball on purpose to get on base).  And so on... avoid avoiding avoiding. 
 +
 
 +
::*3. It's not real avoidance.  Real avoidance changes the outcome.  
 +
 
 +
:::*you can only change anticipated outcomes, and that's what we are doing in "determined avoiding".   
 +
 
 +
::*4 (60). The creatures in the life world have their powers "inevitably" thanks to the determinism of that world.  They are just what they are due to their starting points and events.  “Determinism is the friend, not the foe, of those who dislike inevitability.”  (You could use this to make a strong claim that we can only have free will in a universe that is at least partly deterministic.)
 +
 
 +
:::*This is exactly the link between "determined" and "inevitable" that D wants to break. Our powers are determined by the past, but that doesn't mean our actions are inevitable. 
 +
 
 +
:::*Bonus argument: inevitability is also a feature of indeterminist worlds. You can't dodge an undetermined lightning bolt.  (That suggests we are packing something illicit into the term when we think it only spoils free will in a determinist world.)
 +
 
 +
:*60: Determinism is the friend of those who dislike inevitability.

Revision as of 21:51, 19 October 2022

14: OCT 19: Unit 4: Free Will and Culture

Assigned

  • Dennett, Daniel. Chapter 2: "A Tool for Thinking about Determinism" Freedom Evolves. (300) (25-63) (Jo/Erik)

Dennett, Daniel. Chapter 2: "A Tool for Thinking about Determinism" Freedom Evolves.

  • Chapter 2: A tool for thinking about determinism
  • People go wrong in thinking about determinism. Three claims:
  • 1. Determinism doesn't imply inevitability.
  • 2. Indeterminism doesn't give you freedom or free will.
  • 3. In a deterministic world there are "real options".
  • Laplace's demon -- first modern expression of scientific determinism, idea of being able to predict all future states of a system from knowing the position and movement of everything at some moment.
  • Dennett suggests we design a "toy problem" to think about this image of the "demon". Draws on Quine's concept of "democritean universe". Really trying to model a "design space" (term from Darwin's Dangerous Idea) in the Library of Babel and the idea of "Vast" and "Vanishing"
  • 34: You could makes some Universes deterministic and some indeterministic. read. Indeterminate universes exclude Laplace's Demon. Determinism is just one kind of regularity a universe can display. Eliminable vs. Ineliminable probabilities.
  • 36: To make the point a different way, he turns to Conway's Life World research. (Artificial life.)
  • translation rules are like physics in a real world.
  • Initially, the deterministic "life worlds" look like our stereotype of determinism. boring.
  • But with more translation rules, we get more complex events. At the design level, we have persistent objects in motion, contingencies ("usually this happens"). But at the physical level, there is no motion, only on and off. (How do you design creatures that can survive?)
  • 43: Some objects in the life world have powers just by virtue of their shape (and the "physics"). Like walls. “Avoidance” might be more expensive.
  • Persisting might include "avoiding" impending harms that are predictable. "The birth of avoidance." 43
  • In this model, you still have "hacker Gods" designing the creatures. You could eliminate the hacker Gods by building the "r&d" into the creature. This is a move from the design stance to the intentional stance. This is also a feature of an evolutionary "life world". You might just need life worlds that can have "Universal Touring Machines" -- which means they can solve any computable problem. Conway shows that his life worlds can instantiate Touring machines. (48)
  • necessary ingredients for "avoiders" (Whom we might hold responsible?)
  • 51: describes a feature of genetic history of dealing with parasitic genes: design problem, solution in design space, "actions taken". (Note than design and intentional terms are very apt here, even when talking about fruit fly genomes that don’t really “know” what the hell is happening to them.)
  • 53: A process with no foresight can invent a process with foresight.
  • read at 54. “We are virtuoso avoiders, …”
  • 56: Core argument for “Determinism doesn’t imply inevitability”.
  • 56: Objections and Replies
  • 1. It's not real avoidance because the object's fate was never in doubt.
  • Determined avoidance is real avoidance. What's the diff?
  • 2. It's not real avoidance. Real avoidance changes something that "was going to happen" into something that doesn't happen.
  • depends upon meaning of "going to happen". Avoiding a baseball coming at you is real avoiding even if the ball was never going to hit you because of your avoidance system. You can also avoid avoiding (get hit by the ball on purpose to get on base). And so on... avoid avoiding avoiding.
  • 3. It's not real avoidance. Real avoidance changes the outcome.
  • you can only change anticipated outcomes, and that's what we are doing in "determined avoiding".
  • 4 (60). The creatures in the life world have their powers "inevitably" thanks to the determinism of that world. They are just what they are due to their starting points and events. “Determinism is the friend, not the foe, of those who dislike inevitability.” (You could use this to make a strong claim that we can only have free will in a universe that is at least partly deterministic.)
  • This is exactly the link between "determined" and "inevitable" that D wants to break. Our powers are determined by the past, but that doesn't mean our actions are inevitable.
  • Bonus argument: inevitability is also a feature of indeterminist worlds. You can't dodge an undetermined lightning bolt. (That suggests we are packing something illicit into the term when we think it only spoils free will in a determinist world.)
  • 60: Determinism is the friend of those who dislike inevitability.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=OCT_19&oldid=25957"