DocWatts

Moral constructivism, as I use the term, is a recognition that morality is always grounded in a biological, cultural, and personal context. It's a descriptive (rather than prescriptive) antirealitist approach to morality. Here are some of its core tenets: 1) Morality is largely intuition driven, and only secondarily about rational deliberation. 2) There is an evolutionary context for our moral intuitions, having to do with the survival situations that were in place as human psychology was evolving. For most of our history, human beings lived in tribes where you would know your neighbors on a face-to-face basis; this was where our root level moral intuitions evolved. Living alongside strangers as a fact of life only came much later. 3) Morality is functional rather than objective - as social animals, its purpose is to let us have functional societies. It's shaped by biology, culture, and and an individual's life experience. Morality doesn't exist 'out there' in some external Reality, but neither is it fully subjective. 4) Though humans have a shared pool of moral intuitions, they get expressed differently depending on the social and cultural context. in fact, I'd go so far as to say that moral constructivism is inherently anti-essentialist in nature, while at the same time rejecting extreme forms of relativism as well. 5) Morality is constructed in the sense that it's created and sustained by human minds, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary, or that its effects aren't very real. Morality may be constructed, but that doesn't mean that 'anything goes'; or that all moral viewpoints are equally healthy. ______________________ In essence, it's a viewpoint that does allow for moral progress, but in the sense that there are better and worse lived outcomes for human beings. Moral constructivism stands in contrast to the supposition that our moral ideas are correct or incorrect to the extent that they correspond with Transcendental (ie, fixed and absolute) moral principles.

I'd agree with this, though more in a descriptive rather than prescriptive way ( I didn't necessarily set out to construct an antirealist theory). Definitely a moral constructivist, but too often I find that people equate 'constructed' with arbitrary or subjective. If anything, I'm more interested in reclaiming subjectivism and objectivism away from metaphysical realism (in ethics and in other domains). And emphasizing that these are human constructs that can still be useful to us, so long was we do don't insist that they're inherent features of Reality, independent of any thinking beings.

The type of metatheory that I'm developing is meant to be complimentary to other perspectives, rather than THE one-true framework for every situation and context. It's primary emphasis is on how we interpret our everyday experience - in particular, it calls attention to the unexamined assumptions we normally attach to that experience. As far as that goes, the emphasis is on learning to hold our frameworks in a more self aware and ultimately provisional way, by cultivating an acute awareness of thier limitations. To that end, I argue for thinking about theories less in terms of transcendental or absolute 'truth', and more in terms of thier appropriateness for given purposive context. In other words, thinking about theories in terms of what we're trying to understand. Additionally, I do argue that completely explicit formal rules for theory selection are impractical, because one quickly runs into an infinite regression problem (since we would also need rules for when and how to apply the rules, ad-infinitum ). As far as what makes something a good 'fit' for a given situation on context, nothing really unexpected or novel here. Solid heuristics include things like relevance, simplicity, internal coherence, and explainability. In addition to these, I'd also add: 'do not bar the path of inquiry' (that is, we should be cautious about adopting theories that prevent us from discovering something that could turn out to be true). The 'pivot', then, is more about examining the emotional attachments that we form to our theories and beliefs. In particular, when our beliefs become our identity.

Could you describe what you mean by 'theoretical virtues'? Short answer to your second question : Of the categories you listed, 'pragmatism' would probably be the closest fit. Longer answer: The theory of truth that I'm working with is a Disclosive Theory of Truth that emphasizes how explicit beliefs are derived from nonconceptual familiarity with the world, which we attain through everyday practices and activities. (Think of Heideggerian ontology and epistemology, alongside a Ken Wilber-esque emphasis that perspectives can be 'true but partial', and a AN Whitehead emphasis on 'process' and 'relationality', if that's at all helpful). In particular, it's a rejection of the Correspondence View in favor of a phenomenological and embodied perspective towards truth, with insights from evolutionary biology.

Well, if somebody offers you a simple rule for determining what's true that's supposedly applicable to every type of situation, odds are they're bullshiting you. My own perspective is that one is far more likely to arrive at something resembling the truth if they have access to a few things: 1) Domain specific expertise -or- good heuristics for assessing who is a credible source for that expertise. 2) The ability to identity and scrutinize the background assumptions that are presupposed by a truth claim. 3) Inner awareness of our own emotional attachments to whatever it is that orients is within Reality (such as a scientific or political paradigm, spiritual beliefs, etc). And how that is influencing our approach when assessing a truth claim. 4) A general overview of how paradigms work, and a basic understanding of human psychology. 5) This one will be a bit longer, since there's some nuance to this point. But an ability to tie statements of truth to a purposive context, instead of an inflexible insistence that there's a single, correct understanding of Reality. In the context of my write-up, we could think of this as a shift away from capital 'Transcendental Truth' to a 'human truth' that includes self awareness about the limitations of our own perspective. Importantly, this isn't a relativistic claim that truth is inherently 'subjective' - as a practical matter, human beings can and must be able to arrive at shared forms of understanding. At the same time, 'truth' isn't something that exists apart from us, it is inherently relational - sitting at the cross section of a specific context and perspective on one hand, and our broader, shared Reality on the other. In essence, this point is a rejection of both extreme forms of both absolutism and relativism, in favor of a perspective to truth that's more flexible.

Thank you!

A complete mapping of the brain would be of more benefit to medicine and cognitive science than it would artificial to intelligence research. A 'neural network' is a metaphor, not a description of what large language models are actually doing under the hood. David Chapman is an AI researcher who left the field to become a monk, and he had this to say about neural networks: "Everyone working in the field knows "neural networks" are almost perfectly dissimilar to biological ones, but the language persists "Yes, of course, everyone knows that, so it's harmless". No, it's not. And it's not just that is reliably confuses people outside of the field [it's also misleading, and impedes AI safety measures]".

LLM's are fine tuned and adjusted through external human input, by actors who have a context to be able to understand the abstract symbols they're manipulating. Symbol manipulation isn't in any way meaningful to a disembodied LLM. They're meaningful to people because of our embodied interactions with the everyday world, which computer algorithms are incapable of.

While a brain in a vat is of course possible (since we at present do hypothetically have the technology to clone an entire human being), the point is that a disembodied brain wouldn't have the type of intelligence or reasoning faculties that an actual human being has. Our brain is designed (not literally designed, but you catch my meaning) to work holistically with a human body. It's a bit like expecting an engine on a table to be able to do all of the things that a car can do.

Assuming for the sake of argument that a 1:1 algorithmic recreation of the human brain is 50 years away, that doesn't necessarily mean that AGI will be right around the corner. As I'm sure your aware, human intelligence is inherently embodied - meaning that it extends beyond the brain, and is tied in important ways to how our brains are holistically integrated with a living body. (Or that you're aware of this perspective, at any rate, even if you don't entirely agree with the premise). The fundamental problem as I see it is that AI doesn't have any 'skin in the game' for what it 'reasons' about. It doesn't have a capacity for Care, because Reality doesn't have any consequences for a computer algorithm. Access to food and socialization and self actualization opportunities aren't abstractions that we relate to in a disconnected way - when we're deprived of these things, we end up suffering in real ways. Which is to say, living minds operate on axiomatically different principles than that of digital computing. The human brain literally changes its physiological structure as it learns - it's not clear how you would create an analogue for this, even in principle, on a digital computer (without external human input). While I'm open to hanging my mind changed on this topic, I've yet to see these inherent difficulties substantively addressed, without hand-waving them away.

@questionreality Here's a follow up article that documents Trump's, many, many uses of dog whistle rhetoric to stoke racial bigotry and political violence. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/03/trumps-many-dog-whistles-about-unrest-violence/

Here's a lengthy quote from the Wikipedia page on the subject. Needless to say, the use of dog whistle rhetoric is a well documented reality by historians and political scientists. For instance, as you'll see in the quote below, one of Richard Nixon's advisors was quite explicit about how they were intentionally using dog whistle rhetoric to court white racists, in a campaign tactic that came to be known as the 'Southern Strategy'. (Apologies, but expect to see the N-word used a lot in this Wikipedia article, because that's how people devising these strategies were talking at the time). (From Wikipedia) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) The phrase "states' rights", literally referring to powers of individual state governments in the United States, was described in 2007 by journalist David Greenberg in Slate as "code words" for institutionalized segregation and racism.[23] States' rights was the banner under which groups like the Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties argued in 1955 against school desegregation.[24] In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing former president Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, speculated that terms like "states' rights" were used for dog-whistling:[25][26][27] You start out in 1954 by saying, "nig***, nig***, nig***." By 1968, you can't say "nig***" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this" is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "nig***, nig***."[28] Atwater was contrasting this with then-President Ronald Reagan's campaign, which he felt "was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference". However, Ian Haney López, an American law professor and author of the 2014 book Dog Whistle Politics, described Reagan as "blowing a dog whistle" when the candidate told stories about "Cadillac-driving 'welfare queens' and 'strapping young bucks' buying T-bone steaks with food stamps" while he was campaigning for the presidency.[29][30][31] He argues that such rhetoric pushes middle-class white Americans to vote against their economic self-interest in order to punish "undeserving minorities" who, they believe, are receiving too much public assistance at their expense.

It was (very) thinly veiled dog-whistle rhetoric to his Christian Nationalist supporters, who want Trump as a dictator. Similar to how rhetoric that paint Kamala Harris as a 'DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) candidate' is a thinly veiled dog-whistle towards white racists (who hear 'DEI candidate ' as the N-word, to state it explicitly). Those of us with even a minimal amount of media literacy can see right through this, but it gives Trump and the right-wing propaganda machine a veneer of plausible deniability while they spew hateful dangerous rhetoric to their audience.

I largely agree with you, but another dimension to this is that unless we're talking about the far future where global geopolitics is completely different, opposition to any system that challenges the global order is always going to be the case. This introduces an unfortunate Game Theoretical dimension where (often very harsh) authoritarianism becomes necessary to protect these regimes / experiments from threats within and without, ultimately undermining thier egalitarian aims (and leaving the people living in those states with far less personal freedom than someone living in a capitalist country). We saw this not only in the Soviet bloc, but also in many post-colonial governments in the developing world as well. You can bring up the completely valid point that it's not an even playing field, but pointing that out doesn't change the basic Game Theory dynamics that are at play here.

That's only if you conflate all of AI with Large Language Models (like ChatGPT). While the idea that LLM's will somehow result in AGI is laughable (a bit like thinking that you're making tangible progress towards reaching the moon because you've manages to climb halfway up a very tall tree), it's completely reasonable to expect the continued proliferation of AI systems hyper specialized to a specific domain. And that these will almost certainly be a disruptive technology that brings massive changes to everyday life as a many types jobs that people work today will be automated.

It's kind of astounding how many things had to go wrong for Trump to be in the position he is today. This includes: Antiquated political institutions (Senate, Electrical College, and the Judiciary) that empower a minority of the country to force thier will on the majority A collapsing middle class alongside skyrocketing economic inequality The most corrupt Supreme Court in the history of the United States Profit driven media being complicit in Trump's ascendency by treating him as a normal political candidate The entirely of the Republican Party lacking the spine and conviction to stand up to Trump, for banal political reasons Republican voters for being unable to see through an obvious con artist The Democratic Party favoring civility and business as usual over protecting the country from fascism.

A popular misconception about the Nazi's rise to power is that they were voted into power by poorest, most downtrodden people within German society, hurt most by the Great Depression. This is false - the poorest, most destitute people in German society gravitated towards Left wing parties, not the Nazis. In actuality, Hitler's base support was largely what Marx would call the 'petty bougiewazie' - professionals, skilled tradesmen, managers, shop owners who were terrified of losing their comparatively privileged position within society (and potentially ending up poor themselves).

@Bobby_2021 @nerdspeak You both have valid points. Social democracies with strong union participation do indeed offer the highest standards of living in the world, and are the highest form of democracy that we currently have. At the same time, it's also undeniably true that the social democracies of the world maintain their high standards of living through an extractative global system that exploits the developing world. (To be clear, this isn't just an issue with social democracy, it's a systemic problem with our global economy). What I've yet to see is an actual solution to this conundrum, aside from fantasies that a world socialist revolution will fix the world's problems. This was tried numerous times in the 20th century, by now it should be abundantly clear that you can't force socialism on a society that isn't developmentally ready for it and doesn't have the civic solidarity to sustain it. (Just to be clear, I'm making this observation as someone on the political Left).

To add to this, if voting didn't matter the Republican Party wouldn't be engaged in widespread voter suppression and gerrymandering.

I swear, Trump could hold a press conference where he just baldfacedly states in direct language that he's "working very hard to become America's Hitler". And his brainwashed supporters would still be twisting themselves into pretzels to gaslight us that "we're overreacting, and even if he did say it, he didn't really mean it". It's a form of gaslighting that's a go-to tactic of abusers: "It didn't happen, and even if did happen you're overreacting, and in any case my bad behavior is your fault."

@Gennadiy1981 While I agree with you that healthy Stage Blue has some positive and even admirable qualities, MAGA Christian Nationalism is a very unhealthy version of those values which have been weaponized in a very ugly way. Recall my 'Frame' vs 'Content' point at the beginning of my previous post - the parallel isn't that MAGAs literally believe what the Nazis believed. It's that they're willing to downplay, justify, and excuse Trump's monstrous, sociopathic behavior. Healthy Stage Blue shouldn't want anything to do with a convicted felon and civilly liable rapist who incited a violent coup to stop a peaceful transfer of power. Moreover, contemporary America fascism is rooted in traditional American values - namely, the part of America's culture that has never been on board with civil rights, modernity, and secular tolerance. Trump himself is at heart an opportunist who doesn't care one way or another if women and LGBTQ people have their rights stripped away. But the Christian Nationalists that he allied himself do very much want those things. They make up a significant portion of his base, and are willing to end democracy to maintain white, Christian supremacy.

This perspective might be of some help for those of us who have family members or acquaintances in our social circles that are thinking about voting for Trump (rather than his hardcore supporters, who are a lost cause at this point). Thinking in particular of the 'Trump is the lesser of two evils' crowd because of [insert culture was issue here]. (And yes, these people do exist). As the election looms and as more stories like this come out, it's to be expected that more right-leaning and conservative people in our families and social circles will downplay and excuse this behavior. Don't let them. Bring this shit up, make them talk about it, try to justify it. While it's not worth arguing with online trolls, social shame from people one knows and potentially cares about in real life can be a powerful tool. In other words, do what you can to make the Trump supporters in your life feel embarrassed and ashamed for supporting a hateful, dangerous bigot who's trying to end American democracy. Hitler was largely brought to power with the support of 'little Nazis' - people who didn't wear swastikas, and weren't out in the streets beating people up. Rather, they were mostly ordinary people who were willing to downplay and excuse the Nazis monstrous behavior, because they benefited in some way by throwing their lot in with vengeful nationalists.

Because 'crime' is socially constructed. Think of what happens to a cashier who's caught stealing $100 from their cash register, versus what happens to an employer who steals $100 from their employee's paycheck via wage theft.

Comparing Trump supporters to the contemporary American version of the Nazis is apt. Not because Trump or his supporters necessarily believe what the Nazis believed, but because it's a quite effective demonstration of the Banality of Evil. Anyone who's made their way to this forum should hopefully be able to separate Frame from Content. "[They] did not know before 1933 that Nazism was evil. They did not know between 1933 and 1945 that it was evil. And they do not know it now [in 1946].” ― Milton Sanford Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45' In Weimer Germany's last free elections, not everyone casting ballots for the Nazis would have described themselves as a Nazi, and a lot of them didn't have any particular animosity towards Jewish people. What was far more common was that folks saw some personal advantage to throwing their lot in with vengeful nationalists, and were willing to downplay and excuse the monstrous things that Hitler and the Nazis were saying and doing at the time - just as people today are willing to downplay Trump's violent hateful rhetoric, his numerous crimes, the January 6th insurrection, and the Republican Party's ongoing coup attempt. Likewise, the vast majority of Trump supporters don't think of themselves as fascist enablers, but what they fail to recognize is that today's fascism couches itself in traditional American values, weaponized against out-groups within American society - just as Nazi fascism marketed itself in traditional German values, weaponized against the out-groups of its day.

That tracks, since JD Vance is a grifter who doesn't particularly care about what happens to America (he went from calling Trump 'America's Hitler' to running as his VP, afterall). So why would he give two shits about what happens to Ukraine?