
Powerful Concepts for Understanding the World - gkfasdfasdf
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1225561131122597896.html
======
tunesmith
> Condorcet Paradox: a special instance of Simpson’s paradox applied to
> elections, in which a populace prefers candidate A to candidate B, candidate
> B to C, and yet candidate C to A. This occurs because the majority that
> favors C is misleadingly divided among different groups.

I found this really interesting because I have never thought of a Condorcet
Loop, or a Smith Set, in the context of Simpson's Paradox before.

I've also enjoyed Judea Pearl's points about how Simpsons Paradox scenarios
sometimes don't even _have_ a correct interpretation until you are clear about
what your assumptions are and what you are trying to measure.

I've always suspected that the Smith Set might just mean that the electorate
isn't ready to decide yet, and that another round of elections might be
warranted, but it's interesting to consider that a Smith Set might also give
clues on what questions to ask to better determine the winner.

~~~
someguyorother
A Condorcet loop can happen if different parts of the electorate values
different things. E.g. some people value foreign policy experience, other
people value integrity, and yet other people value left vs right. Going from a
foreign policy experience ranking to an integrity ranking to an economic
ranking can take you around the loop.

But how would the electorate come to a conclusion about which issue is most
important? The Condorcet loop could be fundamental to the voters' opinions.

------
kangnkodos
The inclusion of the "Gurwinder Principle" casts doubt on the other principles
listed.

~~~
agumonkey
is there a principle that a list will always list a bogus principle ?

~~~
aaron695
It's basically Peter's Principle, you keep listing principles until you get to
your lowest acceptable one, which will be of low quality.

------
gchamonlive
Those are interesting points to start understanding a gist of trend in how the
world works, but more importantly would be to use these concepts to help us
break out of them.

For instance, the Belief Bias can easily apply to any one of us. How can we
use the awareness that we are subject to such bias to break out of it?

I mean in retrospect, when for instance I read old comments of mine I get
really this odd feeling that someone else completely wrote that. How could I
force break out of this?

------
axguscbklp
Wonderful essay, one of the best such compilations I've read. I see myself
engaging in many of these thought patterns.

I'll add one in the spirit of "none of us are perfect"...

>..neurons creating consciousness...

Is an example of something I see frequently - otherwise very smart people who
assume that consciousness is just an emergent property of physical matter and
who ignore the hard problem of consciousness.

~~~
meowface
This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on HN. There are at
least a dozen things to address there, but, for one, going by this and the
rest of your post history, it seems that smart people are only smart when they
believe things you believe (i.e. mysticism over materialism).

~~~
axguscbklp
I think that I am not a mystic if by mysticism you mean something like
"forsaking logic and science for delusion".

I am a mystic, however, in the sense that while I have enormous respect for
logic and scientific method, and I am usually one of the most scientific-
minded and skeptical people in whatever environment I am in, I do not assume
that science is capable of solving all mysteries of reality.

I see no contradiction between physics, on the one hand, and thinking that
consciousness may be irreducible to physics, on the other hand.

There is no reason to assume that the nature of consciousness is in principle
accessible to scientific investigation.

It may be that there is some fundamental limit that prevents us conscious
beings from grasping the nature of consciousness - and that's if there is
anything to grasp in the first place. Maybe consciousness is essentially
axiomatic and irreducible.

I have loved science since I was young, but to assume that everything about
reality is accessible to scientific inquiry and/or physical explanation is
dogmatic, unscientific.

~~~
meowface
You've made multiple comments saying "otherwise smart people" are revealed to
be momentarily non-smart when it comes to believing in materialism and that,
oh well, "none of us are perfect". Even if you disagree with materialism,
calling a material view of consciousness "dumb" and incompatible with
intelligent thinking just seems petty, obstinate, and extremely arrogant.

You said that emergence of consciousness ignores the hard problem of
consciousness, which isn't necessarily true at all. Consciousness could be an
emergent property of physical matter and there could still be a hard problem
of consciousness. Some believe there is no real hard problem of consciousness,
but that's another matter.

You said that "otherwise very smart people who assume that consciousness is
just an emergent property of physical matter", as if this is something they
haven't thought about very carefully for decades, and as if this is at all a
settled problem. No one on Earth knows exactly how consciousness comes about;
not you or them. Acting with certainty that it must be immaterial is just as
bad as the inverse.

In science, the burden of proof is on the claim-maker. The logic that "it's
dumb to assume that what we currently know about the universe can be
responsible for anything we see in the universe" is backwards. The onus is on
you or others to suggest what else there may be beyond the physical universe.
Otherwise, yes, we _should_ assume that consciousness is an emergent property
as a default position, until we learn about some other mechanism which it
could possibly result from.

>It may be that there is some fundamental limit that prevents us conscious
beings from grasping the nature of consciousness - and that's if there is
anything to grasp in the first place. Maybe consciousness is essentially
axiomatic and irreducible.

It may be. Or it may not be. What is your evidence for, or theory of, how it
may not be? Also, even if it were essentially axiomatic and irreducible, how
would that necessarily make it incompatible with physics and a material,
physical universe? Both could be true.

>to assume that everything about reality is accessible to scientific inquiry
and/or physical explanation is dogmatic, unscientific

I think this is using the wrong language. It's not a matter of "assume", but a
matter of abiding by the scientific method. No, I don't assume that science
can explain absolutely everything in the universe, _but if you think it can
't_, there needs to be a theory or evidence of why. If there is no reason to
think you can't, then the onus is on you to come up with reasons. Instead of
saying "assume", you should say the null hypothesis. At this time, the null
hypothesis is that everything in the universe, including animal consciousness,
is entirely physical in nature. The null hypothesis may be beaten by an
alternative hypothesis at some point, but so far, there are no testable
alternative hypotheses that I know of.

You could say "to assume that scientific inquiry can accurately say anything
about the existence of ghosts is dogmatic and unscientific". You could say it
about God or ESP as well. But, again, it's reverse logic. What's scientific is
following the scientific method: coming up with testable hypotheses, and
testing them. If you aren't doing that, or can't, then you're the one acting
unscientifically. You shouldn't assume that science can say anything about
these things, but until you provide theories or evidence that 1) these things
may exist, and 2) science can't say anything about them, then you shouldn't
assume the opposite, either. You should remain completely agnostic, but
_default_ to the null hypothesis. Defaulting to the null hypothesis isn't the
same thing as assuming the null hypothesis is true. Maybe for some
philosophical definition of the word "assume", but not the way we use it in
typical day-to-day activity.

As for the actual claim itself: at this time, there is much evidence pointing
in the direction that it's likely emergent, and zero evidence pointing in the
direction of any sort of non-material explanation for consciousness or
anything else in the universe. There is currently zero evidence of any sort of
non-materialness to any aspect of the universe, and no testable theory for
finding any. Believing with certainty or near-certainty that materialism
_must_ be false, or that belief in materialism is ridiculous, with no
alternative theory proposed or evidence presented, is unscientific.

If your posts on the matter were simply pointing out that the true cause of
consciousness is not known and that there are other possible options, that's
perfectly fine, but you appear to be treating this as an issue of dogma which
only idiots wouldn't accept. I agree that the article should not have listed
consciousness as an emergent property as if it were an established matter of
fact, but you're basically doing the same thing.

------
Vinceo
> When many simple objects interact with each other, they can form a system
> that has qualities that the objects themselves don’t. Examples: neurons
> creating consciousness

There are no evidence that neurons create consciousness. For all we know
neurons are receivers of consciousness.

~~~
gchamonlive
The author did warn first that > Some [concepts] are complex so forgive me for
oversimplifying, but the main purpose is to incite curiosity.

You shouldn't pick out these examples, they are supposed to broadly exemplify
the concept.

~~~
axguscbklp
That's not really oversimplification though, it's more like making an
assumption. But I agree that it's a minor point. I mainly brought it up in my
other comment in this thread because the topic of consciousness fascinates me.

