*This is part of a double post. I will probably do this fairly frequently.*
Imagine beaming down to Earth as an alien and landing in a computer factory. As this is your first discovery, and you are patient and confident in your own safety, you take a few of the computers back to your ship to investigate them.
You turn one on, and it lights up. Then you press more buttons, and eventually the colors begin to change, at first small packets of dots, then much larger changes in wavelengths across the entire screen. To understand what is happening, you decide to take it apart.
You discover that the inside of the computer is dark; you cannot tell where the light is coming from, nor what is driving its changes. Through meticulous inspection, you discover that parts of the inside provide power some sort of core. However, these parts are incredibly complex. You measure the current along some of the wires—the computer is still functional—and cannot find any relationship between the color changes and currents, nor the buttons and the currents. Sometimes, fans start up, typically during periods of rapid changes.
To solve the mystery, you dive even deeper, sending a couple of your stolen computers through your instruments to dissect them at a near-atomic level. And what you find amazes you.
There are deliberate patterns kept mostly stable on some pieces, which lead to current flows into the main core of the computer. These current flows are then led through an unbelievably complex maze of wires, in which currents in some lead to openings and closings of other wires. The buttons, too, are connected to this maze somehow, and the color wires come out of it, triggering millions of tiny lights. But you still cannot relate your button pressing to the colors’ changing.
To understand, truly, why the colors are changing, one would have to dissect every wire path, 1, and 0 on the computer, reverse-engineer these pieces to discover the meaning of the 1s and 0s, and exact function of the hard drive, and reverse-engineer the code to understand exactly how it connects button-presses to the operating systems, applications, and files being used. Only after all of this work, done perfectly, could one actually accurately predict what will happen on a computer’s screen when any given button is pressed.
If that was hard to understand, or you feel like thumbing through a website for a few hours in the early morning as I often do, here’s a much funnier summary by XKCD.
Well, we are the alien. And the computers are life. We press buttons, see colors, hear noises, feel objects, and face the daunting task of relating everything while assuming nothing. And we cannot live without cheating this unbiased process that our theoretical alien takes; we have to just trust, that when we hit the “w” key while we type, a group of pixels in the shape of a “w” will change their color, without understanding all of the code and wiring powering this miracle. These short cuts, these models, do not reflect the complexity of what is actually happening. But there is no other way to live.
However, the danger of modeling is that we do not actually understand why these things happen. To the relationships and causalities we do not understand or dare to ponder, we consistently ascribe (illogical) supernatural explanations. While these can be sufficient for daily life, they can hinder those who want to disassemble the “computer of life” particle by particle. Real understanding is one that takes nothing for granted—one that assumes every door, every leaf, every cell, is potentially different, and expects nothing until it has verified every applicable particle and force in the system, and understands exactly how they will act.
Every. Single. Time.
And so part of the problem with philosophy is in its broadness. I find it nearly impossible to back up claims like “all people are inherently good,” because what are people but cells, and what are cells but atoms, and how can you expect such unpredictable congregations of matter to act consistently in a manner one could easily label with as vague as “good”? When someone says, “Tim walked down the street,” that is obviously an imperfect summary of what happened. There are a million, billion ways this situation could have happened. So statements like “walking is good” cannot possibly encompass every single interpretation of that summary. Any action done by anything we call “alive” is almost too complex to ever quantify, let alone judge, or try to understand its consequences.
So we are left in a rut. Generalizations are next-to-useless, but there is no other way to understand our world. Models are necessary. But they are also unreliable, vague, and inaccurate until you create a model which reflects every single thing happening in a system.
In short, you don’t understand anything until you can no longer ask: “why?”
Which is what makes it so incredibly rewarding when a model works well.
It’s downright impossible, but there’s no other way to live.
chris mcelroy 
This relates to my ideas about discrimination, and the idea of stereotypes. You wisely infer that a “All ______ people are ______” cannot be true, and these generalizations are the basis of racism. In our world, each individual must be treated as “potentially different”, eliminating stereotypes, as well as many of the base assumptions of racism.
While, ideally, this may be true, I would like to challenge your ideas here a little bit.
When considering two different species, complex things such as intelligence are consistently different. However (according to CON Model, Truth and Lie, and actual science), species have no clear dividing line. Evolution simply serves to explain perceived average differences. In a way, any two organisms on Earth are simply just horribly (or maybe not) mutated descendants of some common ancestor. It is so difficult to find exact dividing lines between species, families, and other biological systems, because we are the only one assigning these terms. From another perspective, we are all literally one big family.
This somewhat cheesy logic aside, there still remain large differences between most species. However, this line fades as the species become more genetically similar. Imagine species A and B. The two are consistently different; A can solve a certain maze 90% of the time and B 20%. However, some of the As can only solve it 40% of the time, while some of the Bs get close to 50%. Would it be fair to discriminate between the two? This isn’t something as innocent as skin color; these are hardwired, genetic differences between the organisms. If you recognize something as A, you can assume that it can solve a maze more than a B. And you would be justifiably correct nearly every time.
Please do not take this as an argument for racism or sexism, which are much different topics. I am simply taking your idea (eliminating stereotypes) to its logical extreme. Speciesism exists and is supported by a large majority of humans. We do not respect animal life (or expect them to be as intelligent, or give them the same rights) nearly as much as human life. However, as the line moves, it is unclear where this divisor should be. Clearly, humans are smarter than a single bacteria. But is every human smarter than every gorilla? Every homo erectus? Where does this line stop? Does it even exist?
Generalization is inevitable.
To generalize, group, discriminate, has been one of humanities greatest perceived weaknesses in the modern era. However, it is a “weakness” we have continued to perpetrate, and if it serves no use, as you say, then why? To me, humans often take things that work on a basic scale, and apply them to something larger, or more complex. If we assume this is a basic human trait, it can easily explain our generalization. In our beginnings, we needed to group. Red berries were poisonous, black berries were edible, these kinds of repetitions allowed us to survive, and thrive, to become the force humanity is today. However, in our modern culture, we do not need these basic assumptions, but we still discriminate similarly. We have instead taken this basic instinct to a complex level, and this is the flaw of our society. Humanity cannot perceive well between simple and complex structures, so we group complex things like people, by simple things like color or sex. Humans also use this same basic habit to realize that eating a fruit of the same color and shape as another I have eaten before probably won’t kill you. In this basic way, we need to generalize, without that, we would be almost without memory, constantly figuring out that this similar food is not in fact different, but close to the same.
This is in no way my trying to discredit your work. I find your ideas eloquently stated, and your philosophy new and exhilarating, so I simply wish to contribute. Thank you.
-1n3v1+ab|3
P.S. Congratulations on seven. I see kcirtaPatrick beat me to the discrimination post.
You seem to be asserting that our modeling ability arrived as an evolutionary adaptation (which I would have to agree with) that has now come around to hinder us in our new, modern culture (which I will try to argue against for the next few lines).
I know that you cede that “In this basic way, we need to generalize, without that, we would be almost without memory, constantly figuring out that this similar food is not in fact different, but close to the same;” clearly, if I didn’t trust any new piece of food just because I haven’t checked it for poison yet, I would have some serious social difficulties. However, as I argue in PRO Models, models are necessary for EVERYTHING.
Yes, this skill of recognizing “this object [car, tree, gun, bow and arrow] is like others I have seen, it probably functions similarly” is important. But it is a skill literally every animal has. If you can recognize something, that means you have developed the ability to create an idea of an object in your mind based on smell, sight, touch, or something else, and use this model to figure out when it returns. Ants can do this.
Higher mammals can detect more complex things, like faces, emotions, words, and even plans. The ability to model more complex, larger ideas–to “take things that work on a basic scale, and apply them to something larger, or more complex”–is a feature, an indicator of intelligence, not a flaw.
Humans are simply stunning in their ability to model. Michio Kaku argues that it is our ability to extend these models into the future that sets our consciousness on a different level than anything else we have discovered. We model people’s personalities, different styles of architecture, and the laws of science. The LAWS of the entire UNIVERSE. These are all models; we have taken individual experiments, and applied them on a universal scale.
However, this does come with a flaw, one that I think both you and I were getting at but not quite fully representing. Humans take in insane amounts of data. We have to learn first what makes up the universe, then we can begin to carefully try to piece together how things interact on both smaller and larger scales. Atomic and Galactic. Personal and Global. In correlating this data, we often obtain false (or, referencing my comment to kcirtaPatrick, nearly false, which can be the whole problem sometimes…) positives; among our list of assumed causations, things such as “Grand pianos sound better,” “republicans think this way,” or “black cars get hotter in the sun,” we inevitably have ideas like “[gender] is normally democratic” or “[race] is normally smarter.” And some of the problem can be in when these things are partially true, such as when the wage gap between genders is partially explained by actual differences between said genders. Our hyperactive and extremely powerful ability to model everything we see inevitably leads us to correlating things (especially really obvious things; skin color is simply the first thing you see about some one, not their personality) that should not be (skin color is a very bad indicator of personality).
This ability is not in any way the flaw of society. You will be hearing a lot more from me on what IS the flaw of society. This ability is the only reason we have managed to create as brilliant a civilization as we have; ideas like electricity, economies, school systems, or anything you might see as redeeming in society are all products of our ability to model.
I hope you enjoy my spewing all of this at you; I love disagreements, arguments, and good thought about a topic, and you are providing me these. I too love how you state your ideas (I’d love to see more of them, have you made anything like this where I could read what you think, or seen any other good blogs?). While I’m on the topic, how did you find this site?
Anyways, I love the contribution and the dialogue; this is exactly what I hoped for. Thanks for the congratulations as well. You’ll be hearing more from me in the future.
Thank you for effectively invalidating my point, I enjoy it when I find someone more intelligent than I. As for how I came across your site, that is more complicated. I was told to find someone on IGN named T0rch (my friend wanted to prove a point so he found some random article) and in the process I found your site. It was honestly just a coincidence that I decided to click on your site, but it is one I am thankful for.
If death is inevitable, why do we live?
I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of your post, but it is simply a thought that I would like to put out there. In our lives, we often say things like, “This will happen soon, so I will do it now”. For example, in chess, which I admittedly am not that good at, I often sacrifice pieces that I know will die, because their death is inevitable. Therefore, instead of letting the piece be killed outside of my control, I try to use its death to my advantage. So why do we not treat our own life like such? Taking a religious point of view, death, if we have lived our lives right, will only put us in heaven, a place infinitely better than this Earth. So, assuming we have lived our lives without sin, why do we want to live? Why do we strive to survive, take medicine, be safe, if our death is so advantageous? It is illogical, as well as inefficient, to be safe. Some would argue that they stay on this Earth to improve the Earth itself before they go to heaven, but can it not be said that others could do the same as yourself? Our planet is dying from having too many people, not too little. So, speaking to the religious community, live dangerously, we need to get rid of some pieces on this crowded board, and you will end up being happier yourself. Reading this through, this sounds surprisingly condescending and somber. I am simply wondering why even religious people try to extend their lifespans, and not to allow themselves to go to heaven. In my own belief, I don’t truly think religious people should die, I only pursue this from a religious standpoint. I believe everyone should live as long as they can, because this is the only life you will have. I am interested to know what you believe, and I hope you continue to post and reply.
-1n3v1+ab|3
Wow. Those are some great thoughts. I will be addressing a lot of these topics in coming posts–they span a lot of themes.
First, I would like to add something to my previous post on models: even if you see the world as one that cannot be modeled, THAT is itself a model for the world. Its seems needlessly trippy, but it’s true. I always try to be working on a few models for the world; frames that I can spend some time trying to fit events into, to test how well they hold up (2 recent examples I’ve been playing with: opposites become true as scale/level changes radically, and trying to create a religion for a tribe I might write about to believe). Anything that functions like this is a model; therefore even the con models ideas are a model themselves.
Now, to your points: I think we do spend our lives as doomed pieces on a chessboard, and its a wonderful metaphor (model…) that I’ll keep with me. However, it is incredibly difficult to see the larger picture. Imagine if each piece had to move themselves in chess with no coordination and they could only see a set number of spaces around them. It becomes difficult to know when you are doomed, how soon it will happen, or if 90% of the board is pawns and everyone else would have more mobility if you died. However, this analogy can explain why people go to battle and the bravery they can show in war.
A more realistic way to answer your question is evolutionarily. We are not logical chess pieces, coldly deciding to end the struggle when our lives cannot help the cause (even if we could somehow decide this in such a complicated world). Animals fight to preserve themselves. It is very difficult to change that fight to one which favors the species (or the entire global ecosystem) over the individual or family. We will use all of the science, medicine, and technology we can to preserve ourselves, because it is what animals do in general. Typically the fight for individual survival equates to species survival; most species don’t fight against their own overpopulation.
Finally, I must address your religious arguments. Personally, I respect and like to hear any worldview which is consistent; it aligns with personal experiences (which may differ from person to person) and is internally consistent. These worldviews, however, can be incredibly delicate, which I would say is true for most religions currently, leading to our world of many, many confused, disillusioned, and unsure people. For example, it seems difficult to me to set up a vision of a “perfect” world after death, but criminalize going to it (killing yourself or trying to get to heaven early, I believe, renders you unworthy of it) (difficult as in the logic is hard to explain to a five year old, which seems like a good test of whether something is simple logic–definitely not if it is true or false, however!). This rule, however, explains why it would be hard to convince a religious person that they should kill themselves to benefit the world and go into heaven; they wouldn’t be allowed in.
Finally, most people simply follow their habits. When you have learned how to live in the world as best you can, you simply continue to try to do it better. Unless something catastrophic happens, the human mind will continue believing what it did, reinforcing opinions of people, food, and religions. These models become stronger and stronger the longer they remain unchallenged (which means you should always take the time to ask if you should try that food, or activity, or give someone a second chance, or take the other side of a debate you are opinionated on, or just do something insanely random–I found myself kayaking out to watch the sunrise this morning after staying up all night, and it was incredible). So when you confront someone with a question like: what if everything you have been trying to do was wrong/useless? they will typically disregard it or scoff at it. Taking the time to question why we should even be alive is extremely important–our minds, and our cultures, only remain healthy as long as we are constantly asking ourselves if we are doing well, if we are on the right path, using the power of our mind(s) to widen our view of the chessboard, so that it seems we are moving together, instead of all blindly charging forward at once.
Again, I will be talking about all of these ideas soon; I’ve been trying to space out posts so that I don’t give away all of my ideas in a week. I’m brimming with plans for this site, however–don’t worry that the posts aren’t coming!
Haha, just realized I said finally twice… My writing quality definitely diminishes in comments/at 1 in the morning after an all nighter (I have slept some…)
Again, thank you for your intelligent response, and it’s nice to know that the posts will continue to stay fairly constant. As for your ideas, I like the concept of the first person chessboard model, that flaw in my argument continued to pester me when writing my first response. However, evolution does answer why we want to stay alive, but that very instinct is invalidated when the idea of God or heaven is also present. In the end, and as you touch on earlier in your response, I believe this whole thing can be answered by just remembering that humans are, and will continue to be, illogical.
-1n3v1+ab|3
P.S. When I tried to reply to your reply, it just sort of disappeared into the website, and it doesn’t look it posted. I think there might be a glitch in the matrix.
Interesting. It probably was becoming too indented.
That or your right, and we’re about to bring the internet crashing down with our comments….