On 30 Aug 2012, at 23:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired programs. codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing homogeneity for a single specie).

These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are the moral code.

These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums are know by our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive. That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared. To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.

What happens a broad variety of moral behaviours are really the expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology "The adapted mind"


about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close to ours, the rules are quite "normal". Both the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a "normal" society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system. Thanks to the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that await a development of evolutionary morals

Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.

I agree with this. But we must not confuse compuational analogies, which can be inspiring but are analogies only, and the comp hypothesis, where we bet we digitally truncable at some level. the second assertion does indeed break many computer analogies, like it breaks down digital physics, or the idea that consciousness is a program or a computation.


Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or exhale.

This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game theory.

To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated fairly and unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters worthy of disgust, shame, etc). We must understand how super- signifying images are telegraphed socially through and second-hand exaggeration and dramatization, of story-telling and parenting, demagoguery, religious authority, etc. Morality is politics. It is the subjective topology which elevates and lowers events, objects, people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce our own behavioral control before outside authorities need to. It isn't only a mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with computation. It is experience. That is all there is.

Consciousness, as a first person experience, is provably not a computable phenomenon. This is a consequence of comp, not an argument against it.

One can experience the computation of other experiences, but without experience, there is no access to computation.

That is arithmetical solipsism, and is wrong in the comp theory.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5ukgWqsvjuUJ .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to