From: 		"Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Subject:		 Re: Q. on Penrose arg: why new *physics*?
Date: 			Thu, 07 Aug 1997 10:41:36 -0400
Message: 	33e9de9f

JRStern wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 14:59:19 -0400, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
>  wrote:
> >>JRStern wrote:
> >> The alternative theory being that they are caused by just enough
> >> rationality, of a possibly mistaken nature.
> >
> >Just enough to result in suicide being the second leading cause of
> >death among teenagers who have not yet reached their reproductive
> >prime.  What's your idea of "just enough"?
> 
> When the universe was designed, nobody asked me how much is enough.
> 

Just as well, considering your view on what is "just enough".

> >here's that theory of rationality I was talking about, and
> >which I know you are just dying to see.  (actually not, since it is
> >obvious you have been hoping against hope to lightly dismiss me as
> >a crackpot).
> 
> I try to express opinions on people's theories and statements without
> judging them as individuals -- this is a tough game we're in together.
>

Great news.  Up til now, your responses have seemed a bit flippant and
shallow.
 
> 
> There's much in what you write about I find interesting, that some
> explanation of rationality might relate to morality.  However, as I
> said before, it's a long throw from any of this to the statement that
> this or that physical theory is necessitated on any kind of moral
> basis.
>

I agree.  But then my own theory is just the converse of this, now
isn't it?

	"Humans and baboons have evolved by natural selection.
	If you look at the way natural selection works, it seems
	to follow that anything that has evolved by natural
	selection should be selfish.  Therefore we must expect
	that when we go and look at the behavior of baboons, 
	humans, and all other living creatures, we will find it
	to be selfish.  If we find that our expectation is wrong
	if we find that human behavior is truly altruistic [e.g.,
	self-endangering Greenpeacers, kama kazis, etc.], then
	we will be faced with something puzzling, _something which
	needs explaining_ [my underline]." (Richard Dawkins)
 


> >While I have endeavored to
> >employ the model to represent both the valuative and cognitive
> >profiles we might expect to see if evolutionary theory is
> >correct, it should be apparent that there is a considerable
> 
> >    Not only are ___we___ more
> >altruistic than our theory predicts ...
> 
> Then get another theory, one that at least allows for variation.
> 

What did you have in mind in lieu of the theory of natural selection?

> > ... (Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, war heroes), ...
> 
> Hmm, maybe get another pronoun!
>

Why?
 
> >  ... but we are also a species racked with
> >emotional instability, most of which I believe can reasonably be
> >construed as resulting from a deficiency in self-worth.
> 
> I think I prefer a theory that allows for stable worthlessness.
>

Personally, like most theorists, I prefer a theory which maximizes 
explanatory coherence:


        !Epistemic Virtues! [of my proposed theory]

        1. The synthesis of natural science and the humanities, in
that it is possible to "explain" most previously anomalous human
behavior (self-worth related) in naturalistic terms (as the by-
product of the evolution of rationality).

        2. The synthesis of the twin anomalies of morality and
emotional instability to a single "thing", i.e., valuative
rationality.
        
        3. Introduction to the crude beginnings of an honest-to-
god _science_ of the mind, at least to the extent Kuhn has gotten
some of it right, in that the theory addresses a _psychical_
anomaly (feelings of wothlessness).

        4.  The absence of rationality paradoxes, such as Newcombs
Problem and prisoner's dilemma, in that strategic rationaities
are construed as hybrids of rationality and irrationality.

        5. The ability to eliminate rational irrationality (a la
Parfit, etc.) for the same reason.  In other words, with the
single exception of the theory above, _all_ theories of rationality
on the books are self-defeating.

        6. Resolution of the 2000 year old dilemma of justifying
morality, i.e., by bringing the mountain to Mohammed, i.e.,
morality = rationality.


-- 

               Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective 
     of So-Called Cognitive Science
  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476