Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Debunk"

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 14 posts ] 
Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Debunk"
Author Message
ShaeorUser avatarPosts: 7Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:44 pm Gender: Cake

Post Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Debunk"

This conversation is a carry over from the comments section of this ( https://youtu.be/VW2bxDOAx3Q ) video on youtube. I was referred by "spacedoohicky" to the forum so that we could discuss our opinions in a less combative, more careful manner. Also, youtube screwed up the notifications for both of us so heck to the platform.

I'd like to request that the thread be isolated, ideally. Or, minimally, that anyone wishing to join the conversation would not add too much complexity to the back and forth dialogue.

So, I'm going to dispense with any carry over from the previous argument, if that's alright, and instead make a general opening into my positions. No 'you were saying this or that', and so on.


I. Jordan Peterson is the reason for this conversation in three parts, corresponding to the Video Series referenced. His epistemology, his Archetypes, and whether or not he is a 'Christian', is all up for debate, though I'm less interested in the last point, and I wouldn't bother to defend a number of semantic oddities regarding Peterson. His recent prominence has made mainstream a philosophy that I have been thinking on for a long time. This makes me a decently direct surrogate.

What the topic comes down to is Darwinian Pragmatism. Doohicky expressed that he was unsure of the validity of Archetypes, so we can go over those. As well, I'm going to need you, @Doohicky, to give me a general idea of what you'd like to know or felt was off base.

I've been dissecting religion in a functional context for a long time. As someone who is personally spiritual but persuaded by the idea of natural selection, my hermenuetic needed jazzing up. There's a lot that's wrong with Christianity, so I'll repeat what I said in the comments, that it is critical no one is arguing for literalism, here. As long as a Christian is defined as 'one who believes [belief being ratify knowledge claim of] Christ's literal ressurection' then it is an epistemologically dismissable idea. For our purposes I am an Agnostic on the supernatural, yet still a kind of Gnostic Theist.


II. My positions are perennialist, I believe in eternal truths (such as cultural constants, archetypes, and virtues) which are nested in the conditions of our existence. These truths are Darwinian Forms*. Goodwill is to us as the gear is to the inner workings of a grasshopper's biological machinery ( https://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/up ... umping.gif ), both innate perfectional forms in the universe, one geometrically, the other memetically. Habitually, I've argued for an objective Evolutionary ethic of fitness and an innate ontological 'valuation' of being. I am completely opposed to moral relativity on a technical basis alone. We are norm following primates and our moral behaviors are rationally teleological (teleonomical). This is almost Kantian, in that norms must meet universifiable criterion through memetic fitness. As Natural Selection, these ethics are nonrandom, that fact is important.

Not only that, but an evolutionary ethic is an optimistic and enlightened thing. Obviously, it allows for brutality and selfishness in the more degraded conditions. What else could you expect, though? I can't condemn carnivores, because they are a condition of my existence. If I were being theological, I would say that life without suffering is like a square circle. Even God could not make it. In a kind of Amor Fati fashion, I would never condemn the existence of suffering, nor try to deny that strength obviously prevails. Might may make right, but a lot of lovely and uplifting things make might. See this paper ( https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc6d/9 ... dc746f.pdf ).

Humans are ultrasocial and our value of altruism is justified. This means I am a cosmic optimist. Synergy wins out in any iterative nonzerosum game, which our universe ultimately is, being functionally infinite in resources. Eventually we will eliminate the inefficiency of deadly competition altogether, as has been the trend, evident all the way back to wolves in their submission gestures. With the advent of the second replicators we are fighting constantly in an incredibly dynamic meta-system which encapsultes even this conversation, at a breakneck speed of development.

Politically, this would leave me pretty conservative. Those are my positions in brief.
Last edited by Shaeor on Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:48 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:06 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2634Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

Hi Shaeor, and welcome.

I or someone else might be able to restrict this thread to a few select users, even though it's already been created. Usually, a mod has to create it in restricted mode, but I think someone has been able to restrict a thread after its creation. We'll look into it.

Until then, I ask that other users refrain from posting here.

But we'll also have to know the exact user name of the other person joining. I assume it's this "spacedoohicky" person?
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:36 am
ShaeorUser avatarPosts: 7Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:44 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

Hey, thanks for having me! 'Spacedoohicky' has informed me his username on this forum is:

"Nougon"

So, he should be around shortly.
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:43 pm
NougonPosts: 6Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:15 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

This is spacedoohicky. Here to talk with Shaeor. :)

There's a lot that's come up (a cluster of family, and friend's birthdays, and events in my life) recently so give me a little time to reply within April. :oops:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:48 pm
ShaeorUser avatarPosts: 7Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:44 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

Take all the time you need, there's no rush for me. Looking forward to the conversation.
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:58 pm
NougonPosts: 6Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:15 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

I begin with few starting clarifying questions Shaeor. I'll try to not make them loaded questions.

Do you believe that some concepts have a mind independent source (out there in the universe, or within us by virtue of us being components of the universe)?

If you do believe that some concepts have a mind independent source what are those? For instance some people claim that math, or morality are woven into the fabric of the universe, and would exist independent of our existence.

Are evolutionary ethics in your opinion a study of the development of ethics by evolutionary means, or a means of developing ethics around evolutionary trends? Some combination of both maybe?

I'll also answer any questions you have as well. In time I'll also post my perspective on ethics, and/or morality, and my general epistemological framework.
Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:57 pm
ShaeorUser avatarPosts: 7Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:44 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

Nougon wrote:I begin with few starting clarifying questions Shaeor. I'll try to not make them loaded questions.


Very good.


On concept independence:
That was why I compared the idea of goodwill to the gear. The gear is an inherent form to geometry and engineering which humans discovered independently. It emerged as (cognitive) information, a meme, from dynamic interaction with reality. Reality being the Conceptual Selective Matrix. This was before being found in biomachinery, a congruent emergence.

The Conceptual Matrix is dictated like all matrices by the conditions of the physical universe. The meme '2 + 2 = 7' is selected out in the same fashion, through interaction with the Conditions, that 'killing all children' is. This is both a system of factuality and fitness, which allows for non-contradicting 'metaphorical truth', but within, preferably*, the meta-meme that it is metaphorical. This is to say that the gear and mathematics and ethics are recurrent functionalities in emergent dynamic systems.

The gear is an incredibly efficient form, perhaps perfect. In the same way the idea of 'good' exists at the physical limits of conceptualization. Because life is unconsciously purposeful, and this is an objective quality in physics (syntropic teleology), the conscious animal will always develop a word for 'suitable to purpose', in every conceivable form of sufficiently intelligent life.

This can be extended with success to many more concepts and words, both religious and secular, with varying degrees of relativity to more specific conditions. But Life, as a natural category of dynamic pattern, is a universal and absolute condition. This understanding is foundational to the analyzation of meaning.

I will note that asking whether or not these exist independent of us is a bit like asking whether a tree falling alone in the forest makes a sound, but I don't think you'd go that angle and I'm rather dismissive of it. The sound waves, much like all the Conditions which contain the blueprint to recurrently emerge these forms, will always exist. Hopefully this gives you an idea of my Epistemology/Ontology.


On Evolutionary Ethics:
Decidedly both. It is both an explanatory system and a scientific dialectic to dismantle quixotic ethics.


As for questions:
I would love a layout of positions like the one I gave. Ethics especially, because I am of the opinion that is a lynchpin of philosophy, tied into everything else.
Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:02 pm
NougonPosts: 6Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:15 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

Shaeor wrote:
I will note that asking whether or not these exist independent of us is a bit like asking whether a tree falling alone in the forest makes a sound, but I don't think you'd go that angle and I'm rather dismissive of it. The sound waves, much like all the Conditions which contain the blueprint to recurrently emerge these forms, will always exist. Hopefully this gives you an idea of my Epistemology/Ontology.



Sound from a tree falling isn't a concept so I wouldn't go that angle. I intend to find out if you draw a distinction between what exists without minds, what exists because of minds, and where you draw that distinction.

For instance do you believe the formulas of logic are mind independent? e.g. The law of non-contradiction is, or is not mind independent.


Shaeor wrote:

As for questions:
I would love a layout of positions like the one I gave. Ethics especially, because I am of the opinion that is a lynchpin of philosophy, tied into everything else.


I'll describe my epistemology, and my understanding of ethics in my next reply.
Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:33 pm
ShaeorUser avatarPosts: 7Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:44 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

Shaeor wrote:I will note that asking whether or not these exist independent of us is a bit like asking whether a tree falling alone in the forest makes a sound, but I don't think you'd go that angle and I'm rather dismissive of it. The sound waves, much like all the Conditions which contain the blueprint to recurrently emerge these forms, will always exist.


So, I make no distinction between information at any level, to elucidate. Neither genetic nor memetic. Both are named for the mediums of their information or patterns and their relative matrices. These matrices select for patterns against the conditions of their context, which are ultimately reducible to fractalizing ratios between being and nonbeing, at the furthest abstraction. This is consistently applicable in any possible universe and at any possible level (hence blackhole optimization theory) because it's the bedrock of ontology. We can only guess why the ratios are what they are, but to our relative universe, concepts like non-contradiction are innately functional. That we know.

The meme is defined not by our subjective experience of it, but the objective function it carries out in the relative systems. That function, a relationship to the cybernetic conditions from which it emerges, is contained like a blueprint in the objective world, waiting to be manifested. Logic, time, and space, are all examples of this. So, the potential certainly exists mind-independently. Whether the 'concept' itself does is weird enough that I think we can discard it. The Forms are pre-existent, just like the cosmological laws which condition them. This is very compatible with, if not synthesizing, Physicalism, Platonism, Phenomenalism, and other conceptions of reality, depending on extended arguments.

I can certainly say however that Logic, for instance, is contextualized in consciousness systems, obviously. Lobsters have no use for Logic yet contain its potential in the unrealized ratios between their dynamism and the cosmos.

Finally, in terms of evolutionary psychology and memetics, this principle of emergence encompasses all ideas and action.
Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:02 pm
NougonPosts: 6Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:15 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

Does that mean that you believe that concepts are not mind independent?

Is that what you mean by "named by their mediums"? Memes are of the mind?

What do you mean by information in this context? In the context of what you're saying is information what:

1. The appearance of order.
2. Collectible knowledge.
3. Communicable concepts
4. Symbols used for the transfer of concepts
5. Or do you subscribe to different sorts of information (potential equivocation)

What is not information in your understanding? As in how do you define information by what it is not?

My epistemology:

I assume the uniformity of nature. I am a naturalist. Specifically I am a methodological naturalist. And you might call me an evidentialist.

I am aware of the problem of induction, but that can be mitigated by framing evidential knowledge in terms of probabilities.

My ethics:

I use pretty much all types of ethical theories to some degree, but I favor certain ones. I favor:

1. The veil of ignorance
2. Empathy
3. Virtue
4. The principle of reciprocity
5 Goal based proofs of morality
6. Normative consensus

Those form the basis of my morality, and ethics. Not necessarily in order of importance.
Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:29 pm
ShaeorUser avatarPosts: 7Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:44 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

I mean by named that Memes and Genes are both selected information on a medium, the medium (context, conditions, or relative state of synergy with different systems) being the only real difference. For Genes that is DNA, for Memes it is the Mind. The conditions of DNA are different from Mind. DNA must contain information functional to the purposes of constructing biological machinery. Mind must contain information functional to the abstraction and navigation of massive phenomenological complexity, reducing it to reliable patterns. (Both have only the sole input output of Being and Nonbeing. The mediums are arbitrary at every conceivable level, emergence is the only law).

Certainly, there is also an interplay between these two systems, just as there is an interplay between all systems. No one domain is truly discrete. Whether it is scaling or size relative I'm not yet sure.

Now, I'm not educated enough to go in depth, but language and symbols are not arbitrary (nothing is). It is slightly beyond my expertise, but it's my solid understanding that there are many observed cultural constants in metaphorical language. Light, dark, order, chaos, solid, brittle, water-like, and so on, and so on. So yes to all questions except the fifth which is unclear to me.

"...As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer[wiki]."

As for what information is not, that is very tough. This is the single most complicated question you can ask in its ontological significance.

Absolutely everything within the mind, all sense data, memory, and concepts, are information. Everything pertaining to life. Information is the codifiable data which corresponds to work, and work is synonymous with Being, on a physical level as well. If we say something has no function, does nothing, then it would not have any interaction with anything else. It's contextless, formless, and without being too scholastic, I don't believe that something with no definable qualities 'exists', at least not to us. Your perception is an interaction between the systems of natural law, your evolved falculties, and all the million other dynamic ratios involved, each potentially reducible to information.

Information pertains mostly to cybernetic systems in this context, and it is not a fact that the universe is part of one, but it is that we are. I lean towards the theory that information is the ultimate reality. But this is an absolutely huge subject.


As for mind independence, I suppose I'm breaking the distinctions, somewhat. Math is independent of the mind in its objectivity, but knowledge itself is not. Because knowledge emerges inevitably from an innate synergy between Mind and* reality. Both elements are required to the Form. Since nothing is discrete, nothing is truly independent. However, the potential (which is the Form, which is stored God knows where) is still inborn to the cosmos. What I do know (knowledge coming next) is that these patterns of information are apparently consistent and useful.

That leads me to the problem of knowledge, and I'm glad you mentioned it. I've dealt with a number of people claiming there can be no knowledge and my response is always as follows.

Do I have absolute certitude that the laws of physics will be consistent in the next moments? No, I do not. But this turns knowledge into a rather useless category when we do know one thing, which is that we have sufficient knowledge of many things. So instead I defer to maximized probability. Consulting with all my memory and senses, it is a consistent pattern that reality will be continuous and nonrandom. I think we're in fairly tight agreement, here. I don't know about Evidentialism.

Morality and knowledge are navigations of a probabilistic universe defined by our finitude played against the infinite. As Jordan Peterson said, complexity is the fundamental problem.

Much like risk management, morality can work with broad probabilities. While everything is ultimately reducible to an assumption except for Cogito Ergo Sum, there is still a relatively perfect position on every matter, a priori. Relative to the available proofing of truthfulness, that is, and the effectiveness of our methods. Much like morality, it can be difficult to know when you are doing the most to assure your ethicality or factuality within available means. Hence the foundational importance of a will to good, or Love.
Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:00 am
NougonPosts: 6Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:15 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

Shaeor wrote:Now, I'm not educated enough to go in depth, but language and symbols are not arbitrary (nothing is). It is slightly beyond my expertise, but it's my solid understanding that there are many observed cultural constants in metaphorical language. Light, dark, order, chaos, solid, brittle, water-like, and so on, and so on. So yes to all questions except the fifth which is unclear to me.


Some people have strange definitions of information, and they switch between that, and the normative definition to move the goal posts when challenged about that strange definition. I do have a slightly different view of information that you, but I don't think you have a bizarre definition.


Shaeor wrote:
"...As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer[wiki]."

As for what information is not, that is very tough. This is the single most complicated question you can ask in its ontological significance.



Maybe, but I think it has a simple answer. In my opinion information is not nothing. In the general sense information is whatever exists. In a stricter sense information is what we can perceive.

Shaeor wrote:Information pertains mostly to cybernetic systems in this context, and it is not a fact that the universe is part of one, but it is that we are. I lean towards the theory that information is the ultimate reality. But this is an absolutely huge subject.



For reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on whether cybernetics is relevant to our specific topics of conversation.

Shaeor wrote:
As for mind independence, I suppose I'm breaking the distinctions, somewhat. Math is independent of the mind in its objectivity, but knowledge itself is not. Because knowledge emerges inevitably from an innate synergy between Mind and* reality. Both elements are required to the Form. Since nothing is discrete, nothing is truly independent. However, the potential (which is the Form, which is stored God knows where) is still inborn to the cosmos.



I don't believe that Maths are mind independent. I think that what is discrete is a matter of category. Like a house cat is not a dog is discrete, and both are mammals which is not discrete between those two species. So yes there are many discrete things.

As far as maths I'll get into that soon enough.

Shaeor wrote:
That leads me to the problem of knowledge, and I'm glad you mentioned it. I've dealt with a number of people claiming there can be no knowledge and my response is always as follows.

Do I have absolute certitude that the laws of physics will be consistent in the next moments? No, I do not. But this turns knowledge into a rather useless category when we do know one thing, which is that we have sufficient knowledge of many things. So instead I defer to maximized probability. Consulting with all my memory and senses, it is a consistent pattern that reality will be continuous and nonrandom. I think we're in fairly tight agreement, here. I don't know about Evidentialism.

Morality and knowledge are navigations of a probabilistic universe defined by our finitude played against the infinite. As Jordan Peterson said, complexity is the fundamental problem.

Much like risk management, morality can work with broad probabilities. While everything is ultimately reducible to an assumption except for Cogito Ergo Sum, there is still a relatively perfect position on every matter, a priori. Relative to the available proofing of truthfulness, that is, and the effectiveness of our methods. Much like morality, it can be difficult to know when you are doing the most to assure your ethicality or factuality within available means. Hence the foundational importance of a will to good, or Love.


So we definitely do agree that probability goes far to mitigate the problem of induction. That is if I get what you're saying.
Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:50 pm
ShaeorUser avatarPosts: 7Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:44 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

The author of that paper I sent you, Francis Heylighen, is a cyberneticist. His work is very relevant, including the relational principle. Generally you can assume I'm making an informed reference if you spot one, yes. And Cybernetics is a big one.

Note: I can't endorse everything on this site because I've yet to read through it all, but my philosophy is very similar in intent. Principia Cybernetica.

Nougon wrote:I don't believe that Maths are mind independent. I think that what is discrete is a matter of category. Like a house cat is not a dog is discrete, and both are mammals which is not discrete between those two species. So yes there are many discrete things.


I'm not sure my point has been made clear. A dog and a cat are separate categories, but the actual things are not discrete in the universe. They emerge, up to and including the category of the thing, in a dynamic, as a model. What they are is distinguishable, not truly discrete. And what I mean by truly here is important. So, you can interpret my opinion of math either way. Everything in the universe we perceive is not discrete because our very perception is a synergy between mind and matter. For that matter, categories are a human construct, but they are based on distinguishable differences in the functionality of things. So if you want to say that mind objects are discrete, for instance in the law of noncontradiction, that's correct as well. But in actuality even opposites have an interplay. We may just want to pass up the word discrete altogether, but I leave it to you.

And yes, I think we agree on knowledge until shown otherwise.
Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:56 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1966Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Archetypes and Darwinian Pragmatism "Jordan Peterson Deb

If I were being theological, I would say that life without suffering is like a square circle. Even God could not make it


Then why call it God?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 16, 2018 2:48 am
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 14 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests