So, I was thinking about how people conclude stuff. We tend to think of ourselves as having about two levels of conclusion: the “rational” level, which is the level we identify with, considering its conclusions to be our conclusions, and the “emotional” level, which is the one that determines our behavior. (Akrasia is disagreement between the two levels.)
Now, there doesn’t seem to be any obvious rule for what becomes a rational level conclusion. If you go outside and wonder at nature, have you proven that God exists? For some people, it sure feels like it. If you listen to a speech on television and are enchanted by its rhetoric, have you proven that the person making it is a good person? For some people, it sure feels like it. If you open your eyes and see a table, have you proven that there’s a table there? For just about everybody, it sure feels like it. If you perform a mathematical calculation and determine that the expected value of utility is maximized by performing a certain action, have you proven that that is the best action to take? For some people, it sure feels like it.
My first guess as to what’s going on was this: The neural mechanisms converting patterns into beliefs are essentially arbitrary. People learn to ignore those mechanisms that turn out to be wrong; those who end up having to ignore unusually many of these mechanisms end up unintelligent, and those who ignore few but still pay attention to too many wrong ones end up insane. Some people ignore few of their mechanisms but still manage to ignore most of the wrong ones, and these people end up sane and intelligent, but it’s not really possible to determine who these people are, since everyone thinks it’s the people who agree with them.
So, I was thinking about how people conclude stuff. We tend to think of ourselves as having about two levels of conclusion: the “rational” level, which is the level we identify with, considering its conclusions to be our conclusions, and the “emotional” level, which is the one that determines our behavior. (Akrasia is disagreement between the two levels.)
Now, there doesn’t seem to be any obvious rule for what becomes a rational level conclusion. If you go outside and wonder at nature, have you proven that God exists? For some people, it sure feels like it. If you listen to a speech on television and are enchanted by its rhetoric, have you proven that the person making it is a good person? For some people, it sure feels like it. If you open your eyes and see a table, have you proven that there’s a table there? For just about everybody, it sure feels like it. If you perform a mathematical calculation and determine that the expected value of utility is maximized by performing a certain action, have you proven that that is the best action to take? For some people, it sure feels like it.
My first guess as to what’s going on was this: The neural mechanisms converting patterns into beliefs are essentially arbitrary. People learn to ignore those mechanisms that turn out to be wrong; those who end up having to ignore unusually many of these mechanisms end up unintelligent, and those who ignore few but still pay attention to too many wrong ones end up insane. Some people ignore few of their mechanisms but still manage to ignore most of the wrong ones, and these people end up sane and intelligent, but it’s not really possible to determine who these people are, since everyone thinks it’s the people who agree with them.