Smartest person you kn(e)w

[smcder]

No doubt meditation is a useful tool in quieting the mind of an individual beset by pain of various kinds and overwhelmed by the state of the society and world in which he or she is trying to live a purposeful and peaceful life. Mindfulness meditation in particular seems to help practitioners to function in the world with an increased sense of personal efficacy, at least in terms of overcoming unhealthy attachments and free-floating anxiety, to live a balance between the self and as much of the world as one can handle. But attachment to this world is our natural condition, like the primordial 'affectivity' Panksepp recognizes in the most primitive organisms, which evolves into protoconsciousness, consciousness, and mind. We are born open to and connected with that which surrounds us, our environment and the others in it, and this openness gives us the contextual sensible world we are part of and present to, providing us with both 'satisfactions' (Whitehead) and challenges. We can't abdicate our situation within this world without losing the ground of our actively meaningful existence in it -- and which becomes our responsibility to bring about for others as well as ourselves. These extracts you bring from Kornfield are very important to the extent that they show how care of the self is not sufficient (though it's necessary) for satisfaction in life and genuinely meaningful existence.

Yes and I'll have to think on it but this would be very different for Buddhism. I'm not an apologist for Buddhism ... In that I don't think of myself as Buddhist ... I think of myself as human and trying to be more so.

But I do know that Thich Nhat Hahn - the Vietnamese Zen monk has done maybe the most to bring Buddhism to an active state in this century. He recognized the problem of "cloistered Buddhism" and the need to be active in the world.

Meditation - simply as working with two basic factors of the mind

Awareness - what comes in to the mind
Mindfulness - holding something in mind

Is nothing special and doesn't involve altered states ... as you've noted people meditate on many things ... but to cultivate the practice has been helpful to me actually to not escape painful situations ... to be aware of when I zone out or avoid something painful or when I want distraction. But also to avoid masochism! It's also refreshing. But so is a nap!

I think one of the greatest benefits for me in the past year has been dealing with physical pain - along with self hypnosis. And Tylenol.

By examining pain mindfully I find it's not solid and it's not me and that has allowed me to deal directly with it rather than anesthetize it.

 

[Constance]

Ufology wrote: The discussion has moved away from what my personal decision would be if I had the choice to trade some compassion for intelligence, so that it would be easier for me to figure out ways to help the less fortunate without compromising my own material situation, to global issues like World Wars and weapons of mass destruction.

No I didn't think psychopathy has anything to do with you. I had thought we discussed it earlier but it may have been another thread. I took the self report and was very honest with how my inner dialogue went which is why I think I had such a split - I do have most of the primary traits but fewer of the social and of course I don't act those out ... probably not valid for many reasons but I did score high on psychopathy on a professional administered test ... so it's interesting to think about considering the kind of work I got involved in. The psychiatrist at the time said I should be good at either crime or business but he was wrong.

Most psychologists and psychiatrists have a lot invested in merely enabling their clients to cope/function in the world they're stuck in, which leads them to be less critical than they ought to be toward the world as presently constituted/constructed.

Re the test you posted related to 'psychopathy', it's the same situation there. Both you and I scored higher for 'psychopathy' in the questions related to 'social psychopathy', and those questions concerned adaptability toward values dominant in our society today. Look at the questions again. As I recall they did not measure aggressiveness and destructiveness toward others but indifference to or rejection of general bourgeois values in the interests of keeping the current ideological system running smoothly.

 

[smcder]

Your next extract from Kornfield identifies the major issues more clearly:



Years ago a statement was implanted in my consciousness by a teacher specializing in American Literature, Criticism, and Culture, based in what he called an "organic" view of human existence: "That which a being is made to bear, he/she is not made to bear the want of." Nature has evolved consciousness and mind in our species and, if we are to live authentically in terms of our given condition, we have to find our way in the world on the basis of what we learn and think through our interactions with the world and what we subsequently do in and with the world. Our species short and brutal history has rendered most of us passive spectators of what those in power have chosen to do with the means and resources of the planet and with us, reducing us to cogs in machines, in Marx's terms "means of production." We no longer feel that we possess agency, individually or collectively. Perhaps the future of the planet is indeed out of our hands. But even if that is the case, we need to empower ourselves to the extent we can through the human solidarity that Scheler speaks of, or else in effect we abdicate ourselves, our intrinsic possibilities of taking responsibility. Sartre quoted Rousseau: "Man is free and is everywhere in chains." Neither said we should remain that way, and it is unhealthy -- because it is immoral, a failure of caring -- for us to do so. So yes, we should do what we can (and we can do a great deal) to heal ourselves, and then we should do what we can to heal others and to improve the conditions in which they and we live..

I've always waned to pursue the existential idea of freedom ... we touched in it on the C&P a couple of times ... it's a tonic to Transhumanism and "just"-ism.

I'm glad to see it in this discussion and now.

 

[smcder]

Most psychologists and psychiatrists have a lot invested in merely enabling their clients to cope/function in the world they're stuck in, which leads them to be less critical than they ought to be toward the world as presently constituted/constructed.

Re the test you posted related to 'psychopathy', it's the same situation there. Both you and I scored higher for 'psychopathy' in the questions related to 'social psychopathy', and those questions concerned adaptability toward values dominant in our society today. Look at the questions again. As I recall they did not measure aggressiveness and destructiveness toward others but indifference to or rejection of general bourgeois values in the interests of keeping the current ideological system running smoothly.

Yes ... In this society I don't mind being a "socio path" either!

 

[Constance]

There is a bit of a paradox there ... I think ... do you see it too?

Not at the moment. Can you point it out for me?

Also, Failing to preserve 1 billion people, it could be argued (says Mephistopheles) would also have moral ethical and emotional consequences.

For whom?

 

[Constance]

the Hiroshima incident is pretty close: very intelligent people (Oppenheimer, Groves, The President) made a pragmatic choice to inflict horrific death and injury (for generations) on a mostly civilian population on the rationale that it would end the war sooner and save in aggregate more lives (I dont know if those calculations were ever done or could reasonably be done) and Oppenheimer decided unto the end of his life it was the right thing to do ...

How 'intelligent', and 'intelligent' in what ways? I didn't join this thread until recently because I don't believe that 'intelligence' is an abstract quantity whose value is indifferent to the tasks to which it is restricted and applied. That may be the case for intelligent machines but it is not the case in human thought.

Re the atomic bombs dropped on two cities in Japan, I recommend to everyone a dramatized series called "Manhatten" broadcast on the WGN cable channel on Sunday nights this past spring/summer. The first fifteen segments will no doubt be replayed again before the second season (now in production) is aired, some time in 2015.

 

[Constance]

Meditation - simply as working with two basic factors of the mind

Awareness - what comes in to the mind
Mindfulness - holding something in mind

Is nothing special and doesn't involve altered states ... as you've noted people meditate on many things ... but to cultivate the practice has been helpful to me actually to not escape painful situations ... to be aware of when I zone out or avoid something painful or when I want distraction. But also to avoid masochism! It's also refreshing. But so is a nap!

I think one of the greatest benefits for me in the past year has been dealing with physical pain - along with self hypnosis. And Tylenol.

By examining pain mindfully I find it's not solid and it's not me and that has allowed me to deal directly with it rather than anesthetize it.

. . . as you've noted people meditate on many things ... but to cultivate the practice has been helpful to me actually to not escape painful situations ... to be aware of when I zone out or avoid something painful or when I want distraction. But also to avoid masochism! It's also refreshing. But so is a nap!

I think one of the greatest benefits for me in the past year has been dealing with physical pain - along with self hypnosis. And Tylenol.

By examining pain mindfully I find it's not solid and it's not me and that has allowed me to deal directly with it rather than anesthetize it.

Concerning pain, I'm for whatever works to alleviate it without doing harm, and meditation clearly does that for you. It also enables you to explore the levels of your own consciousness, an unquestionable value for you personally and in general for all westerners who practice meditation. It is also a primary means to increased understanding of what human consciousness is as exemplified in neurophenomenological research such as that posted by @flipper in the C&P thread today.

 

[smcder]

Why would anyone even suggest that you need to give up intelligence to gain more compassion? How much intelligence would you give up to be "enlightened"? How much intelligence would you give up to be able to love others? As a metaphor that everyone here knows, intellect is often viewed as being located in the head, whereas compassion is located in the heart. They are 2 separate things. The people who designed the Nazi Death Camps were probably extremely intelligent people but devoid of any heart=compassion. (Of course, they may have been clinical psychopaths who were incapable of empathy of any kind, yet intellectually brilliant). I actually was very annoyed by this thread, as people seemed (just to me) to be showing each other how intellectually smart they were via their association with other intellectually brilliant people. Maybe it is just my age (62). I am tired of the ego needing to puff itself up, like a bird on a cold day. This is probably just a personal issue for me, after a life time of Information Systems work where many peoples' idea of a casual conversation was to discuss their alma maters and rank them! God Help Me! I wanted to run screaming into the street! Yet I acknowledge that this thread has taken a miraculous turn, moving toward emotional IQ. The person I respect most in my life was a total unknown. I often had to work very late hours monitoring database loads and making statewide software releases available. Always, when I would do so, a janitor would stop by to chat. If the rest of the group were there, they would have been appalled at my open friendliness for this lowly clean-up man. But his warmth and kindness were new to me. The "soul" showing through this man was humbling, yet he always made me feel that I was much warmer and kinder than otherwise saw myself. He seemed to bring those traits to the surface. He was genuinely HAPPY in a role that everyone else in that glitzy 7 by 24 Data Center would consider horrible. He didn't lecture me like Socrates on the meaning of life - I seemed to simply know it via osmosis. He changed me forever. One night he was not there and another man replaced him. I asked about my friend, only to learn that the man replacing him that night was his boss. My friend had passed away that day so the boss was taking his place. The next night a young cold as ice Latino lad made the rounds emptying waste baskets. And so it was.

I realized that in my life what matters is being kind and loving. High intelligence is irrelevant. I am glad there are people out there who can design the latest high tech toy for us. I am glad that new medical diagnosis tools are coming on-line that save lives. I respect high intelligence, but just don't find it a personal goal or god in my life now. I feel that high intelligence is very highly valued here on the forum. For that reason, I probably won't ever feel very comfortable here. When I left in 2010, there were around 50 or more people contributing on the forum. Now it seems there are perhaps 10? Is the caliber of discussion just too high or risky for the other subscribers (assuming there are any) to feel comfortable joining in? (Shrug). Duh, I don't know. Well, while you guys debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, I think I will just join Winnie the Pooh in trying hard to "think, think, think" (tapping my head) where I left my bowl of honey.

I hope you'll stay and say more here ... although I kind of think you're doing the very same thing yourself! ;-) (it was angels on pins that gave you away) I rather suspect your IQ is "respectable" - whatever that means. But yes what happens is some people have been known to jump on any little error or go running to a dictionary and so that can act to ratchet up the verbal-ese ... and yes, people are afraid to say something dumb ... and I've found it's perfectly ok to be religious and to have all kinds of gods ... as long as you call it something else, entirely. At any rate - it's probably the same here as it is anywhere else, since it's made up of people - so I do hope you'll give us a chance ... we have hearts too and some have even been known to get sappy this time of year (you know who you are!).

Anway, I like it that you don't seem to care what (or how much or well) anyone thinks - and I hope you'll keep speaking your mind and bringing your kind and lovingness to the forum.

Stephen

 

[Burnt State]

@smcder that's a 'like' given purely in the name of sappiness.

 

[smcder]

How 'intelligent', and 'intelligent' in what ways? I didn't join this thread until recently because I don't believe that 'intelligence' is an abstract quantity whose value is indifferent to the tasks to which it is restricted and applied. That may be the case for intelligent machines but it is not the case in human thought.

Re the atomic bombs dropped on two cities in Japan, I recommend to everyone a dramatized series called "Manhatten" broadcast on the WGN cable channel on Sunday nights this past spring/summer. The first fifteen segments will no doubt be replayed again before the second season (now in production) is aired, some time in 2015.

How and in what ways ... exactly. The Manhattan Project has fascinated me for years - there is a good movie with Dwight Schultz as Oppenheimer and Paul Newman as Leslie Groves Fat Man and Little Boy - and I did a lot of reading about it. There is a chapter in Shattuck's Forbidden Knowledge and Oppenheimer's reactions after the bombing and then years later are also fascinating. I want to know if any of the men involved visited Japan just after the bombing?

I started the thread because it wasn't a question I could ever answer ... this:

I didn't join this thread until recently because I don't believe that 'intelligence' is an abstract quantity whose value is indifferent to the tasks to which it is restricted and applied.

Puts the finger right on it ... every where I went I was around people smarter than me in so many different ways. We have plenty of smart ... but I still think we lack imagination as:

"she's too smart for her own good" means something entirely different from "he has too much imagination" ...

so, although I didn't have your answer above ... I did realize is wasn't lack of smarts, so I thought I would ask "what is the rarest human quality" what do we lack? and @Burnt State replied

compassion

So I posed the hypothetical question "how much IQ would you give up to be more compassionate"?

this didn't work because everyone said they didn't have to give up any IQ to be more compassionate ... but that's not the point ... the point is to see how much you really value the quality of compassion ... I suspect, as @beyondthestargate has pointed out, we really like our IQs around here! (by the way @beyondthestargate how would you answer the question?)

@Burnt State argued that intelligence could be used to understand a person's situation better and therefore to be more compassionate. I don't think intelligence has one thing to do with compassion ... and I don't think we can assess who needs how much compassion - no matter how intelligent we are. I think that compassion is a quality of mind and that it's limitless, in that it can be applied to every living being without restriction, regardless of their situation or our understanding of it. So compassion is an attitude toward the world and those in it. That doesn't mean we let everyone do whatever they want, far from it - that wouldn't be compassionate. Now, what a compassionate intelligent person would do in a given situation ... that's a different question and one I'm trying to explore by @ufology's response, which I thought was very interesting:

"How about switching the question around: How much compassion would you be willing to exchange for an increase in intelligence? Personally I would be willing to make that trade-off because right now I have plenty of compassion, but I'm not quite super-smart enough to be able to easily acquire the resources needed to alleviate the problems associated with the issues that give rise to feelings of compassion without compromising my own security beyond what I'm comfortable with.

I donate modestly to the food bank. I dropped some coins in the Salvation Army collection basket over Christmas, but I have next to zero income, so giving it all away to people less fortunate than me would just put me in the same boat as them, and I'm smart enough to know that would be just plain stupid, and quite frankly I'm also too selfish for that. I need to maintain a certain level of personal comfort even if other people have less; and I don't think it's our responsibility to help out anyone unless we really want to, nor do I like being extorted emotionally by pleas for charity.'

and here

"I would give up enough compassion to give me an edge sufficient to allow me to make a far more substantial material contribution to ending the problems that give rise to the need for the compassion in the first place. As it is now I feel emotional about the plight of those less fortunate, but I'd gladly give up that feeling to be able to actually do more than empathize. I don't think people need to have compassion to know what the right thing to do is, and that the problems need material solutions more than just people's empathy. I don't want my guilt assuaged. I'd be happier having no guilt to assuage and the means to do something material and substantial. I'd be happier seeing other people suffer less whether I had any compassion for them or not."


So I'm not sure compassion and guilt go together and I'm not sure as you gave up compassion for intelligence that you wouldn't be motivated to maximize intelligence and eliminate compassion and then you wouldn't be motivated to solve people's problems except if they affected your level of comfort.

and here

"It's possible to be happy for the wellness of others without having to feel sympathy for their misfortunes ( which is the definition of compassion ), and people can be motivated by what makes them happy, not just by doing something to avoid feeling unhappy. Also, sympathy for the misfortunes of others isn't the only thing that tells us the difference between what is right or wrong. Hypothetically, it should be possible to be completely dispassionate and still do the right things based on needs for survival, health, education, standard of living, etc."

So that's where the hypothetical came in - by this reasoning it seems that killing six billion to save one billion would be acceptable - it meets the criteria, it's dispassionate and meets the needs for survival, health and standard of living. But then he surprised me and said mass murder was wrong under any circumstances. So I must not understand how he's applying the above reasoning. To refuse to do anything is to let the entire population die. Mankind is extinct.

"It seems to me that the largest portion of suffering and misfortune could be alleviated with material solutions, and to be clear about that I include things like schools, doctors, counsellors, and such in that category because even though education and counselling in the purest sense aren't "material", we still receive those benefits by way of having the material facilities and people in place. So yes I would be happier having the extra intelligence points required to boost me into a position to provide those things on a wider scale than to feel compassionate while not having the means to do nearly as much about it."

Again - it seems that the reasoning above would choose to save the one billion and thus the species? And so we are back to Hiroshima where "intelligent" men like Oppenheimer chose to commit mass murder (?) not to save the species but to advance the timeline of the war and save lives ...

And finally, I come back to this:

I need to maintain a certain level of personal comfort even if other people have less; and I don't think it's our responsibility to help out anyone unless we really want to, nor do I like being extorted emotionally by pleas for charity.'

Because I think many of us are maintaining personal comfort at the expense of others - at great expense of others.

 

[smcder]

@smcder that's a 'like' given purely in the name of sappiness.

I knew you'd cop to it! ;-)

 

[smcder]

@ufology
at
I need to maintain a certain level of personal comfort even if other people have less; and I don't think it's our responsibility to help out anyone unless we really want to, nor do I like being extorted emotionally by pleas for charity.'

hypothetical

Aliens come to you and offer to re-distribute all the world's resources equally among all 7 billion people.

No catches, but you have to take your 1/7 billionth of those resources and nothing more.

Yes? or No? (no Googling)

 

[Burnt State]

So you would not have bombed Hiroshima/Nagasaki under the rationale of ending the war and saving (on balance) more lives? I don't say that is what would have happened - but that's what the rationale was. I think the letter Einstein wrote is available - will try to find it.

The problem with war is that you are always killing more people you don't like - the Japanese, say for example, in order to stop killing the people you like that look like you. The trick to the whole thing is to simply stop killing. What would have been a better option to end WWII - two big bombs or a cease fire? Of course the cease fire is critiqued in that the delusional men of power need to dominate and can only be stopped by bullets. Perhaps the world has enough bullets to kill everyone? But I don't see how killing is ever a moral, or more moral solution. At what point should aggrsssions against others be interrupted and when - those are more important questions for me.

During the Vietnam War Thich Nhat Hanh came to America to explain to everyone that the Vietnamese were basically a peaceful people and could the Americans please stop dropping bombs on them. Unfortunately, the only ally he found was MLK, which really didn't do Dr. King any favors, as his assassination followed MLK's support of the anti-war movement.

Dr. King rejected violence as a solution outright. Non-violent protest is always the solution. Does this mean you need to set yourself on fire to get the attention of the murderer? Sometimes...

From Romania: during the reign of Ceausescu there were protests and soldiers shot their own people on orders from above. Then protesters came to collect the dead and then they were also shot. Then the protestors came back to collect the dead again and by this time the soldiers grew weary in their hearts from having to kill so many more of their aunts, mothers, cousins and sisters and that stopped the killing. Of course after this the whole Ceaucescu family was shot in punishment right around the xmas season, if I remember correctly.

So if you ever find yourself in a situation where, in order to save people you have to kill others, then you know you lost your humanity a long time ago, and your intellect too. We need more peace up front and less eager willingness to shoot people as the solution. So I'm not too sure if I can work with your hypothetical situation that relies on killing as a solution. There are lot of intervening factors like civilization, nationalism and religious faith that gets in the way of this question for me - too many wrongs up front there.

 

[smcder]

The problem with war is that you are always killing more people you don't like - the Japanese, say for example, in order to stop killing the people you like that look like you. The trick to the whole thing is to simply stop killing. What would have been a better option to end WWII - two big bombs or a cease fire? Of course the cease fire is critiqued in that the delusional men of power need to dominate and can only be stopped by bullets. Perhaps the world has enough bullets to kill everyone? But I don't see how killing is ever a moral, or more moral solution. At what point should aggrsssions against others be interrupted and when - those are more important questions for me.

During the Vietnam War Thich Nhat Hanh came to America to explain to everyone that the Vietnamese were basically a peaceful people and could the Americans please stop dropping bombs on them. Unfortunately, the only ally he found was MLK, which really didn't do Dr. King any favors, as his assassination followed MLK's support of the anti-war movement.

Dr. King rejected violence as a solution outright. Non-violent protest is always the solution. Does this mean you need to set yourself on fire to get the attention of the murderer? Sometimes...

From Romania: during the reign of Ceausescu there were protests and soldiers shot their own people on orders from above. Then protesters came to collect the dead and then they were also shot. Then the protestors came back to collect the dead again and by this time the soldiers grew weary in their hearts from having to kill so many more of their aunts, mothers, cousins and sisters and that stopped the killing. Of course after this the whole Ceaucescu family was shot in punishment right around the xmas season, if I remember correctly.

So if you ever find yourself in a situation where, in order to save people you have to kill others, then you know you lost your humanity a long time ago, and your intellect too. We need more peace up front and less eager willingness to shoot people as the solution. So I'm not too sure if I can work with your hypothetical situation that relies on killing as a solution. There are lot of intervening factors like civilization, nationalism and religious faith that gets in the way of this question for me - too many wrongs up front there.

the hypothetical of the seven billion was in response to @ufology's statement

Hypothetically, it should be possible to be completely dispassionate and still do the right things based on needs for survival, health, education, standard of living, etc.
(I hope I have that right and not out of context?)

Based on that it seemed to me a "dispassionate" choice based on needs for survival, etc would not choose to do nothing and let humanity become extinct. It would reuce the population to one billion. But then Ufology said no it was mass murder and just wrong. So that was interesting to me - on a dispassionate assesment - what made it wrong? What made letting everyone die right?

1. A hypothetical is a forced choice - in law school we couldn't side step the givens of a hypothetical - it's like any situation where you don't like any of the choices but you have to pick one - because not choosing is a choice.

2. It's not a gun to your head situation - no outside agency is responsible and it's not the result of something we did as a species - it's just biology/ecology - you discover some law that says under the current conditions there can only be one billion people on the planet or everyone will die.

@Constance I thought had a really good answer.

The point is just to carve away people's objections until there are none left except that it's just wrong. Someting being just wrong it seems to me has to be based on a religious belief or moral realism or some kind of compassion or empathy? ... a dispassionate assesment wouldn't have anything to stop the logic of trading 6 for 1.

 

[Burnt State]

Einstein was worried about Germany developing the bomb and so he participated in a letter writing campaign to speed up the research in this area. Later he found all involvement with thos to be entirely distasteful.

Here's a good summary of the pertinent points that followed:

"Einstein biographer Ronald Clark has observed that the atomic bomb would have been invented without Einstein's letters, but that without the early U.S. work that resulted from the letters, the a-bombs might not have been ready in time to use during the war on Japan (Clark, pg. 682-683).

The atomic bomb related work that Einstein did was very limited and he completed it in two days during December 1941. Vannevar Bush, who was coordinating the scientific work on the a-bomb at that time, asked Einstein's advice on a theoretical problem involved in separating fissionable material by gaseous diffusion. But Bush and other leaders in the atomic bomb project excluded Einstein from any other a-bomb related work. Bush didn't trust Einstein to keep the project a secret: "I am not at all sure... [Einstein] would not discuss it in a way that it should not be discussed." (Clark, pg. 684-685; G. Pascal Zachary, "Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century", pg. 204).

As the realization of nuclear weapons grew near, Einstein looked beyond the current war to future problems that such weapons could bring. He wrote to physicist Niels Bohr in December 1944, "when the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life." (Clark, pg. 698).

The atomic bombings of Japan occurred three months after the surrender of Germany, whose potential for creating a Nazi a-bomb had led Einstein to push for the development of an a-bomb for the Allies. Einstein withheld public comment on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view: "Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." ("Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb", New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1). Einstein later wrote, "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." (Otto Nathan & Heinz Norden, editors, "Einstein on Peace", pg. 589).

In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them." (Clark, pg. 752)."

From: Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb

So smart people get afraid of being blown up too and they dispassionately (or perhaps it was an act of passion to make the bomb) make the bomb in the name of self-preservation. Lots of bad things come out of fear. It's an emotion not to be trusted.

 

[Burnt State]

Getting back to the hypothetical: survival is our drive. We passionately believe in preserving ourselves, our culture and our way of being. Sacrificing many so that some will survive is what humans do when push comes to shove. Aboriginal hunting parties migrating towards the spring gathering point would hunt in parallel to each other. This way if one group got an animal, those nearest in parallel lines would then come join the feast in order for a small pocket to survive that season. If food was scarce, hunting parties would divide up into smaller and smaller groupe till only nuclear families were left. The goal each winter was to try to insure that some from the tribe would survive the winter, make it to the spring grounds, and tell the stories of the tribe so that some of the culture would survive.

If the option was for 6 to die in order for 1 to live, if those were the ratios that would insure the survival of humanity, so that our story could continue, so that we could continue to work on being a better, more compassionate and caring society, organized around developing everyone's potential, then I would say let the 6 die. If they were going to die though because of war, then I'm not sure there would be much of a story to carry forward.

Einstein preferred an anti-war position and knew that pacifism was the way. If that hypothetical is mired in nationalistic drives and the killing is to maintain a political goal, then I would say let the whole lot die, as we don't deserve to carry anything forward, for we will have defeated ourselves, nature and our reason for being on this planet.

 

[Randall]

The discussion has moved away from what my personal decision would be if I had the choice to trade some compassion for intelligence, so that it would be easier for me to figure out ways to help the less fortunate without compromising my own material situation, to global issues like World Wars and weapons of mass destruction.

isn't it amazing how one thing can lead to another ... ? ;-)

Hypotheticals can do that - move from a specific to a general rule ...

From my point of view It's more like moving the goalposts.

I still think Hiroshima is an interesting example - very intelligent persons involved ... did Einstein have to write a letter of encouragement?

That's moving from something general ( IQ vs. compassion ) to something specific ( nuking Hiroshima ). I'm not seeing the rationale for doing so. Why setup a situation where there is no alternative other than to feel bad about having to make sacrifices we'd rather not make? If that's how it's going to go; my answer is the same as Kirk's: "I don't believe in the no win scenario."

​

Did any of those involved visit hospitals in Japan after the bombing? As I said Oppenheimer first opposed and then later validated his decision. I have a good discussion of it in Shattuck's Forbidden Knowledge.
Anyway ... we can move the discussion back to your situation if you like. I think it's an interesting answer - but without compassion would you be motivated to help the less fortunate? As compassion decreased and intelligence increased ... might you be motivated to finish the process, maximize intelligence and eliminate compassion? You're already moving in that direction anyway, right?

Like I said before, we're motivated by feelings other than just compassion. But even if we leave emotions out of the equation altogether, decisions can still be made based on standards that facilitate the best possible situation for the most people given the various factors in play, and that requires intelligence more than it does compassion. A fictional example might be Commander Data from Star Trek TNG. During the series Data spent most of his existence performing his duties admirably without emotion. Only when emotions were introduced to his character did he begin having serious problems ...

​

 

[smcder]

From my point of view It's more like moving the goalposts.

That's moving from something general ( IQ vs. compassion ) to something specific ( nuking Hiroshima ). I'm not seeing the rationale for doing so. Why setup a situation where there is no alternative other than to feel bad about having to make sacrifices we'd rather not make? If that's how it's going to go; my answer is the same as Kirk's: "I don't believe in the no win scenario."

​

Like I said before, we're motivated by feelings other than just compassion. But even if we leave emotions out of the equation altogether, decisions can still be made based on standards that facilitate the best possible situation for the most people given the various factors in play, and that requires intelligence more than it does compassion. A fictional example might be Commander Data from Star Trek TNG. During the series Data spent most of his existence performing his duties admirably without emotion. Only when emotions were introduced to his character did he begin having serious problems ...

​

You and your goal posts! It would not have gone well for you in law school ... law professors aren't above moving anything ... anywhere.

And I see you've changed the terminology to sacrifices.

That is a very interesting take on Data.

How about the redistribution of wealth question?

 

[smcder]

Nick Bostrom is a leading trans/post humanist thinker

Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios

bangs, crunches, shrieks and whimpers ... oh my!

"The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb.
At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by “igniting” the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time."


"While we have had long exposure to various personal, local, and endurable global hazards, this paper analyzes a recently emerging category: that of existential risks. These are threats that could cause our extinction or destroy the potential of Earth-originating intelligent life. Some of these threats are relatively well known while others, including some of the gravest, have gone almost unrecognized. Existential risks have a cluster of features that make ordinary risk management ineffective. A final section of this paper discusses several ethical and policy implications. A clearer understanding of the threat picture will enable us to formulate better strategies."

"We have not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or culturally, for managing such risks. Our intuitions and coping strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostile individuals or tribes, poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. ... They haven’t significantly affected the total amount of human suffering or happiness or determined the long-term fate of our species.
With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroid impact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential risks in human history until the mid-twentieth century, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about.
The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb.

At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by “igniting” the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time.

For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some subjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad happening. If we don’t know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on. At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the objective risk factors are."

 

[smcder]

Getting back to the hypothetical: survival is our drive. We passionately believe in preserving ourselves, our culture and our way of being. Sacrificing many so that some will survive is what humans do when push comes to shove. Aboriginal hunting parties migrating towards the spring gathering point would hunt in parallel to each other. This way if one group got an animal, those nearest in parallel lines would then come join the feast in order for a small pocket to survive that season. If food was scarce, hunting parties would divide up into smaller and smaller groupe till only nuclear families were left. The goal each winter was to try to insure that some from the tribe would survive the winter, make it to the spring grounds, and tell the stories of the tribe so that some of the culture would survive.

If the option was for 6 to die in order for 1 to live, if those were the ratios that would insure the survival of humanity, so that our story could continue, so that we could continue to work on being a better, more compassionate and caring society, organized around developing everyone's potential, then I would say let the 6 die. If they were going to die though because of war, then I'm not sure there would be much of a story to carry forward.

Einstein preferred an anti-war position and knew that pacifism was the way. If that hypothetical is mired in nationalistic drives and the killing is to maintain a political goal, then I would say let the whole lot die, as we don't deserve to carry anything forward, for we will have defeated ourselves, nature and our reason for being on this planet.

Excellent ... I now dub thee Lawyer! ;-)

No the hypothetical isn't mired in anything - it's strictly something that you know will happen, nobody's fault - no "gun to the head" - no species flaw. The only thing you didn't address is that your role isn't mentioned ... you say "let" the 6 die ... but active measures have to be taken for that to happen, there is only a short period of time to work with - lives have to be shortened in some way.

Life boat scenarios, Donner party ... - I rememberd another movie but forgot it again that was pretty close.

... self-defense scenarios raise similar issues ... it's something most people do very little thinking about and often surprise themselves when they do get involved in such situations. I was in a situation for a couple of years where I had to think about an ongoing threat to my family and I learned a lot about myself. Would the compassionate thing to do be to take only passive measures and finally refuse to bring lethal force to a situation, giving the advantage to the "bad guy"? I guess at that time I decided I could shoot someone and still feel compassion for what brought them to be the person they were.

Anyway ... moving on ... this does get us back to the hypothetical of compassion and intelligence - I had a couple of replies to your idea that intelligence could increase compassion. I don't think that's right. I think compassion is a quality of mind and a way of approaching the world - it doesn't tell you what to do in a situation of course. But if we depend on knowledge of the person's situation to calibrate compassion and forgiveness ... isn't that judgement? Or do I misunderstand? And again - if we know greater knowledge of a person's situation always leads to greater compassion - then can't we go ahead and extrend the compassion to every case? Why wait for the data to come in if we know the outcome? Or are you saying you can't get that feeling of compassion until you know there situation?

I think the reason we balk at answering how much intelligence we would give up to be more compassionate is that we just don't want to imagine life with less intelligence .... we rationalize that we couldn't help people as much ... but this may get at a difference in how you and I think about helping others ... or it may show we are alike in that, I'm not sure yet.

Flowers for Algernon

... but again, it's not entirely far fetched ... we lose cognitive ability as we age ... the thought occured to me recently that intelligence will be less and less important ... is less and less important as I age ... if I were to be left with the barest of mental furniture it would be love, compassion, equanimity and sympathetic joy. If I could have enough intelligence to take care of myself and not be a burden to others, I'd take as much of those qualities as I could get. On the pragmatic side, I'd probably get a lot better treatment than if I were to become a smart alecky old man!