Activity feed
Harry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
#826 · Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoKilling a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide, so aborting until week 6 can’t be right.
I’ve heard that but I don’t know if that’s even true. If it is, the killing shouldn’t be considered a double homicide until after week 6.
Homicide is “a killing of one human being by another”. If an embryo isn’t a person yet, its death can’t be homicide.
#299 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoI’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.
Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.
Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.
Clearly, an embryo without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.
According to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryo moving.”
This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
Killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide, so aborting until week 6 can’t be right.
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things theydon’t want to do?[^1]feel conflicted about? Inschool.[^2]↵ ↵ [^1]: I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke *and* doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know *part* of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rational decision.↵ [^2]:school.[^1]↵ ↵ [^1]: This is out of scope for the topic of addiction and deserves a more thorough treatment, but I think school could be one of *the* major causes of crime in this same epistemological sense. Since I’m guessing most criminals feel conflicted about whatever crime they’re about to commit but then commit it anyway.
Use properly formatted footnotes
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want todo?^1do?[^1] Inschool.^2↵ ↵ ---↵ ↵ ^1school.[^2]↵ ↵ [^1]: I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke *and* doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know *part* of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rationaldecision.↵ ^2decision.↵ [^2]: This is out of scope for the topic of addiction and deserves a more thorough treatment, but I think school could be one of *the* major causes of crime in this same epistemological sense. Since I’m guessing most criminals feel conflicted about whatever crime they’re about to commit but then commit it anyway.
5 unchanged lines collapsedThe CambridgedictionaryDictionary [defines](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/entrenchment) entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.26 unchanged lines collapsed
Link to image of barbed hook
3 unchanged lines collapsedWhen a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like abarbed hook:[barbed hook](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/517AGneVrVL._AC_SL1000_.jpg): pulling on it just causes more damage.28 unchanged lines collapsed
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want todo?\*↵ ↵ \*do?^1 In school.^2↵ ↵ ---↵ ↵ ^1 I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke *and* doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know *part* of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rationaldecision.decision.↵ ^2 This is out of scope for the topic of addiction and deserves a more thorough treatment, but I think school could be one of *the* major causes of crime in this same epistemological sense. Since I’m guessing most criminals feel conflicted about whatever crime they’re about to commit but then commit it anyway.
Address Amaro’s criticism
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want todo?do?\*↵ ↵ \* I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke *and* doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know *part* of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rational decision.
If it were so clear to the chain smoker that he didn’t want to smoke he’d just stop. Having an internal conflict just means that you’re not sure what to do. You can come up with reasons for and against stopping orcontinuing.↵ ↵ (Amarocontinuing.↵ ↵ If he knows he doesn’t want to do it, that sounds like he doesn’t feel conflicted about wanting to do it. Being conflicted is simultaneously wanting it and not wanting it.↵ ↵ (Amaro Koberle)
#753 · Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoWhat makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?
Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.
The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?
If it were so clear to the chain smoker that he didn’t want to smoke he’d just stop. Having an internal conflict just means that you’re not sure what to do. You can come up with reasons for and against stopping or continuing.
(Amaro Koberle)
#750 · Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoEntrenchment
Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.
When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.
The Cambridge dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.
The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.
Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):
Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.
And:
[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]
And:
There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]
And:
[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.
And:
[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].
And:
A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.
What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?
Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.
The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?
#751 · Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoThis doesn’t explain how to solve the entrenchment, ie cure the addiction.
Working on it. My preliminary answer is that it’s case by case. It depends on the nature of the particular entrenchment and the preferences involved. A more overarching answer might involve Randian ideas around introspection and getting one’s reason and emotions in the proper order.
I’ll leave this marked as a criticism until I flesh these thoughts out more.
#744 · Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoMy conjecture
Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.
Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.
If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He will become a chain smoker.
This doesn’t explain how to solve the entrenchment, ie cure the addiction.
Entrenchment
Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.
When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.
The Cambridge dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.
The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.
Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):
Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.
And:
[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]
And:
There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]
And:
[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.
And:
[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].
And:
A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.
Prevailing explanations do not mention entrenchment. They do not refer to any epistemological concepts. My theory does.
Prevailing explanationsof addiction(#734) attributeitaddiction to desensitization. My theory doesn’t do that.
Prevailing explanations of addiction (#734) attribute it to desensitization. My theory doesn’t do that.
6 unchanged lines collapsedIf the conflict is *entrenched*, then *both preferences get to live on indefinitely*. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. Hebecomeswill become a chain smoker.
Any explanation of human behavior involving brains and their chemistry can at best be parochial. Since our computers are *universal*, we know that they could run any algorithm the brain runs. A computer can, in principle – although we don’t yet know how to program it to – run whatever algorithms make a *person*, including an addict. A computer made of metal and silicon has neither a brain nor hormones nor any other allegedly relevant chemistry, *yet it could still simulate an addict*. (Here, ‘simulate’ does *not* mean ‘fake’ or ‘mimic’ – it basically means ‘give rise to’, ‘instantiate’. A computer running such a program would *literally* contain a person.) So the prevailing explanation violates computationaluniversality.universality, and with it, the laws of physics.
#734 · Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoPrevailing theories
The prevailing theories around addiction (physical and mental) are phrased in terms of physical things. Consider these quotes from a medically reviewed article by the Cleveland Clinic:
[A]ddiction is a disease — it’s a chronic condition. The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) defines addiction as a chronic brain disorder. Addiction doesn’t happen from having a lack of willpower or as a result of making bad decisions. Your brain chemistry changes with addiction.
And:
Behavioral addictions can occur with any activity that’s capable of stimulating your brain’s reward system.
And:
A significant part of how addiction develops is through changes in your brain chemistry.
Substances and certain activities affect your brain, especially the reward center of your brain.
Humans are biologically motivated to seek rewards. […] When you spend time with a loved one or eat a delicious meal, your body releases a chemical called dopamine, which makes you feel pleasure. It becomes a cycle: You seek out these experiences because they reward you with good feelings.
And:
Over time, the substances or activities change your brain chemistry, and you become desensitized to their effects. You then need more to produce the same effect.
In other words, the core of this ‘explanation’ is desensitization: your brain gets used to certain chemicals that feel good, so then you do more of whatever gets your brain those chemicals. A higher dose is required for the same effect.
Any explanation of human behavior involving brains and their chemistry can at best be parochial. Since our computers are universal, we know that they could run any algorithm the brain runs. A computer can, in principle – although we don’t yet know how to program it to – run whatever algorithms make a person, including an addict. A computer made of metal and silicon has neither a brain nor hormones nor any other allegedly relevant chemistry, yet it could still simulate an addict. (Here, ‘simulate’ does not mean ‘fake’ or ‘mimic’ – it basically means ‘give rise to’, ‘instantiate’. A computer running such a program would literally contain a person.)
So the prevailing explanation violates computational universality.
TheI think the prevailing explanation is immoralbecause it views people asand false. People are not mindless machines executing commands based on their brainchemistry or rewardchemistry. Nor is their behavior a result of a biological urge to seek rewards and avoid punishment.That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do,That *is* true for animals, but notpeople.people.↵ ↵ True and moral (ie, non-dehumanizing) explanations of humans refer to things like *minds* (not brains), *preferences*, *ideas*, and *problems*. They accurately reflect that a person is a *moral agent*, meaning he has *free will* and is *responsible* for his actions. They do not violate computational universality, nor are they *limited* to explaining behavior.
The prevailing explanation is immoral because it views people as mindless machines executing commands based on their brainchemistry.chemistry or reward and punishment. That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do, but not people.