Category Archives: faith

The peril of hope.

participant

When is hope helpful? A simple explanation of hope is a wish. Wishes, ungrounded, lend to magical thinking. Magical thinking being when insight or intuition is used without attempting to apply rational knowledge and logic. More specifically hope is projection of bliss into the future.

Future bliss sounds noble. It is desirable for all humans and animals. Everybody wants bliss. While the utility of perpetual bliss is unmeasurable, it’s likelihood is not. Even in perfect systems life is subject to random events. Scarcity and suffering, to at least a small degree is inevitable. Never ending bliss is practically speaking, a fantasy.

The human conscience is a risk engine. The wider the variety of data, both positive and negative in perception, the better it is at assessing risk. Negative events do not need to be directly experienced, though, those are more powerful. Humans can learn from others negative experiences, if we have access to them. Hope is a strictly positive spectrum. It’s lens filters out negative experiences. While a person is still forming emotional prototypes, the fewer negative experiences they have, the more poorly they will handle them.

The conscience catalogues our memories as an emotional timeline. Rational recall of memories evoke emotional states and emotional states evoke memories.  Magical thinking, most typically in children, is a lack of reason. Rational thinking does not reliability examine’s the conscience’s insights. Until the ‘age of reason’ (typically 8 years old) children can not reliably process their own insights and check them for provability or even explain-ability. A lie told to a young child is a lie believed, wished and hoped.

A conscience tuned with exhaustive reasoning usually provides a moral compass for the future. Hope sidelines this process. It provides a seemingly moral workaround, but only justified by a hope coloured incomplete risk engine. As adjunct to faith (knowing something you can’t prove) it bolsters ideas that have already survived reason. Without reason and faith, hope is effectively magical thinking.

Unreasonable and reasonable hope

  • Unreasonable hope: Insight(bliss) -> logical mind -> bliss based rationalization -> more bliss
  • Reasonable hope: Insight (a blend of bliss, despair and will to action) -> logical mind -> rationalization -> faith or fact (successful reason) -> faith (facts don’t need hope) -> reasonable hope (hope that’s been through the process of reason)

Hope is self perpetuating, and inferior to reason driven and inherently sceptical faith. It may occur if no emotional rewards are provided to children for challenging magical thinking at the age of reason along with emotionally negative events. It is impossible to weigh risk without negative examples for comparison. All scenarios do not need to be personally experienced, that’s both cruel and rejects the validity of imagination and empathy, but without some personal loss, imagination has no prototypes by which to scale despair.

Hope’s legitimate utility is a stand in for faith, in those too young or innocent to reason.

Reject hope as a substitute for reason by exposure to limited experiences with pain. Ideally in small, short, doses. Such as quality parenting allows. Once your prototypes are formed, seek limited exposure and understanding to the worst humiliations of others. Not habitually, but enough to maximize the risk calculating yield of your own failures. No level of competence is above failure. Infallibility is a sign of hope substituting for faith, and that is a hope based fantasy. Periodically go to your fear. Ground your hopes in faiths both provable and unprovable. Understand the pain of carrying truth alone. Now your conscience has been seasoned with realistic risk. If you don’t, your conscience has no idea what you are in for.

EDIT: A Warning about faith.   A healthy, stable society can help steer you away from poorly rationalized faiths (via shared faiths), but that can fail.  They can be destructive too.  Faith without quality reason is a setup for witchhunts, cult, and every downside to both logic, and hope.  Only active curation of the metamind(the conscience) can result in reason, and ultimately that curator must be you.  Know yourself.  Start small and focus on the most inclusive compassion ethics and logic allow.  Think long and often, act deliberately, and face, ‘The ends don’t justify the means,’ before you act.

Who gets the benefits from the doubts?

self-mutilation(tasteful self mutilation)

If faith is rationalized knowledge you can’t prove, and forgiveness emotional resolution to avoid manipulation, who are you really doubting?

Truth telling is a regular affair. If empathy is the engine, spoken truth is the grease of civilization. Most of the time, the benefit of the doubt is not only implicit, but entirely unvisited. Analysis of every statement, every gesture, every promise would undo civilization. Investment would be exhausting and a terrible trade.

When a flash of insight presents a doubt, the temptation is to ignore it. Civilization is a big machine, and the wise human knows the gears must turn to perpetuate the economy of scale. Down time for repairs will have a non linear cost, but the conscience is first and foremost is a risk engine. The dilemma is usually treated as such, ‘is your conscience groaning more loudly about the risk of a lie, or the risk of addressing it’. This can work but introduces a new risk, gaslighting.

Gaslighting seems silly at first but can be the flat edge to a long wedge. First the lies are subtle and inconsequential to the operation of your society, with one exception, you. You learn to NOT trust your gut and ignore insight.

If a high EQ empath is faced with a single dishonest threat, the dishonest actor eventually becomes silhouetted against their more honest context. Your risk engine retunes itself with it’s flow of higher quality data, and they stand out. The problem is addressed and civilization’s machine chugs on.

There is systemic risk, the risk the conscience is poor at managing a flurry of lies. The intelligent and psychopathic defector WILL notice this golden opportunity. Instead of identifying a narrow pattern of doubt, the conscience is too noisy to be useful. Doubt is aimed inward. ‘I must be the problem.’ Without warnings of risk the conscience becomes a liability.

If you are untrained in proposing and rationalizing conspiracies, you can be taught to throw away your conscience or even program it against your own interests. Not just you. Everyone. Flooding people with enough lies to disable their conscience requires a conspiracy. Those that discourage conspiracy theory are likely in the institutional gaslighting business, better known as propaganda.

Who benefits from the doubts? The institutions people are directly involved in. The hierarchies that are riskiest to fork or otherwise defect from. Today that is their governments, their schools, their employers. Those wise to history know finding a criminal conspiracy can be as simple as asking who benefits? Cui Bono.

Doubts are yours, and no good comes from throwing them away. Rationalize them. Not because the conscience is never wrong, but if you don’t use your risk manager, you lose it. Researching, fact checking, and setting traps for the unscrupulous benefits you. Detect reality. Accept no lies, not even the small ones. Painful honesty keeps your conscience active, well tuned, and in a position to defend the economies of scale that afford us the luxury of leisure, and it’s prosperous civilization.

Your empathy, and it’s outrage, IS the machine. The top priority must be keeping the context honest. Demand people with high EQs. Always observant, tough as nails, and a zest for learning. Test their empathy. Protect the machine with vigorous curation. Reject the benefit of the doubt. Doubt people. Doubt systems. Doubt away.

Insight and Faith

Spilled milk on an old wooden floor

I have erred. I have been conflating two important definitions, which in turn, made the civilization gene more confusing and abrasive to peoples unrelated personal politics. I was conflating faith and insight into one role.  My view of the concepts remain but it should be easier to explain new ideas now.
Here are the new definitions.

  • Metamind – The conscience and the subconscious as one.  Organizes unlike things via emotional content.  A risk engine.  The source of the imagination.  A passively driven relational database that groups memories by emotional likeness.  Produces insights on matches.  The mental structure psychopaths lack.
  • Insight – A flash of information from the metamind.  Sometimes a risk warning.  Not always correct, but faster than rational thought.  Can be supernatural or provable.
  • Rational thought – A traceable waking thought process. Typically thought of as a provable thought process, but rarely including enough variables to live up to that.  The rational thought process can be used to prove, disprove, or carry insights.
  • Rationalization – Rationally discerning the logical meaning of an emotional signal from the metamind. Determining if insight is correct, incorrect, or currently un-knowable.  Searchable via complex emotions
  • Faith – A carried insight. A failure to rationalize. Knowing something you can not prove.  It can be supernatural (unprovable) or plausibly provable.
  • Reason – How empaths (non-psychopaths) think. The combination of insights, faiths and rational thoughts.
  • Belief – Wishing something is true.  Possibly an unchallenged (un-rationalized) insight, possibly a rationally contrived fantasy.  A common, inferior, substitute for reason.

Here is a simple explanation of how a faith is created from insight.

  • Metamind signals an [insight].
  • The rational mind works the insight over and decides true/untrue/unknown. [rationalization]
  • The human decides the insight is unknown. [faith creation]
  • Then depending on if they ‘know their self’ and ‘trust their instincts’  They may store the faith and consider it in future decisions. [incorporation]

I have a long road ahead updating all articles discussing faith with the new terminology. I will be proceeding from newest to oldest. I’ll drop another post when the work is done.  Please refer to the Glossary in the menu bar as authoritative, and then articles from newest to oldest.

If you find this or any error please let me know. All assistance and feedback is appreciated.

Edit 12/29/18:  Added in an explanation of how faiths are created.

Edit 1/4/18:  Improved definitions.  Less muddy.

Faith: genius vs talent

genius-vs-talent

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

A society that can’t allow faith disallows genius. Talent may be the most visible worker, but genius is the scaffolding of progress. A social mode that allows genius also allows external saviours. They are the same archetype and have the same elements.

This can be measured by a societies ability to separate accommodation from validation. If you must categorize and measure ideas to allow them, you disallow those that produce ideas from the edge of periphery. In simple terms you suffer when you can’t accommodate people who are smarter than you. I’m not saying a civilizations success is measured by seeking external saviours, that’s a setup for cult, but don’t count them out either.

Usually societies discard genius when they misunderstand faith. Faith is an insight that can’t be proven or dis-proven. It’s a game of likelihoods and successful predictions. The genius may not be able to convey their whole ideas in their lifetime, but they can apply their right ideas to the practical world of the now. This is done to build credibility, a simpler language more people and sometimes many people can understand.

Credibility of prediction is pragmatism. Pragmatism is systemically successful because it recognizes exceptional performance of prediction. While it may seem to cherry pick from disciplines, it is actually recognizing genius. Refusing to make social systems more simple than possible to protect the egos of their lower intelligence observers.

The process of the less intelligent synchronizing with genius requires acceptance based on performance. Inevitably this manifests as faith. Subconsciously acknowledging the significance of predictive performance without understanding all the details at once. Faith is not some blind allegiance, but a pathway for the conscience to drive the expensive investment of rationalization. The more understandable details of a difficult to grasp idea can be carefully vetted, the more opportunity the subconscious has to model the idea to apply it in total.

Protect high quality ideas and their vessels, insist your society be both sceptical and coherent with humility. It’s no accident genius is marked by prediction, the metamind’s (the conscience’s) speciality. Rewarding only talent is psychopathic and rejects humanities most exceptional behaviours. Behaviours that form civilization itself.

Civgene can provide objective morality

 

 

Video explaining how you can derive objective morality from civgene.

You can use behaviours unique to empaths to derive objective morality from science itself.  Non-psychopathic behaviours are like atoms which in turn can be used to build rights, much like molecules.

More to come.

Edit 3/25:  Updated video.  Clearer and more concise edits with clips.

The cult test

cups3

In a previous civgene, I presented a series of axioms that led to the cult test.   Most societies operate at least partly on faith.  Stating assumed truths that individuals can not plausibly test with vigor.  The cult test presents three conditions that if a fundamentalist religious or political faith infringes on outsiders freedom, it has slipped into cult.

The cult test is as follows. If any condition is met, it’s a cult.
1. Denial of exit.
2. Aggression toward outsider speech.
3. Refusal to commit to peace with outsiders.

Freedom is a core human behavior (differs from animals) because it’s how humans allow each other space to make the most of their emotional metadata, usually forming faiths.  A faith being knowing something you can’t prove.  An emotional output from the metamind (the conscience/subconscious), a passively driven risk engine connecting unlike things based on emotional similarity.  A probability engine.  Effectively rationalizing a faith can take a second or longer than lifetime.  Hence the utility for an indeterminate time to make your own decisions, better known as freedom.

Faith alone is not the goal but the means to achieve the goal of all life, autonomy.  Cult occurs when faith becomes an end not the means. Everyone’s set of faiths must inherently be different (aside from biological differences) because the metadata connected to their memories and their experiences are different.  As experiences deviate so will faiths.  Denying this process for an individual is detrimental to the common benefit of human society.

Some faiths will occur in common so expression and organization of common ideas is beneficial.  Rationalization can be rigorous so invention, specialization, and currency operate like in other economies.  But also like other economies stagnation can occur if psychopathic or animal kingdom work-a-likes are substituted for effective intelligence, and progress stagnates.  Damaging and even completely crushing autonomy.

All three conditions of the cult test are designed to protect the natural functionality of the empathic mind without interfering in opportunities of economies of scale (rapid rationalization.)  Just like all logical constructs, logical constructs about natural forming but yet unproven probabilities can have advantages for all people.  The conditions of the cult test together form to protect the fundamental human right, the right to fork.  The right of human beings to pursue their biological advantage of rapid risk assessment without human created hierarchical blockage.  Faith is what gives human beings their complete intelligence, and also is what is cited by those who try to dismember that intelligence for personal gain though hierarchy.

The key to retaining our freedom is the ability to distance yourself from destructive hierarchies while embracing constructive ones.  The cult test ensures that right by disallowing the combination of pure faith as a potentially manipulated or even completely fabricated external process, from the ability to enforce your adherence to an external faith structure.  The cult test protects the rapid rationalizer seeking community from slavery, by separating physical and mental force from faith and it’s beneficial ideas.

I present these additional axioms to permanently disconnect the relationship of force and faith.

  • Faith is subconscious realization (emotional metadata).
  • Reason is rational thought combined with faith.
  • Faith can occur without reason.
  • Force is only moral in the face of clear and present danger.
  • Determining clear danger can include faith.
  • Determining present danger must include literal observation and therefore rational thought.
  • Clear and present danger can be determined either by reason or rational thought alone.
  • Force justified by faith alone is a farce.

 

The risks of atheism

prop

Faith is rationalized but unproven subconscious knowledge.  The source of creativity.

I aim for, and have not yet been challenged on, philosophical coherency between types of faith.  All new philosophy, like all new creative works, starts briefly as faith.  I take care to rationalize all my faiths both from atheist and non-atheist perspectives.  Resolving to the most likely explanations of either and rationalizing the other to work around the first.

This has been completely successful.  Despite some predictions to the contrary by atheism advocates has not resulted in sudden and steadfast atheism.  Sure it could, but it seems to me that would be lazy.  A choice to throw some data away.  A poor practice with poor results.

The key for me has been the civgene theory, and it’s implications for the conscience as a risk engine overlayed over the more typical spectrum of animal behavior.  Humans (except psychopaths) are of two minds, the subconscious and the rational.  Both minds can only communicate with each other in a vague spectrum of feelings.

What does throwing data away really mean? 

For supernatural faiths that an entire society had a useless premise from the start.  This is not coherent with civgene or observable behavior.  Supernatural faiths are only successful if the contain truths.  Truth, the engine of progress, is the common goal of society.

For potentially provable faiths it means assuming all outlying data points are error.  That all aspects of observation are perfectly accurate and innate.  This makes huge assumptions about quality of data, accuracy and relevance of test parameters, the infinite nature (large or small) of at least some related numbers, and that all related scopes are holistic.  Noble but lofty goals, that function best when small in focus.

Implications

Supernatural faith has understood risks.  It creates a risk of cult.  Reasonable people know this and it has been discussed at length by the objective philosopher.  Supernatural faith inevitably results in religions as people seek it’s truths and compare rationalizations.  Comparisons can give way to programming.  Programming can be then turned against human rights, and a cult results.

Strictly political cult is possible too, as twentieth century communism laid bare.  Avoiding supernatural faith does not protect you from cult.  How is that possible?  Partly because humans change their behavior when they are studied.  Their behavior is the result of their subconscious risk assessment, and they react to the new risk, abuses of the study. (knowledge is power) The only way to make people predictable is to disable their conscience by completely reprogramming it.  A simple task against the atheist through distorted or fabricated data.  A political cult is formed, again crushing human rights (and new economies of scale).

The risks of supernatural cult are transferred to the risk of being programmed by political cult.  Why?  Supernatural faiths definite immutable moralities (right or wrong), atheist morality becomes subjective.  In organized society custody of data can be controlled by would be abusers.  Bad conclusions can form from bad data.  Authoritative secular control of data is rife with golden opportunity (for abuse).  Garbage in, garbage out.  Since data makes morality, subjective morality is only as objective as integrity of it’s data.  Not only is data integrity both very shaky and in motion, but cohesive patterns are elusive and often contradicted by the periphery.  Human beings are absurdly trusting.  Expecting other people to share their goals and means, when history is dominated by human trust betrayed.

Atheists are no different than non-atheists in waiting for faith to become fact.  A person can only propose a theory, and work toward realization of fact.  The atheist boasts their process of achieving fact is under their control, but it’s not.  Peer review only provides independent verification of an already confirmed fact.  It doesn’t make fact in a moment, it approaches consensus over time as growing scope is incorporated.  Supernatural faith is an exercise in pure patience, even after a successful realization. Control for the sake of itself is let go.  Exactly the virtue the atheist needs, to improve the quality and inclusiveness of their data, to protect against the panicked rush to conclusion encouraged by political cult.  The theorist of the provable, needs to resist pressure to rush to fact, exactly what ‘irrational’ objective morality offers.

The risk for atheists is the desperate scramble to improve humanities future.  The perpetual lust for tiny incremental hope, temporarily, when the process of fact provides none.  When endurance, patience and temperance are needed for the very scientific goal of quality of data.  Simply put, people want hope and react badly in it’s absence.  An inevitable state for an atheist pursuing pure science to it’s natural ends.  Most supernatural faith offers peace without explanation.  It seems to me as complex as it is, creating a state of philosophical coherency consisting of both supernatural and non supernatural faith is the simplest path forward.  Enjoying and utilizing the full human condition, rather than denying it.  Ultimately protecting humanity from further political cults.

Epilogue

Feedback has been interesting.  I stand by everything I have said, but I want to clarify for our society.  Full time atheism is neither superior nor inferior to individuals who can operate both with provable faiths and supernatural faiths.  They both have virtues.  The fantasy is the necessity of Antitheism, a freedom crushing edict designed to send the masses morally adrift.  Separating rights crushing cult from religion is SO TRIVIAL I can only conclude the lack will to do it is malicious.  Antitheism is an excuse.

I would expect a sceptical scientist with high EQ, a 160 IQ and self directed understanding of social history to excel at identifying objective morality, making them as durable against any cult as their dual faithed counterpart.  They could both still be vulnerable to political cult, but they’ve got the tools to beat it.   In our society, our best cases are being emulated poorly.  ‘Science’ is a branding exercise often used specifically to discourage questioning.  ‘Authority’ substituting for diligence and thought.  An abomination of the scientific method.

Political cult is here now, and it is growing.  Killing that absurdity means selecting peers by ability, not permission.  That in turn means building a scientific community of open access to source data (like journals.)  Simply choosing atheism as the only needed step toward objectivity and ability is ridiculous, and dangerous.  As one common example, supernatural faith organizations aren’t keeping important scientific papers behind a paywall, limiting participants.  Lack of objective morality is.

Edit 1/6: Major clarity improvements, please reread.

Edit 1/8: Added epilogue.