Thanks for sharing. It seems like one of the issues that needs to discussed is simplification vs oversimplification. Feedback loops are a tool that can add nuance to causal relationships (after all, they are just adding more causes) but can still be oversimplified. But simplify we must... you can map out causes all day but it still will not fully represent the terrain of reality and we need to simplify ideas to communicate them to others.

This goes hand-in-hand with the illusion of explanatory depth (IOED) and it’s not entirely about being nefarious or ignorant. That said, they pose a great example about crazy shit happening in the 50’s and 60’s that makes it almost parallel to IOED, but they’re both ways of missing the point.

That said, anything that reminds me that IOED is a thing is good by me.

I seem to recall that the Communication of the Association for Computing Machinery, one of the more well known journals to have published an article of this nature, “Go To Statement Considered Harmful,” later published an article titled “‘Considered Harmful’ Considered Harmful.”

Thank you for writing this story. It made me look at my own (8 years long) therapy experience differently, and also see my therapist differently — the dilemmas she’s facing as a professional are just as profound as my own.

>I disagree with this assessment. Obviously the concept of self-improvement is not inherently flawed. Do you have the same objections to "improvement" when someone educates themselves, does brain excercises, learns a new skill, works out to improve their physique, or practices to improve their critical thinking skills? Do all of those actions carry so much baggage that the very belief that they may be worth doing is not viable?

Not at all. The problem arises with the assumption that superiority itself is subject to the preferences of an agent that is itself subject to an evolutionary process.

That thought process is inherently problematic by counteracting evolution. From an evolutionary perspective, eugenics counteracts the optimization of fitness, by incentivizing decisions that constitute a selection process other than natural selection. It seeks to usurp evolution, replacing nature with the preferences of some other agent, be it unwise, unintelligent, racist, bigoted, or even good natured but inevitably short sighted, it doesn't matter. It is impossible for the agent to replace evolution because a process intentionally imposed by human preferences, but disguised as evolutionary, is a different process that is not evolution. The ironic thing is that even this does not escape natural selection, and last I checked, insanity does not exactly inspire confidence in the fitness of a population.

The bottom line here is that people are confusing evolution with a completely different idea. Maybe it arises from delusions of grandeur, as if advancement of knowledge itself contributes to this. It doesn't matter. You can't replace evolution itself and expect it to be evolution.

​

>Natural selection and fitness literally just mean whoever has the most offspring.

Have you ever looked into the social complexity of other species? I don't think you're taking into consideration the range of variability and complexity of what the evolutionary process really entails.

Homicidal selection, genocidal selection, or forced procreation are not necessarily the same as natural selection. Can cannibalism truly benefit a population over the long haul? Evolutionary theory tells us that, even though we may think so, after all is said and done, natural selection occurs, that natural selection is the final gate keeper and it's not subject to someone's fallible preferences.

>Additionally we have already manipulated natural selection to an absurd degree just by changing our society. The modern world looks and behaves absolutely nothing like the world our ancestors evolved in for the last 200,000+ years. We are very poorly evolved for the our current circumstances. The fact that humans as a species have adapted as well as they have to such a rapidly changing environment is nothing short of remarkable considering we are trying to run 21st century society software on caveman hardware.

The drawback of having a capable mind, is the potential for error and insanity. In our current environment, do our capabiities lend to evolutionary fitness? It appears so, for now. If we destroy our environment will intelligence save us in the end? The answer isn't necessarily yes. For all we know, at this point it might be beneficial to have the ability to live in trees and to procreate less often. We don't know what the next evolutionary step looks like, nor can we, but we should try to survive anyways.

Your link defines it as iteratively converting a DCG to a DAG by removing the lowest-weighted connections until only forward paths exist between the hypothetical cause and the target effect, thereby establishing "causality".

In one sense that's entirely defensible, but the fundamental flaw is that you can do the same between almost any nodes in the graph (as long as a cycle exists between them - You can't e.g. prove JFK's assassination caused the Big Bang because there's no loop that can ever go back to that point).

/ Edit: My apologies, I misunderstood that you're the actual author of TFA. But you're still right!

So, I made up the term "causal projection" for this piece. I did look around for previous uses, but couldn't find any consistent usage that implied it was a term of art. Is there a technical definition that I'm missing?

This is a great cautionary tale against looking for simple chains of causality, but the title is misleading - Causal projection is an extremely specific technical term. Thinking in causal terms is still one of the most powerful tools we have in modern science, we just need to be careful not to fall for our own confirmation biases.

[deleted]

Thanks for the kind comment!

Questions about what makes an individual, and competing motivations between the conscious and subconscious, were some of the things knocking around my head while writing this, and I'm glad to hear you feel there's significant questions to be asked there.

In regard to waiting being less ethical, I agree with you, I think we have a moral responsibility to do what we can while we can do it, which is the reason I currently work in psychiatry, imperfect a science as it is. That said, the difference between a world with less suffering, and a world free from suffering, will come down largely to advances in our theories of mind, so while we shouldn't pause psychiatry to study the mind, the study of the mind should really be asking more and better questions.

Good article.

For further reading, “The Book of Why” by Judea Pearl.

I have type I bipolar disorder, and enjoyed this thought experiment quite a bit. (Note: I am 60 years old, and thanks to Seroquel haven't had a full-blown psychotic episode in over a decade. I've also done DBT. I actually turned down ECT, and from what you have to say I'm glad I did.)

Upon reading your comments, I thought you might like the existential question I live with: If I am not my mind, what am I?

Also, I do not and would not lie to my psychiatrist. That would be counterproductive, and a waste of time and resources.

Wonderful insight.

This strikes me as more of a parable than a thought experiment. It's a story, and there are some sorts of lessons in the story, but the language is flowery, designed to make you feel something, and the main downfall is Hannibal having fallen too deep into character, which is hardly a philosophical issue, more of an issue internal to the plot.

It's vaguely reminiscent of the Chinese Room, but the Chinese room is not 95% story and 5% question, it's a simple hypothetical designed to evoke a focused question.

Any story can be framed as a thought experiment, but a true thought experiment is focused on debating a specific question, rather than focusing on motivations of characters and the bonds of friendship and stuff like that.

Makes sense, after all It is not uncommon for the fertility-challenged to use their sibling’s gametes. With cold storage having a near infinite life span, parents can ultimately donate too.

There was a sperm donation bank somewhere in Europe where all the sperm donors were extraordinary, like Nobel laureates, very attractive, etc. basically the cream of the crop. Almost always, women wanted a sperm donor who looked like their husband, even if he was short, dumb, fat and bald and they could choose anyone.

Maybe something similar happens for parents with kids. They want the kid to be just like them. Idk, but I’m curious what would be popular.

The word eugenics is so tainted that it's distracting to use. People regularly screen for and don't continue with pregnancies given the screening information ...

From what I understood, Awen knew Hannibal before the experiment on a personal level. The experiment Hannibal concocted made Awen an accomplice in his suicide plan and basically left him with eternal guilt for killing his friend unknowingly when he was trying to help. I think that's key because that was a really shitty thing to do and something you should never do to someone. If we were to consider that Awen did not know Hannibal at all and this occured, he could remain in good faith that he tried his best even though he was unaware of the exact circumstances that created Moloch.

Reading the analysis provided, I see the path that you are trying to question. As a person suffering from a dissociation disorder and having therapy and counselling for it, I can relate to Hannibal and Moloch quite a lot. That's why it's more unacceptable to me that he did that to someone that knew him. I don't think Awen is to blame and all we can hope from the people we seek help from is that they understand the language by which we speak and show our struggles - especially in my case stories and metaphors. And that they understand and can sympathize a bit with it in good faith to help us. I have met some who are like that and who really didn't care what I said if only to use it to mould it into doing what they wanted. No one can understand 100% what someone else is struggling with especially internally. All a therapist/counsellor can do is keep trying to help them, apologize when you realise you have done something wrong even later down the line and build a bond and be there for them as long as your allowed/can to.

>Nevermind good or evil, the belief itself is flawed, and adopting it comes with baggage, such as presuppositions about what an "improvement" is and all that entails, such as notions of "inferiority".

I disagree with this assessment. Obviously the concept of self-improvement is not inherently flawed. Do you have the same objections to "improvement" when someone educates themselves, does brain excercises, learns a new skill, works out to improve their physique, or practices to improve their critical thinking skills? Do all of those actions carry so much baggage that the very belief that they may be worth doing is not viable?

That said, genetic manipulation does have some clear differences compared to something like working out. Due to the complexity of the system has more inherent risks, at least with our current understanding. It also has large potential societal impacts. People who have been successfully genetically engineered may have advantages over "wild-type" people to a degree similar to the advantages literare person has over an illiterate one.

These problems exist and should not be taken lightly, but are not reasons to dismiss the entire idea out of an appeal to naturalism or fear of unintended consequences. Any large change to our society (such as agriculture, reading and writing, or computers) will of course have unintended consequences, but that only means we should approach them with caution, not fear. We should not prohibit literacy because it may carry baggage.

I am also not sure I understand your appeal to natural selection as quoted below:

>The best we can hope to accomplish for the human race from our understanding of genetics and evolution, in my estimation, is perhaps limited to harnessing its problem-solving power in limited contexts. We can help people affected by genetic disorders, and hope for the best: that our medical advances in fact improve our evolutionary fitness as a species, but we have to remember that everything we do happens within a context of natural selection, including attempts to manipulate it, which may or may not have the intended effect on fitness, and failing to take that into consideration doesn't bode well for the positive outcome.

Natural selection and fitness literally just mean whoever has the most offspring. It makes no value judgements on what is good for the individual or society that individual lives in. As an extreme example, a serial rapist serving a life sentence in prison is likely more "fit" than a philosophy professor with a small but loving family. An individual's fitness is perhaps one of the worst metrics to determine if they are leading a "good" life.

Additionally we have already manipulated natural selection to an absurd degree just by changing our society. The modern world looks and behaves absolutely nothing like the world our ancestors evolved in for the last 200,000+ years. We are very poorly evolved for the our current circumstances. The fact that humans as a species have adapted as well as they have to such a rapidly changing environment is nothing short of remarkable considering we are trying to run 21st century society software on caveman hardware.

I'm not sure it is true that most people want to be the opposite of what they are, generally speaking.

Yes, most people are not 100% content with who they are and would like to change certain aspects of themselves, but that is sort of baked into the definition of want, no? If I want something it must, by definition, mean I do not have it. But most people also have many qualities about themselves that they do like. However they have no want for them because they already have them.

So when you only look at what people want it will of course seem like they want the opposite of themselves. But to get the full picture you also need to look at what they like about themselves and wouldn't change. And if you do that I think the assertion "that most people want to be the opposite of what they are" starts to fall apart.

6. Moloch did not have an ethical responsibility, as he is hannibal. u could say, hannibal has an ethical responsibility to keep himself alive, but thats also questionable. as i said earlier, there is nothing unethical about suicide, if u have the right moral. Which leads us agin to the question, how strong & how exactly was the drive of hannibal structured? what are the expectations of the townfolk exactly? as long as we dont know, we cant be sure here.

7. well it mostly teaches, that we must know a lot more of the categorys & movements we are talking about, before we make conclusions or ask new unprecise questions. this is no joke, this is as profound as it gets! un- & consciousness are interacting through a permanent rationalisation of all our goals. its a permanent conflict we are in. a permanent ethical managment to make things work. We must understand which goals and how the goals interact to understand and transform it - if needed. To know is the way to act better! this is a basic element of life! its our fate!

we act this way, because we dont know it better. we want certain things, because its the thing we think that makes us happy & we dont want other things, becasue we think they dont make us happy. so it is also our fate, to KNOW(experience/value which things makes us "happy". Or shoud i say, makes us as we want us to be.

What makes hannibal happy/unhapy?

what makes awen/the townfolk happy/unhappy?

why cant we combine it?

8. it depends on what hannibal & awen (and all of their parts!) want! and thats exactly what a psychologist/doctor/healer must find out! this is hopefully also what god wants us to do. fullfill our dreams without hurting each other to much. Awen was not only a healer, he was also hannibals friend. So if hanibal wanted to make suicide, awen must find a solution for his or better said Hannibals ethical problem, of helping Hannibal/himself to fullfill his dream to be dead or fullfill his dream to be alive in a different way. as this is not a very easy task, it would be best to "analyze" hannibals wish to die. as this is the only way to find out, what is best for all an gods inention in the end.

9. well, see at point 8. & all others. the problem depends on your moral standards u set for the people and if u give them their own morals. If u think, life is something that no sngle person can decide alone, then you have a resposnsibility to that law to keep the patient alive. even if he suffers and so on. but as u can see, this leads to pain and much more conflicts. specially if you cant/wont treat the pain.

If u think, one should decide for their own what is best for them, then u should help them to find the best solution for their wishes. if they want do die because of x, y or z, then its is just like it is.

if hannibal only wants a part of him to die, totally eliminated or transformed into somthing new, then we must figure out if this is possible!

yet again, it teaches us that we have to learn & solve all the different social expectations & conflicts & we life in an ambivalent world, where life and death - knowing & not knowing - are very close & that we are depending of different parts that all work for their own but also together. its not easy to make everybody happy or life healthy & a long life - but its possible in many many cases!

be aware of that dude!

ps very long work here, hope it helps

its not easy to find the relevant elements here. science is finding the dependencys of the things - their social interactons & self-constructions. So to understand the dependencys of the mind and body, u have to use all sciences youve got! So science and specially sociology includes all fields of existence. many things need more then one science to find the truth. for all biological things, u need a lot to understand it correctly & find out all movements. thats the way of science, to create the dependencys of the things to represent/reproduce and transform it correctly/efficient. So, to understand the psychology, u need philosophy, sociology, biology, neuroscience, history... u must understand how all the goals & dependencys get created and work out in the end. A consciousness isnt really the same as a puppet. so there is a lack of dependencys here. Then there are numerous problems u adress & u need to order it more, specially in a more psychoanalytic & functional way. anyway, lets learn...

1. Yes it is possible, as it is possible to evaluate many other dispositions. But it only works, if u realize, that their is a possibility to be so. So the first problem of the doctor in the tale is, that he doesnt see the possibility that the giant is a puppet, controlled by a (maybe) self-destrcutive men. So the help can turn out to be bad because his diagnostic is bad.
2. so here u get a bit metaphysical or should i say, chaotic. First of all, its not sure in which sense exactly Hannibal is self-destructive. So i think there is a good self-destructiveness & a bad one & u must find out how strong this drive is. u must differentiate here a bit more i think. And the problem that a puppet isnt a consciousness is very present here. If hannibal is self-destrucive, moloch is part of this structure, and its not the consciousness itself, its onyl a part of the actual consciousness, which is operating in a priority/fixiation to the unconscious wish to self-destruct. so why should there by another giant? because hannibal got another disposition (to life) and/or because the self-destrcution is bad? Why should a better constructed giant should help hannibal? the giant isnt his problem i guess. the conscoiusness is not the problem at first, its the material dependency that isnt working & leads to a disfunctional mind (un- & consciousnes isnt working properly or the whole social system isnt working properly (anymore) or he wants to find out what happens after death or maybe he isnt really self-destructive, only asocial and stupid). So, here u make a lot of premises that arent really included in the experiment at first. Moloch (as seen as consciousnes) is as conscious about hannibal as the consciousness is consciouss about our unconsciousness. u must be clear here in which way Moloch is really a consciousness or u get unprecise in the experiment. Our consciousness can be aware of our unconsciouss drives, but that doesnt mean, it can influence it to act differently. Of course you have to understand the precise interactions & contraactions of un - & consciousness. This is basic psychoanalytics. so its not very helpful to draw unclear lines here. The question if Awen should act differently with another giant & after finding out the truth about the first giant, is quite obvious & a part of the first question
3. this is also a question of the dependencys. as moloch cant life without hannibal, it should be quite obvoius that both are depending on each other very closely & to the basics of their whole strucutre and so can be seen as one person. so their is only one dead, as hannibals core functions get damaged, all other parts of hannibal, including moloch die too. but only as a very close depending reaction. so the problem of moloch is not the real problem (of hannibal), if he really got one beside stupidity. Privacy is a matter, u must analyse alone. as privacy is nothing that really is important in the end. specially not if u want to help somebody to transform himself (heal him). as every transformation is a death of personality & a rebirth of a new personality and privacy (parts of it). Privacy is only important, if someone want to hide something from others. this is of course not helpful if u want to understand the whole beings. so privacy/secrets (from society) are part of the problem here! as we have structures, that prevent us to transform ourselfs & help us in the end to adapt to all social things. you must analyze, how privacy is part of the problem! But well sometimes, its just natural & part of getting old. As u getting old, u want to have secrets and u want to die, because nothing else makes u happy. its nothing wrong with that. only, when it depends on some failure, u can and want to transform differently. but u must be clear here. the action here dont have to be disfucntional or as symbolic as u think.
4. Awen did everythig he was able to to help him. Its not a new problem, that help can turn out into non-help because of mistreatment. Moloch is hannibal, so hannibal/molochs death was indeed caused by a misleading helpful action & maybe set up as suicide (with a little help from his friends). thats all. for the cause, it doesnt matter why hannibal was doing it. it only matters what Awen knew. Awen knew not very much. Thats his and our all guilt, all the time with everything. But if everything is determined, its not a question of guilt, its a question of how to making it better the next time!
5. What makes u think this is non-ethically? Because of the sucicide or the help to suicide or because the stupid idea of a curious idiot & the unwanted death & killing by his friends? Suicide is ethical if everbody thinks its good. And the unwanted death by the friends is also not unethical, because they dont know what they are doing so they dont act amoral. The only one that acts amoral, is (a part of) hannibal if he really wants to be killed by his friends. As he maybe knows, that they dont want to kill him. Maybe he also thinks, that some would help him to kill him, even if they dont want it. So the moral breach isnt big here i htink. Not really the big problem here. An 100% ethical version could be, to inform all of the experiment but make em act as they would not know. but in the end, its an ambivalent situation, where u must confront yourself with the a) wanted death, b) the wrong outcome of the experiment or/and c) the unfullfilled expectations of the townfolk. u cant make it really 100% ethical i guess, when you dont share/normalize the goals between all actors.

... continue reading down under in the reply section, due to wrong character count by reddit. The whole text is under 10000 characters but i could not post it.

Development in AIs might very well produce just such a result.

Appreciate the opinions :) what scares me most is that if psychiatrists are scared to examine this properly that's a huge indictment against the industry.

If there is a held belief that makes you uncomfortable the only real scientific response is to lean in and understand it.

I get that ECT has helped many and I can't even imagine how it might help, but that's no reason to avoid understanding its therapeutic benefit separate to anaesthetic alone.

Thank you, I really appreciate that. Thanks for caring about the good fight.