Scapegoats, Girard, and structural frames

 Girard's notion of the origins of scapegoating:

Whereas the philosophers of the 18th century would have agreed that communal violence comes to an end due to a social contract, Girard believes that, paradoxically, the problem of violence is frequently solved with a lesser dose of violence. When mimetic rivalries accumulate, tensions grow ever greater. But, that tension eventually reaches a paroxysm. When violence is at the point of threatening the existence of the community, very frequently a bizarre psychosocial mechanism arises: communal violence is all of the sudden projected upon a single individual. Thus, people that were formerly struggling, now unite efforts against someone chosen as a scapegoat. Former enemies now become friends, as they communally participate in the execution of violence against a specified enemy.

One of the questions that arises is what are possible underlying structures of this phenomenon. One possibility is that mammalian predator neurologies generate  waste products that build up over time. There is a need to release these wastes. When a group has accumulated enough waste, it seeks a receptacle for that energy or a release mechanism. Scapegoat(s) are found as ways to release this energy.

One can also think of this process as a way to maintain stability and avoid change. If something external is the "cause" of the energy build up, then one doesn't have to deal with one's own part in the build up of this "waste product' / energy.

An example of this structure in the alpha and omega of the wolf pack. Human societies / civilizations also create their own omegas in terms of  a servant class, an ethnic group, an easily differentiated sub-group, ...

Reasoning Frames

 Watching a dialogue between Professor Gilbert Morris and Daniel Schmactenberger on "A History of Racial Conflict", came across the notion of "motivated reasoning". The question arises when is there not motivated reasoning? We have the illusion of being "objective". Since the majority of our thinking is unconscious, and we are biological beings who don't really understand their neurology, reasoning structures, motivations, limitations, ...., we categorically can not be objective in any reasonable sense. Hence, all our reasoning is motivated reasoning based on reasons we may or may not be aware of.

Next, there is the issue of the frame used for reasoning. The frame used in this dialogue was basically a "moral frame", e.g., how could persons like Jefferson, Washington profess such high morals, write the Bill of Rights and yet participate in slavery and oppress other human beings. One can tie oneself in knots trying to answer this dilemma. A more useful frame for these kinds of issues in particular, and other issues in general, is to use a "structural frame", i.e., what kinds of underlying structures create these phenomena. Part of our biology is to utilize and maximize asymmetry in our favor. And to feel special as primates or perhaps even more generally, as living beings with a perspective. We also have a reptilian heritage of identifying "blemishes" in others as a way to identify them and then use that rationalization to increase our asymmetry with them. The asymmetry is what allows us to create hierarchies - servants, slaves, worker bees, bosses, .... This creation and utilization of asymmetry is part of our biological heritage. All human societies do this, continue to do it, we are surrounded by this phenomena in all societies, past and present. It is also the basis of this existence, particles -> atoms -> molecules -> cells -> ..... Each aggregation increasing the asymmetry between itself and its components or "siblings".

The structural frame, imho, gives more of a chance of being intentional and have choice over this basic biological impulse that we have. The universe cares little, if at all, for our moral frames. It does respond to the congruency of our structural understanding to the actual causal structures of the phenomena in question.

Hard problem, Egregores, and AGI

 Given a different frame, a hard problem can become an easy / easier problem. Or point to a different way to understand the "problem". One way to think about consciousness or the hard problem of consciousness is to think of it as an egregore. With a certain combination of neural structures with certain features / characteristics, an egregore is created. We identify that as a "self" or our consciousness. Since we have such a direct experience of it, we have so many words for it - self, I, ego, my name, your name, .... There are many egregores which we have no names for, e.g., family egregore, ethnic egregore, national egregore, mob egregore, .... We can be parts of these egregores, however, we don't have a direct experience of them as an entity since we are only a part of that egregore. Our memory, our senses, etc., don't have a sense of their identity as they are parts of our egregore / consciousness.

From this framing arises the question: what are the necessary and sufficient sub-parts for the creation of an egregore? This may be a useful direction in the study / creation of a strong agi. We have early inklings of intentionality in creating egregores, e.g., metanoic teams ( a team that is greater than the sum of its parts). We don't seem to have deterministic processes for creating metanoic teams. However, on occasion we are do create them on occasion with some degree of intentionality. We are also getting inklings of how to do this from synthetic biology, genetic studies, biology, ...

YATOT - Yet Another Thought On Thought - orders of realities

 More thoughts on the previous post. We are trying to understand what this existence is about, why, what, how, ...

• Story 1.0 ( aka religion ) - Why is predominant. There is a creation story that narrates the why. The why is a veil on the sacred - that which is unfathomable, not to be understood. The how and what is limited by what the why story allows. The feedback loop of story upgrading is slow - centuries and millennia, partly because the absoluteness of the why is a temporal dampener.
• Story 2.0 ( aka science ) - How and what is predominant. Why is relegated to secondary contexts, e.g., theory of evolution explains the why of different forms, their origins, development, etc. The feedback loop speed increases to generations or less. The old priesthood maintains its stories in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary - Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions.
• Story 3.0 - The sacred / mystery is re-introduced. The feedback loop becomes variable - very fast for some situations and very slow for others depending on the potential gains / harms from the change that responding to the feedback would engender.
• Story 4.0 - Consciousness starts creating and becoming the why, what, and how of other contexts, universes, simulations, .... There is bifurcation - creation of alternate universes in virtual reality and explorations in this reality. 
• Story 5.0 - unification / integration / exploration of the bifurcated realities - consciousness begins to create new life forms. Gives these life forms capabilities. These capabilities lead to these new forms starting Story 1.0 again for their reality.
• The recursion is infinite (?). It just keeps going. Where are we in this recursive frame? Which order of reality are we in? If it is turtles all the way up and the all the way down, which one is our turtle.

YAT - Yet another thought on religion / science

 Religion and science are generally put into juxtaposition to posit some idea / hypothesis. Another way to think about the difference between the two in terms of simple structural differences that distinguish one from the other. One can think of science is version 2.0 of trying to understand this reality / existence.

• Religion has a narrative of why and how existence / reality came to be, what it is about, and where it is going.
• Science has a narrative of how existence / reality came to be, what it is about, and where it is going. The why is demoted to specific contexts, e.g., evolution, creation of life as a process beginning with exploding stars, ....

So, if we see them both as attempts to understand and make sense, then we can say the difference between the two is that science has a faster feedback loop. Science narratives have to be validated by evidence. And new evidence can invalidate accepted narratives. Religion's feedback loop is much slower - centuries / millennia for religion and only a few generations or less for science. 

Since it is humans that are practicing / using both these narratives, the behavior is human behavior. Both try to sideline, eliminate any deviance from the currently accepted narrative. Structurally, both processes have their priesthoods, gatekeepers, fundamentalists, ....

Science / Religion

Came across an interesting article trying to distinguish between science and religion.  Unfortunately, the author falls into the pattern he is decrying - us / them. Scientists can be just as fervently dogmatic as religious true believers. They have ruined careers / lives of others because they did not follow the current scientific models / dogma. This continues to happen pretty regularly. Also, he totally leaves out that binding to dogma does not have to be religious dogma, it can be any ideology such as fascism, communism, trumpism, .... These are all non-religious ideologies. Science has its own dogma about what is real and what is not. Although, one can say, as the author points out, that it a self-correcting process. What he doesn't point out is that that self-correction can take a generation or more. Which is an improvement over religion's century / millennia long binding to dogma with little self-correction or upgrading.

Another model to think about these issues is that each one of us is at a different level of development and hence need. Each of us needs an anchor  / foundation to build our lives around. Children's anchors are their parents and parental authority. Adults can substitute other authority figures, e.g., priests, popes, mullahs, gurus, to be their authority figure. This is a way of conserving energy. One can call it cognitive off-loading. Letting somebody else do our thinking and reasoning takes a lot less energy. And nature tends to take the path of least resistance and minimal energy utilization. This pattern is built into the fabric of existence.

So, with a developmental model as the base, the issue becomes how do we help each other be more reasonable, think more clearly, pay attention to the feedback that the universe continually provides us to help us grow. One of our features is the remarkable ability to filter out feedback the universe is giving us and continue our "dogmatic" path no matter how much pain and suffering it causes us and others.

And yet another factor at play is our starting / base state as we think / act on these things. Are we in a state of care / love / compassion. Or are we in a state of looking for a blemish - what is wrong - that would justify our dislike / disgust / hate / ... The starting state can make such a difference in our thinking / reasoning. Perhaps, recognition of this dynamic is what led various spiritual traditions to extol the value of love / agape.

And in the midst of all this confusion about what is going on and why, if we are able to pay attention to the moment, there can be this sense of awe at this existence - we have no absolute idea what it is all about and yet here we are, breathing?