Status
March 1st, 2024
I spent the entirety of yesterday without electronics, being bored. I thought about perceptions, language, and my stance on questions. I'll post a little of that here, of which I wrote in my notebook, and I'll top it off with some discussion on status.
Words
I realized words are pointers to reality. All the bad thoughts in my head---the words---were just representations of reality.
Words cut and categorize reality and stain it with our biases. Which, admittedly, has practicality. But words are not the "reality." They aren't the "real" existence.
Knowing
Just because you knew something does not mean you will continue to know.
Every morning I repeat to myself: "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
I have come to the same conclusion as Wittgenstein: any language taken out of context may be regarded as pointing to nothing at all. The generalization, the abstraction, the all-encompassing case; lures intellect with its sweet nectar---only to drown them with misguided sweet nothings.
Philosophy
What sort of person is interested in philosophy?
Who would question the value proposition of being alive? (What is the meaning of life?)
What is the granted utility of an abstraction?
In my life, I have run to philosophy to kiss my boo-boos, that somehow I could justify having my experiences and reckon with the greater truth---to produce something of it, so that it wasn't all for nothing.
I feel as if many who philosophize are of the sort who wish to bring value of their lived experience for the general of humanity. They are a kind and intellectual stock; granted perversely with a pitiful sensitivity to suffering.
Language
Language is the framework for thought. It has its bounds, and it tricks us into believing we can speak of something which may not even exist.
Writers create symbols from experience (generated by senses.) Readers consume symbols and give meaning to them from experience. (This is why misunderstanding is so easy. Different experiences entirely!)
The reader's job is to actively consume and connect the symbols to the meaning they are intended to generate, and the writer's job is to proactively write words to attribute the correct meaning in the reader's context.
However, since the writer's turn is first, they have the harder job of guessing their audience's desires, needs, and context. That is why the writer must write in the context of the reader. A hard task!
Or, if not predicting the reader's mind, at least the writer must create symbols that draw out the intended context of the reader!
ChatGPT
LLM's will never reach a human's capability. We generate symbols based on experience. LLM's generate based on symbols; the two are not the same.
I read the introductory pages to Keith Johnstone's book Impro, in his life he was a play-reader (that is, he would decide what plays were good and bad.) He threw out all plays that were modeled and plagiarised after other plays, and only read plays based on life experience.
People can be like LLMs too. They can generate symbols based on other symbols. Critical thinkers and original creatives will draw from experience, but there are many people who generate symbols based on symbols.
But until our LLMs can sense reality---experience reality---the way we do, they are still a long ways to go.
Our senses are not limited to just seeing and hearing, they consist of feeling too, which is probably the most important sense. Something to keep in mind for general AI developers, I guess.
Status
I read a short article by Scientific American on the effects of low social status. A very good read.
But in having read Wittgenstein, what is status? I do not know. Is it the feeling of inferiority, that tenseness when I see someone large and burly? Is it the feeling of uselessness---that knot in my stomach---whenever I am confronted with my lack of effort or competentcy?
Maybe status is a poor way to frame this. What is it truly that we mean when we say low-status? In what context? In what exact state and structure of reality?
I think of the skinny boy in class, probably dressed in long-sleeves to hide his cuts. He shrivels down and curls up at his desk, head down. He looks at his papers instead of his peers. His classmates are all busy listening to the teacher or gossiping among themselves while he sits quietly, hoping that nobody will ever take notice of him.
I think of the boy getting bullied behind the school building: coming home with purple marks to a broken home. I think of the boy who locked himself in the bathroom. The boy is afraid of loud noises, and there are plenty of loud noises at home.
That, to me is low status. It is someone who we call "powerless." In this situation, the boy is punched and hurt. The boy is afraid, so he denies himself access to other human beings. The boy sees himself in the context of others, and that he is useless.
But if low status really were to refer to a powerless victim, what a turn of events that would be! To use the word "low status" implies a hierarchy, and that for every group of human there must exist people on lower rungs of the ladder.
However, framing these people as "victims" would present a different picture, no? It would mean that a society without victims is entirely possible. "Low status" however implies a repsonsibility of the individual to climb the hierarchy, it's more of a responsible take of the matter.
It's hard for me to say---but that's why I think the context is important. Because at the end of the day, higher abstractions are frameworks for organizing experiences.
The one thing that's definite is that low-status individuals, as I have described, and as the article describes, suffer from psychological negative effects. They suffer from "psychological self-protection," which groups together behaviour like avoidance and aggression.
The article says generosity is a way to prevent these psychological effects. Though, naturally, when put in these positions humans will resort to antisocial behaviour for whatever reason.
A white paper from Berkeley states that generosity can affect well-being greatly. Even anonymous generosity. Hmm.
Donating Anonymously
I've just donated $20 to Wikipedia and $10 to my local homeless nonprofit. It's a test to see if I feel better. After donating, I don't necessarily feel any different, but I guess it's in the back of my mind now.
I take that back. I just got back an email saying "You're part of the solution!" Haha. Maybe I do feel a bit better.
Maybe that's the missing link to it all. I didn't realize it was this simple.