I am not in control of others. I am barely in control of myself.
The only way to control others is through force, everything else is a negotiation.
When I listen to certain people prognosticate about what we all are doing or should be doing I can't help but become curious about what they mean by "we". "We" is a collective noun that takes on different forms depending on the context it is used in. A Christian can address a group of Christians and say the word "we" and it is to whom they are referring. Namely, Christians. But if that same Christian was in a room full of atheists and used the word "we" he might be referring to his fellow Christians or he might be appealing to a more general "we" as in "we are all humans," or "we are all Americans".
The term "we" requires an assumption on the part of both the speaker and listener which offers two opportunities to misinterpret the meaning of the word. The speaker assumes that the listener knows which group they are referring to and the listener assumes they know what group the speaker is referring to. Both parties may be wrong in their assumptions. This is just another reason why clarification is important and why using vague, abstract or lazy terms is problematic.
Another issue with using the word "we" is that if the group being referred to is large enough it loses any generalizability or coherency. Saying, "We should all do this or that", referring to all people or all Americans, for example, is either so generically obvious it doesn't need to be stated such as in the statement, "We should strive to make the world a better place" or it becomes so vague as in the statement, "We, the people of the United States of America..." that it holds no specificity and therefore does not offer to reveal any real identity.
Another example is in the following sentence, "what we did in Vietnam," and we assume that what they mean is America if they are American, which is exceptionally vague because the "we" in this statement attempts to hold a large number of people responsible for something they had nothing to do with. Not that no one in America still living had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam. Even if the speaker is referring to the historical fact that America did something in Vietnam the meaning is still not clear as the definition relies on the ever-changing definition of the peoples of America, for the word "we", when spoken by a person, typically includes humans and certainly does in the above statement.
The definition of "America" in 1969 would not only include all the individuals that lived during that time but would also describe their actions. Obviously, this is an impossible thing to do accurately, hence the simplifying use of the word "we". The actions of the government would be the most representative of the US to anyone outside of the United States so one must include the actions of the government as well, which means that you have to separate out the individuals that made up the government and weigh their actions heavier than the civilian population. Then you might want to include the most financially affluent as they probably funded many of the politicians that ended up in the government and for their contribution to American culture. The words "America" and "Americans" only represent an abstract concept and it's actual definition evolves constantly.
Can a nation be considered a continuous entity? What is the statute of limitations of a nation's crimes?
Considering that I have asserted that a "nation" is nothing more than a concept referring to individual people, then holding a "nation" accountable could be dealt with in a similar fashion as holding individuals accountable. One can not sit a "nation" down and demand recompense, as the true definition of a "nation" should include the sum total of its inhabitants at a given time. That does not mean that one can't identify those that made decisions that directly lead to the guilty act. This is typically the responsibility of the governing body of the nation but might also include the wealthy and otherwise influential.
When you hold all the weapons you are only accountable to yourself.
If a speaker is using a form of "we" that is devoid of persons or includes non-humans then it should be clear within the context of the statement. Maybe in a world full of sentient aliens and humans, the use of the word "we" would grow to include non-humans as a norm. Also, if the word "we" refers to all biological entities then it refers to non-humans as well but when was the last time someone said the word "we" to refer to all biological forms?
Another example is in the following sentence, "what we did in Vietnam," and we assume that what they mean is America if they are American, which is exceptionally vague because the "we" in this statement attempts to hold a large number of people responsible for something they had nothing to do with. Not that no one in America still living had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam. Even if the speaker is referring to the historical fact that America did something in Vietnam the meaning is still not clear as the definition relies on the ever-changing definition of the peoples of America, for the word "we", when spoken by a person, typically includes humans and certainly does in the above statement.
The definition of "America" in 1969 would not only include all the individuals that lived during that time but would also describe their actions. Obviously, this is an impossible thing to do accurately, hence the simplifying use of the word "we". The actions of the government would be the most representative of the US to anyone outside of the United States so one must include the actions of the government as well, which means that you have to separate out the individuals that made up the government and weigh their actions heavier than the civilian population. Then you might want to include the most financially affluent as they probably funded many of the politicians that ended up in the government and for their contribution to American culture. The words "America" and "Americans" only represent an abstract concept and it's actual definition evolves constantly.
Can a nation be considered a continuous entity? What is the statute of limitations of a nation's crimes?
Considering that I have asserted that a "nation" is nothing more than a concept referring to individual people, then holding a "nation" accountable could be dealt with in a similar fashion as holding individuals accountable. One can not sit a "nation" down and demand recompense, as the true definition of a "nation" should include the sum total of its inhabitants at a given time. That does not mean that one can't identify those that made decisions that directly lead to the guilty act. This is typically the responsibility of the governing body of the nation but might also include the wealthy and otherwise influential.
When you hold all the weapons you are only accountable to yourself.
If a speaker is using a form of "we" that is devoid of persons or includes non-humans then it should be clear within the context of the statement. Maybe in a world full of sentient aliens and humans, the use of the word "we" would grow to include non-humans as a norm. Also, if the word "we" refers to all biological entities then it refers to non-humans as well but when was the last time someone said the word "we" to refer to all biological forms?
I suppose that part of the reason that I have a problem with anyone using the word "we" in a way that ascribes responsibility is that groups of people don't do anything. Individuals do things and make decisions. When they work together it is easy to group them up and consider their efforts as a whole. It makes it easier to talk about what happened and what you think should have happened.
To be accurate one should name everyone involved but it is hard to say all the names of the people involved when groups become larger than a few people. When there are too many people to state their names one can take shortcuts. The problem with linguistic shortcuts is that when they are repeated without consideration their original meaning can get lost and one stops using our critical faculties. This is one of the reasons that abstract language leads to misunderstandings. Another abstract concept is represented by the word "group". This is another vague term that relies on context and shared knowledge. The word "group" is the more objective version of "we" just and the word "they" is an externalized version of "we".
To be accurate one should name everyone involved but it is hard to say all the names of the people involved when groups become larger than a few people. When there are too many people to state their names one can take shortcuts. The problem with linguistic shortcuts is that when they are repeated without consideration their original meaning can get lost and one stops using our critical faculties. This is one of the reasons that abstract language leads to misunderstandings. Another abstract concept is represented by the word "group". This is another vague term that relies on context and shared knowledge. The word "group" is the more objective version of "we" just and the word "they" is an externalized version of "we".
The pyramids were not built by groups of people. One might say that it was built by Jews, a recognized group of people, but one should not say that it was built by "the Jews". Many Jews had nothing to do with it and considering that it was so long ago the accuracy of any statement about the history of the pyramids should be suspect. Even the word "Jew" as an identifier of individual characteristics is not well defined. In using the word "group" in this fashion one is forgoing every bit of information related to the actual physical reality and representing it in an alternative way. They are redefining the event and abstracting its contents. This is a necessary aspect of communication via language as efficiency is important. People do not have the time to name and address every human and activity related to an event. All of history is told using abstractions, metaphors, and vagueries.
The story of the pyramids is what lingers. Not of the actual entities that were involved.
The pyramids were built by lots and lots of individuals that used their bodies to accomplish work. While one can create endless categories in an effort to describe similarities or differences among individuals the fact still remains that it is individuals that act. They may use justifications that appeal to communal concepts but they still act of their own accord even if not totally of their own volition. They are responsible even if they are not completely in control. Environmental pressures and the drive for survival have a great influence on behavior but even in the face of death, some have had the will to fight their instincts and act of their own will.
The story of the pyramids is what lingers. Not of the actual entities that were involved.
The pyramids were built by lots and lots of individuals that used their bodies to accomplish work. While one can create endless categories in an effort to describe similarities or differences among individuals the fact still remains that it is individuals that act. They may use justifications that appeal to communal concepts but they still act of their own accord even if not totally of their own volition. They are responsible even if they are not completely in control. Environmental pressures and the drive for survival have a great influence on behavior but even in the face of death, some have had the will to fight their instincts and act of their own will.
So, then in what circumstances is one permitted to use the word "we", you might ask. I actually think it is perfectly fine for people to use the word "we" whenever they want but one should be aware that it may lead to miscommunication and misattribution. One should strive to be accurate in their speech and not succumb to the laziness of using vague words and idioms. If one is referring to all humans then they certainly can use the word "we" but in most other cases one should be careful and deliberate with their use of the word.
Maybe one of the reasons that the word "we" is used so wantonly is that it promotes communalism. By using the word "we" one can hold many people responsible for something without having to find and name all the individuals. Humans are a highly social species and do not thrive in isolation. In fact, I would venture to guess that group identities were formulated well before individual identities in humanity's linguistic past. The identification of outsiders was and is a survival instinct that has roots that go deeper than our Homosapien speciation. Therefore, the notion of a "We" is hardwired into we humans. A small person might be called a wee human.
One of the problems with using the word "we" in a lazy fashion is that one will likely end up holding someone responsible for something they had nothing to do with. This makes it easy to identify large groups of people, some of which might actually be immediately responsible, but some might have just been on the outskirts of the group and knew nothing of the occurrence. Groups are rarely in full unison and while many may act as if they always agree with their group's decisions in public many will debate its merits in private. Groups of humans are not mental monoliths or cyborg hiveminds.
The question might then arise, "are a state's citizens responsible for the actions made using their tax dollars but without their direct permission or involvement. Governments make many decisions that are never put in front of the citizenry so can a citizen be held morally responsible because they did not withdraw their financial support? Can a citizen be expected to risk their life and their family's life to disobey a government that acts against their value system?
While a citizen might not be expected to withdraw financial support to a corrupt government by not paying taxes, they can still use other means such as voting, petitioning, speaking out, or whatever else is not deemed illegal by the sitting government. What is important to understand here is that the government is another group that is incapable of taking action. It is simply a concept. A narrower but still vague "we" that is actually made up of individuals who make decisions and take action. Individuals are responsible for what the government does but it is easy to spread the responsibility thin in a culture the masks responsibility under the guise of communal togetherness.
Here is a short list of things I attribute to my personal concept of my self:
I think many times when people say "we" they mean "I" such as in the sentence, "How do we feel..." If the speaker had used the word "I" instead, it would have no inaccuracies and cause no confusion about who is being referred to. But when they use the word "we" they create a disconnect from the subject of the statement. They broaden their scope and add something when something more is not needed and may not exist. They are obscuring the meaning of the statement and creating an unnecessary abstraction.
If one draws a picture of people standing around then there are only individuals. If one then draws a circle around them and then calls the group "they" or "we" then one is still referring to individuals but pulling back on the detail which leaves room for entropy and a lack of clarification. One is sacrificing the truth for convenience and efficiency, which is not all bad, and utilizing an abstract concept that only exists within the brain as opposed to referring to actual physical bodies, ie: the individuals.
There are things that exist outside of the body and there are things that only exist within the neural network that exists in the body. Consciousness seems to be an emergent phenomenon that exists due to neural networks. Until recently the only notable network was within the human body but now there are networks outside the human that may contain the same emergent properties such as on the internet. Maybe this is not a meaningful distinction or category of existence.
On Consciousness and Free Will:
Maybe if the universe is deterministic then it doesn't matter if we hold the wrong person responsible for things. Maybe we are all on a rollercoaster that never ends and our momentum leads us down the only path available. Maybe that means that there is no "we" as there is no "you"? If the self is an illusion then so is the concept of we. What is a group of illusions called? Are we only an illusion to ourself or is it that our concept of ourselves is an illusion? Is the entirety of our internal conception of ourselves an illusion or are some aspects real? If the external world is real then are others not real? If others are real then I am real to others? If they are real to me but not to themselves then there is a contradiction.
Either, we are all real or we are all an illusion.
The definition of the self becomes important here. I would use the following to begin to define the self:
Maybe if the universe is deterministic then it doesn't matter if we hold the wrong person responsible for things. Maybe we are all on a rollercoaster that never ends and our momentum leads us down the only path available. Maybe that means that there is no "we" as there is no "you"? If the self is an illusion then so is the concept of we. What is a group of illusions called? Are we only an illusion to ourself or is it that our concept of ourselves is an illusion? Is the entirety of our internal conception of ourselves an illusion or are some aspects real? If the external world is real then are others not real? If others are real then I am real to others? If they are real to me but not to themselves then there is a contradiction.
Either, we are all real or we are all an illusion.
The definition of the self becomes important here. I would use the following to begin to define the self:
1. The self is a minimally reducible entity that still maintains the other attributes.
2. The self is composed of a person's physical body, regardless of deformity or loss of organic material.
3. The self is alive. (Unless one believes that the self is separate from the body or denies biology in general.)
Here is a short list of things I attribute to my personal concept of my self:
4. I am conscious.
5. My consciousness relies on my biology and is born of it.
6. I am responsible for my actions.
7. I am only partly in control of my actions.
8. I can discipline my will power and grow its effectiveness.
Free will is an acceptance of your participation in the actions of your body. Free will is taking responsibility because someone has to. Free will is holding people accountable for not trying. While free will is not always activated it is always available unless the person is broken somehow. That is why we do not imprison people we deem mentally incapable of exercising their will power.
Is it not just an expression of our total narcissism as a species that we might think that we are important or in charge of the world.
The whole concept that there is something bigger out there is based on the collective value system and the vastness of the external world and the hierarchy of the pack.
I think many times when people say "we" they mean "I" such as in the sentence, "How do we feel..." If the speaker had used the word "I" instead, it would have no inaccuracies and cause no confusion about who is being referred to. But when they use the word "we" they create a disconnect from the subject of the statement. They broaden their scope and add something when something more is not needed and may not exist. They are obscuring the meaning of the statement and creating an unnecessary abstraction.
If one draws a picture of people standing around then there are only individuals. If one then draws a circle around them and then calls the group "they" or "we" then one is still referring to individuals but pulling back on the detail which leaves room for entropy and a lack of clarification. One is sacrificing the truth for convenience and efficiency, which is not all bad, and utilizing an abstract concept that only exists within the brain as opposed to referring to actual physical bodies, ie: the individuals.
There are things that exist outside of the body and there are things that only exist within the neural network that exists in the body. Consciousness seems to be an emergent phenomenon that exists due to neural networks. Until recently the only notable network was within the human body but now there are networks outside the human that may contain the same emergent properties such as on the internet. Maybe this is not a meaningful distinction or category of existence.
On AI:
When Sam Harris or Elon Musk talks about the future of AI and say things like, "we" have to consider this or that or that "we" need to be careful, who the fuck are they talking about? Maybe they are just talking to those who are responsible for creating and developing AI and robotics or those that are funding research but because the word can apply to everyone in this context it is hard not to be confused about what they are asking of me. If the "we" here means every human then I am not sure what I can do to stop AI, especially considering it is already here and that I have no idea how it works.
Now, humans have created catastrophically bad technologies but again I ask, who is to blame? It seems like it would be the individuals that acted to create these terrible technologies or who chose to use them. The same human drive that created the atom bomb created the polio vaccine. It seems that with the explosion of creativity and scientific understanding we get a combination of both terrific and terrifying technologies. Thus the universe stays in balance. A balance between chaos and order. Entropy and cohesion. Humans are constantly encountering the sublime and the horrific.
No comments:
Post a Comment