thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
happen. For example: for some, saying that life on Earth was promoted by aliens may be much easier to understand than an explanation that uses random and unlikely shocks of molecules, but not more likely to happen, since the alien hypothesis would imply that it would be also necessary to explain the origin of these aliens life added to explanations on how they would have acquired technology enough to get to our planet..That is, the apparent "simplicity" of the hypotheses of life being planted on Earth by aliens, contains, in fact, the complexity of the origin of extraterrestrial life, added to the complexity of an evolution faster than ours.7.2-The Role of Evidence and the Classificatory ListWe can define evidence as a fact in favor of a theory, as an event that corroborates a theory. Obviously, a piece of evidence may eventually also corroborate rival theories. A white goose, for example, may corroborate the theory "all geese are not black" as well as the theory "all geese are not red." The more restrictive the evidence, in the sense of not corroborating rival theories, the lower the chances of the rival theories being true and the higher the chances of the theory corroborated by the evidence being true. If, for example, we notice a brick inside a shoebox, this brick corroborates the theory "a shoe box is not empty" much more than the theory "the shoe box is empty", since the extra hypothesis needed for the box to be really empty, while we notice a brick inside, are quite unlikely (although they may be true). Note that there is no longer an explicit rebuttal of the theories that were not corroborated by evidence; they are only moved to the end of the "Classificatory List" of the theories more likely to be true. Nevertheless, we can still use the word "rebuttal" or "distortion", if we understand them in a relative meaning, that is, a theory refuted by evidence is just a theory less likely to be true.7.3-The Role of Logic and Scientific MethodologyAll the evidence we have since we understand ourselves as human beings indicates that the universe follows the Aristotelian logic. Thus, if any theory, hypothesis, or proposition violates the logic, it will be going against this enormous and extraordinary history of evidence and should therefore be placed in the last positions in the "Classificatory List ". In practice, this is equivalent to a rebuttal. However, we can maintain the word "REFUTE" not in the absolute sense of the word - rejecting a theory forever - but to understand it as highly unlikely to be true. Therefore, we must consider our logical Universe the largest set of evidence we have, and then we can continue to use the Deductive Method (3.1) and Hypothetical Deductive Method (3.2) in the same way we were using before, except that the conclusions we reach cannot be considered absolute truths (simply because the premises used in the methods also cannot be considered absolute truths).7.4-The Old Popperian ScienceThe Popperian criterion (i) "No scientific theory can be proved true" was kept,
and is embedded in the criterion (ii) of The Expanded Science "(ES), as this only refers to the degree of proximity to reality. The "Falsifiability" is clearly disposed in item (i) of the ES, since all propositions related to reality are addressed, not only those that can be falsifiable. However, the popperian "rebuttable evidence still has a high level of relevance in the ES, precisely because it obliges the theories to put unlikely propositions - thus contradicting the Occams Razor - in order to be coherent with the observed facts. For example: the theory "the shoe box is empty" needs some unlikely hypothesis to remain valid (as a brain 'short circuit'), if related to the evidence that we observed a brick inside the box. Thus, "rebuttable evidence" is still valid to throw the refuted theory to the last positions in the list of theories that are closer to reality.7.5-ReligionsIf we define the universe as the set of all that exists, religions are also objects of the ES, since they refer to aspects of reality. Thus, they are also subject to classification by the Expanded Science, according to the Occams Razor.The 7.6- SolipsismThe solipsistic idea is that everything we observe, feel and believe is nothing more than an illusion of some consciousness (I) and, therefore, this reality we observe is false, it does not exist. As solipsism makes references to reality, it is subject to the Expanded Science analysis:The hypothesis that the universe developed from a few physical laws and a finite amount of elementary particles that led it to produce intelligent life with consciousness requires much less hypothesis (and simpler ones) than those required for the existence of such a being that would be able to imagine and relate every single detail of our imaginary world. Moreover, we would also have to solve the problem of the origin of a being with such complexity [13]. Therefore, by the Occams Razor, solipsism must be pretermitted in relation to a universe that is not imagined or virtual. That is, now and not before, we can scientifically "discard" the solipsistic hypothesis.7.7-The Jocaxian NothingnessThe hypothesis that the universe, including the laws of physics, was generated from the Jocaxian Nothingness (JN) [12] (a nothingness without physical elements or laws) is now considered a scientific hypothesis, since it refers to our reality: the origin of our universe. As the JN is the simplest hypothesis about the origin of the universe that respects the Kalams Argument [13] ("An infinite time in the past could never lead to our present, since it would take an infinite time" = never), it should be one of the theories that are closest to reality according to the Occams Razor.7.8-The PhilosophyAs Philosophy seeks the truth dealing with ideas and concepts, ultimately, related to reality, it is also part of the Expanded Science.Thus, we propose the unification of Science and Philosophy, in this new branch of knowledge: The Expanded Science. Appendix AEvidence that contradictory premises imply that any conclusion is true, even that "the universe does not exist":1) Premise 1: "A" ('A' is true)2) Premise
2: "~ A" ('Not A' is true) But: "A ^ (~ A) => FALSE '('A and not A imply False, Logical Tautology *) So, we can conclude from 1 and 2 (by modus ponens):3) "False" (concluded 'false') But: "False => Anything" ("False implies X ', X is any proposition; it is a Logical Tautology ) Assigning 'X' (or 'Anything') the proposition "he Universe does not exist," We have:4) "False => The universe does not exist" From 3 and 4, we can finally conclude by modus ponens:5) "The universe does not exist"That is an absurd.This example shows that from contradictory premises we can prove any absurdity.(* Tautology is an absolute logical truth; that is, a truth that does not depend on the value of variables.) Appendix BSome definitions of science found on the InternetScience: * Rational investigation or study of nature directed to the discovery of the truth. Such investigation is generally methodical, or according to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge. * The organized collection of knowledge acquired through such investigation.Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge that covers general truths or the operation of general laws especially obtained and tested through scientific method. Scientific knowledge depends upon logic [2].The scientific method is a set of basic rules for a scientist to develop an experiment in order to produce knowledge, as well as correcting and integrating pre-existing knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence, based on the use of reason [6].--//--Portuguese version: http://stoa.usp.br/cienciaexpandida/forum/39474.html
GenismoJoao Carlos Holland de Barcellos Translated by Debora Policastro Genetic Philosophy The roots of Genismo date back about 20 years ago, around the 80s. By that time, I had created what I call Genetic Philosophy [1]. It was a simple doctrine, based on the finding that we are not able to change our instincts since they are genetically codified; however, it would be possible to do so through our culture and beliefs, which are cultural products and therefore can be substituted. It was clear to me at that time that much of our suffering was due to the dichotomy between our values like religiosity, ethics and moral on one side, and on the other to our instincts, wills and wishes. Then the best thing we could do would be to adequate our culture to our biology as much as possible, not the opposite. The opposite would be biologically impossible. Putting our beliefs and culture against our biological imperative could only produce more suffering and unhappiness. Let us note in passing that the Freudian theory of sexuality can be seen as one of the facets of my old genetic philosophy since sexuality plays an important instinctive role and, therefore, we could expect that a violent repression to those instincts would cause suffering or various disorders. Later, around 1990, still intrigued by mans biological nature, I read the fantastic book The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. The book shows clearly that all living beings evolved through natural selection in order to perpetuate their genes. In order to is between inverted commas because it is a metaphoric notation: organisms do not really have a conscious objective of perpetuating their genes. They act in this way instinctively, through impulses or reactions that are pre-coded in their nervous system. These reactions can be pretty complex, since only organisms (herein understood as a set of genes) that can transmit their genes to future generations remain in the gene pool of the population. The ones that are not able to do so for some reason do not have their genes preserved; therefore, their characteristics are eliminated. That way, it is like the living organisms had an intention to act in compliance with their genetic perpetuation. We must notice that the instinctive value of life, that is, survival itself, is nothing more than one of the many features of genetic preservation. Before the reader thinks that Genismo is all about offspring, as many do when in contact with the doctrine for the first time, I must say that that would be a crude simplification. It will make all the difference to remember that our genes are not only in our bodies, as we will see. Genes created us and we must serve them Well, Dawkins Selfish Gene showed clearly through innumerous examples from the natural world that living beings were programmed by natural selection to perpetuate their genes. To perpetuate genes means making them survive for as long as possible through generations. Actually, organisms could be seen as carcasses, biological devices or Survival machines, as it was addressed by the
evolutionary biologists at the time, that were made to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. In the book, maybe for prudence, Dawkins did not use human examples to demonstrate this point of view and, for my own luck, he stated we should go against our genes! In his words: Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do. So that the reader can start to understand this gene-perpetuative paradigm, it is important to notice that animals supposedly irrational do not undertake battles and bloodthirsty mortal wars against their own species and, in a surprisingly way, it is rare that one of them dies in individual fights, like territorial disputes or because of females in heat. Even in the search for food ad hunger situations, very rarely species will eat another member of its own species. Why is that so? Is not survival the biggest biological imperative of all? That happens because the biological nature of living beings is centered in perpetuation of genes of shared organisms, not individual ones. If the biological paradigm was only sheer survival, no female would risk its life to save its descendants from danger. The animals would hunt and eat their own species and offspring when hungry. But that rarely happens. What happens is that the supposedly wild animals follow their genes closely, more closely than humans. Humans have consciousness and a mighty brain unfortunately capable of betraying our genes. That happens not only through wars against our fellow creatures, using famous mass destruction weapons, but also against ourselves and as a consequence, endangering our own happiness. Happiness is to walk the path of genetic perpetuation Thus, my old genetic philosophy evolved to Genismo sometime after I read The Selfish Gene and realized we should avoid acting against our genes and start acting for them. Obviously, we should be restricted to some ethical dominion, but yet we would have an ample playing field that would minimize our suffering, give us a meaning to life and a new kind of immortality, not anymore based on illusions, but on real entities: the genes. Genismo, during a phase that lasted from 1990 until April 2003, established that we should assume culturally our biological condition of Gene-Perpetuator Machine and act to perpetuate them. As a result of such actions, which I called gene-perpetuative actions, we would maximize our happiness, since we would reduce culture x instinct conflicts and integrate our culture to our deepest biological essence. Our genes are our most precious assets Of course the acceptance of our gene perpetuator machines intrinsic condition is not trivial: it imposes changes to our old values, some perhaps based on religion, and changing inveterate beliefs and values is undoubtedly the most difficult task in the world. But the doctrine establishes clearly that our most valuable asset is our genes and if we want to maximize happiness without corrupting truth, we must accept it. It
to false illusions. Genist Ethics is Scientific Meta-Ethics (SME) Genismo leads individuals to value their genes and make them act in a way they will consciously want to perpetuate them. That is the reason why we evolved, and Genismo reinforces that that is also the reason we should live for. This way Genismo transforms a biological goal into a cultural one. It unifies culture and biology. This new way to see ourselves helps us integrate with our unchangeable essence that is our genetic programming. Nevertheless, there may be gene-perpetuative possibilities that, although can bring happiness or pleasure to their executor, may provoke more suffering and unhappiness to other individuals, decreasing total happiness in the group, something that goes against the principles of SME. In that case, those possible actions must be avoided, since Genismo is restricted to SME dominion. We must therefore be always alert and not lose sight of the genist goal: happiness. Although Genismo does not yet have a detailed and explicit ethics code, ethical restrictions to our actions must necessarily be based on scientific meta-ethics: each individuals happiness is limited to the happiness of the group. That is, an individual in the group must not enhance its own happiness at the expense of overall happiness of the group. Total happiness prevails over individual happiness. We are our genes In April 2003, Genismo evolved again: it was becoming each time clearer to me that our consciousness was not our essence, but our genes. Genismo used to treat us and our genes differently. We treated our genes as them. We should serve them and live for them. Implicitly we were privileging our consciousness as our true self. From that date on, not anymore. Our consciousness, as our arms, stomach, eyes and nails must be seen as appendages of our true self: our genes. Although our consciousness apparently [2] has control of our actions, it is a result of a small part of our brain processing; maybe even of a minute area of our brains. Thus, it is more reasonable even physically to think that we are our genes, since differently from our consciousness they permeate virtually all cells of our body: from the toes to the nucleus of each of our neurons. However, the dictatorship of consciousness has made its roots very deep. There will still be time until this new paradigm reflects on our colloquial language, and because of that we must be comprehensive while we still treat genes as them and our consciousness as us, even because we would not be understood by the ones that do not know Genismo. But a genist would know that when we say we are struggling to perpetuate our genes, we must understand we are struggling for our own immortality. There is more than one way to reach Genismo. One of them is through Scientific Meta-Ethics (SME): happiness is maximized in the pleasure centers in the brain that produce it when the organism acts according to is evolutionary programming, that is, in a way to perpetuate its genes. Another way is through study
learn (through usage of memory) through pain (or pleasure) that an action is harmful to the genes (or beneficial to them). For instance: putting a hand on fire causes pain and pain is a sign and a way to learn that this act is harmful to the genes. Eating sweet substances is pleasant because, in general, they offer energy to the body and that is beneficial to the genes. Epigenetic Rules Epigenetic rules are improved forms of instinct. They are basically mental algorithms that are not used while not necessary. But when triggered and put to action they may activate a lot of internal mechanisms. Such instincts are not triggered without a previous evaluation of their necessity in relation to the environment. For example: being slapped on the face may trigger anger, or may be caress display in some culture. The same sensorial stimulus may activate others like anger and affection or not, depending on the context. Those instinctive mechanisms developed through natural selection since thousands, even millions of years ago. However, the environment changes more rapidly than the genes adapt to it. That can make them lag behind environmental changes, what causes risk of death or extinction of species. For that reason, the genes made the epigenetic rules flexible through natural selection, what led to the appearance of the neocortex: the thirst for reason. With this new human brain layer, almost every stimuli that before would trigger instincts that make the body act immediately do not do that anymore. The instinctive actions are blocked and, before being triggered, they go through a rational/environmental evaluation: consciousness. One of the functions of consciousness is therefore blocking instinctive actions and evaluating the best answer. With a more efficient response to environmental stimuli, reason naturally took place of instinct in control of actions. For that reason we (sometimes) are able not to hit a person in case he/she annoys us. Obviously, the genes that created this brain layer only survived because this strategy was more efficient to perpetuate the genes of the organism. Why? Because we are here! If the genes that created reason and consciousness had been less efficient to perpetuate we would not be here with all this conscious and rational apparatus in the head. With this new neurological apparatus in the brain, a new level of gene-perpetuation appears: Absorption of memes. As a consequence of the speed of environmental changes and genetic inability to create mental algorithms specific to each different environmental situation, the genes created a more flexible structure the neocortex- which can block instincts and analyze the best solution through reason instead of responding immediately. The ability to store memes in brain memory allowed knowledge to be used without having to be reinvented. Since then, the culture and the brain have advanced and evolved a lot. That allowed us to land on the moon, create medicines and become one of the species with the biggest evolutionary success on the planet. Ideological Pleasure The ability to absorb memes made the ideological pleasure possible. The ideological Pleasure is what we feel when
we act in accordance to the ideology (memes) we believe is true. It has probably originated from the necessity of cohesion in territorial disputes and tribal wars in our evolutionary past. For instance, if we belong to a soccer team, religion, club, city, country, etc, we should feel pleasure when we act in benefit of the group or the institution we belong to. This pleasure is based on the fact that people that are close to us and share the same interests should probably share more similar genes; thus, helping them is also a way to help our genes, since we probably share more genes with them than with strangers. Genes and Happiness It is important to notice that the usage of instincts, epigenetic rules and reason itself had a purpose [4]: those mechanisms evolved while benefiting gene-perpetuation. But these organisms are not really interested in gene-perpetuation (actually, not even the genes are)! These organisms want more and more pleasure and less suffering and pain. So, all usage of internal brain mechanisms to solve problems means only more sophisticated ways of solving problems to increase pleasure and decrease pain for the longest period of time possible, that is: they are ways of trying to maximize happiness! What happens is that organisms that own nervous system are ALWAYS running from suffering and seeking pleasure. All the time. As pleasure multiplied by time is happiness, to put it simple, organisms are always seeking pleasure. And the genes, on the other hand, always want to survive, to perpetuate. In our evolutionary past, at least, the ways to seek happiness should be the same that led to gene-perpetuation. That is: the more happiness we got, the more genetic perpetuation would be done. Therefore we have a logical-evolutionary correlation between seek for happiness and genetic perpetuation. Betrayal Nevertheless, the genes did not know that such rational power and ability to control from something flexible as the consciousness they had created and its associated neuronal subsystems could also turn against themselves. Although consciousness can solve technical problems masterfully in a way to avoid pain and get pleasure, has also allowed harmful memes to perpetuate genetically (for instance consumerism and VM2F) and also happiness (Buddhism, celibacism, etc) to appear. Obviously, we are still in an evolutionary process. Natural selection continues to act in a way that, in a long or short term, those memes will face barriers, if not memetic, at least genetic against their proliferation. One of the ways for the genes to get rid of the VM2F is to instigate an organism to reproduce before a meme is installed in its mind. That should explain the increase in numbers of teenage pregnancies [3]. Priorities Hierarchization One of the things Genismo suggests is that we must follow our genes. But what does that mean? It basically means that we must act according to what our genes want. One of the ways the genes signalize what they want is through wills and wishes. For instance, if an organism feels the need for water, genetic mechanisms signalize with thirst. If