Comment by xtiansimon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xtiansimon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> "...fairly small set of fundamental ideas that account for the way things are here..."

My comment referring to System I & System II is not meant to suggest a "small set" of ideas. Rather, I'm thinking about reactive/unconscious thinking versus deliberate rational thinking as multiplying the complexity of our thoughts.

Philosophy has for millennia grappling with the additional complexities of truth and falsity when it comes to logic and reason. Add deception or falsehoods for intentional falsity. These are multipliers of complexity by way of permutations of the state of affairs.

Add system 1 and system 2, this complexity is further multiplied by self-deception or irrational thought.

As the comment I quoted so wonderfully described "ultra-flexible/fundamentally ambiguous language" puts into question the whole endeavor of making true statements at all.

And if that doesn't blow your mind, then realizing how pitiful the human mind performs on multi-dimensional problems compared to computers will put the fear of the event horizon back into your weekend. (>_<)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Dual-proce...

> My comment referring to System I & System II is not meant to suggest a "small set" of ideas. Rather, I'm thinking about reactive/unconscious thinking versus deliberate rational thinking as multiplying the complexity of our thoughts.

For sure, I think I know what you're getting at. My point/theory is that a small set of fundamental ideas, System I & System II being one of the ideas, can plausibly explain why affairs on this planet are so amazingly suboptimal considering the capabilities and resources at our disposal, and that very few people seem particularly concerned about or even aware of the abstract phenomenon.

> Add system 1 and system 2, this complexity is further multiplied by self-deception or irrational thought.

Exactly....these flaws are multiplicative: the resulting problem of combining multiple is (at least at times) much greater than the sum of the individual parts.

> And if that doesn't blow your mind, then realizing how pitiful the human mind performs on multi-dimensional problems compared to computers will put the fear of the event horizon back into your weekend. (>_<)

Oh yes...and, this poor performance can regularly be observed in culture war threads right here on HN, a community of fairly exceptionally intelligent and logical people, on a relative basis (people tending to think about certain things only in relative terms is another example in "the small set"). To me, it is unmistakably obvious that The Problem is with the way the human mind currently works, and until people are able to realize this, I think we will have to be satisfied with our marginal improvements approach to the world. I can't for the life of me understand why people are so insistent on this, but the world's a complicated place.

> "...suboptimal considering the capabilities and resources at our disposal..."

Rather than seeing this state of affairs as 'suboptimal'--like a problem which can be optimized--I see this as an expression of entropy. Not something to be solved, but contended with.

> "..people tending to think about certain things only in relative terms is another example in 'the small set'."

Relative thinking as an expression of 'the small set'?? Relative thinking is comparison _within_ a set of options or a framework. In other words someone believes it's permissible to lie or cheat while playing a game, because it's just a game. Harm relative to the seriousness of a game, makes the lie permissible. Whereas any act of deception is a violation of morality. Is this a characterization of your 'small set' behavior?

> 'To me, it is unmistakably obvious that The Problem is with the way the human mind currently works...'

Are you Skynet? There is no 'problem' with the way the human mind works.

> "...and until people are able to realize this, I think we will have to be satisfied with our marginal improvements approach to the world."

Better men than you or I have devoted their life's pursuits to these problems. In the end they are dead and never went to Burning Man or rode a motorcycle or went sky diving or river rafting on the Snake river. HA!

All kidding aside, what compelled me to respond here is your concept of 'small set'. Reading your comments again, I realized that I'm quite fascinated with _small sets_. It's a great pursuit in design to develop this small set. Taking a problem--problem's context, it's relative importance, levels of engagement, call to action, the ambiguity of language, cost of goods, practicalities and possibilities of production, given budget to make an idea reality--by a process of great alchemy and inspiration reveal the _small set_ solution. Designing the _light switch_ of a solution to a problem. This is not possible without 'small sets'. IMHO

Reply on news.ycombinator.com