Category Archives: Society

Having hard conversations

Last night I joined a conversation on Clubhouse that was really challenging.

Because I am writing this before 6am, and don’t plan on writing for a couple hours, I’m going to leave the topic out of my thoughts below.

The conversation was hot and a participant (who was in my opinion immature) created a bit of a mess. I wasn’t planning on speaking but thought I could give some insight to the challenging topic this young man brought up. I said what I wanted to, then I made a tangent point to another argument. This tangent, to be blunt, was uninformed (read as ‘ignorant’ if you like), and it was further misunderstood in a way to undermine everything I said before this error. My fault. My communication was poor.

Then a second crap-storm broke out. I sat silently while other people argued for and against a point I never intended to make. About 15 minutes later the moderator created a space, invited me, back into the conversation.

I was careful to apologize, tried to explain what I was really trying to say. Then again acknowledged that what I said was wrong. I didn’t want my explanation of intent to be perceived as an excuse, so I was happy to end with a second apology.

But others still wanted to talk about the point that was contentious, even though there was a window of opportunity to move on, and the discussion became a convoluted argument. More people misspoke and the conversation was filled with people triggered by the previous speaker. Then some of them got upset with the moderators who where trying their best to keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Hard conversations are hard to have… or they wouldn’t be hard! But we need to learn to have them. We need to understand that learning conversations might involve not just disagreement, but hurt. We need to be willing to set aside egos, and not take things personally, when there isn’t intent to hurt. We need to make conversation spaces places where we can misspeak, where we can apologize, where we can disagree, even in places where topics make us feel uncomfortable.

We need conversations to be safe, and understand that topics won’t always feel safe. This is tricky. This is something some people won’t agree with. But if the conversation can’t go to uncomfortable places, to places that feel uncomfortable, then the learning is hindered. The ability to make mistakes and learn from them disappears. The conversation becomes a ‘safe space‘ but it is no longer a rich learning space. Hurt is no longer something that can be healed, instead it is interpreted as hate. Perspectives become polarized, rather than recognizing how ideas are on a spectrum:

“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”

Hurtful words are not always hurtful or hateful acts. Opposing views are not always personal attacks. And opposing views are not ever changed by attacking the person who holds those views. If we let the words, said in error, said in misunderstanding, and even said in ignorance, hurt us, we can not do the work to reach, or help others learn. We do not leave the room for insight or apology. We do not create any space for an opposing view to change.

Instead, we create a space where we can only feel wronged, where there are feelings of injury, and words are said in anger. Conversation gets lost, words get weaponized, and opportunities for learning diminish. If we can’t have conversations about difficult topics, because they don’t feel safe, then what is the alternative? Ignorance? Violence?

Words can hurt. If we hold on to the hurt, if we only see hate, words don’t ever get to heal. While we prevent the potential for hurt by avoiding challenging and charged conversations, we also never get to a place where minds can change… where conversations are hard, but where authentic learning can happen… where dialogue can bring people together, rather than keep people with opposing and different views apart.

They do not know

Children do not know they lack the wisdom of age.

An adult does not know when more information and knowledge has ceased to provide more wisdom.

When blind privilege provides an advantage it does not know that this advantage has been bestowed.

When ignorance is spoken it does not know that it is spoken while lacking relevant information.

Anger does not know how it clouds rational thought.

Hate does not know how to foster love or forgiveness.

A biased person does know their subjectivity lacks objectivity.

An irrational person does not know that their judgments are clouded.

The delusional does not know their view of the world is altered.

The hypocrite does not know their words do not meet their own standards or revered beliefs.

The fool does not know when they are being fooled.

To tell a child that they they are too young to understand; To tell an adult they are not wise enough to understand; To tell the blindly privileged that they are privileged; To tell the angry or hateful not to be angry or hateful; To tell the biased, irrational, or delusional of their faulty perspectives; to call a hypocrite a hypocrite, or a fool a fool… These are vain and futile attempts to share what you know with someone that does not know.

To be noble in principle, thoughtfully persuasive, and influential in a way that can be heard is no easy task. Knowing when you can be convincing and when efforts are futile is not always clear. To believe that you can change a fixed mind is a fool’s errand, but to give up on a fixed mindset that can be changed is a lost opportunity to have meaningful influence.

Related post: Ideas on a Spectrum
The brain

What does in mean to be conscious?

This is part 2 of my thoughts on Free Will and Consciousness. Part 1 assumed free will and looked at The Bell Curve of Free Will.

The Bell Curve of Free Will by David Truss

Part 3 will look at why I believe we have free will, but to get there I need to look first at consciousness.

Background

I’ve been reading, watching, and listening to ideas about what consciousness is. At the heart of this is the question, the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

We don’t know what creates consciousness, but we know that we integrate information from the physical world and that we are conscious of that world. We also know that the information we integrate from the physical world isn’t perfect.

I’ve said before that, “What we do know is that our perception of the world is based on models of the world and not actually the world itself. We have very faulty user interfaces, insufficient sensors, that warp our perception of reality…

Our user interface with the world is not accurate, we know this, but we also know that the world isn’t just an illusion. We know the sun emits light and heat, we can see the light on surfaces in our field of vision, and we can feel the heat on our faces. But I can’t know that my experience of the colour blue is exactly like yours, or that my comfort with the heat of the sun is similar to yours either. But I wonder how much our upbringing, and the culture we live in influence how we interpret the world around us?”

So we don’t see/hear/feel reality as it is. We have a faulty interface with reality. That relates to our senses, but what if our inner understanding of consciousness is even more faulty than our outer senses are, as they relate to our perception of our reality. What if we can’t grasp what our unconscious mind does because there is a faulty interface with our conscious mind. I think this is why it is so hard to understand free will, because we don’t understand how consciousness works and there is a black box of understanding that separates our conscious and unconscious minds. But I’ll delve into free will another time, for now, I want to look at what consciousness is?

Before I dig into this a little deeper, I’m going to take a stance that relates to the “Integrated information theory” of consciousness… the idea that consciousness comes along with integrated information. This Nova video, ‘Can we Measure Consciousness?‘ is the clearest look at this idea that I could find.

 

Here are my thoughts:

Increased consciousness beyond survival is not fundamental it is incidental. It’s an accident that is born out of intelligence having idle processing time, (in a way, think of this as smart systems being bored).

To begin with I will assume that every living thing has consciousness. The moment life enters into the equation, then the first ‘desire’ is reproduction. Procreation is hard-wired into living. From one-cell organisms to plants to mammals, the moment there is an opportunity to reproduce, then there is simple consciousness that drives a species  to continue life, to avoid harm, and to continue the species. This is the simplest form of consciousness. I used the word ‘desire’ to suggest a form of choosing, or of wanting, that is fundamentally different than non-living things. This is my twist on panpsychism,

With more evolved brains, that have a greater amount of neurons firing, consciousness is greater than in un-evolved brains or entities. I think of this kind of like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Consciousness can be found within the smallest of organisms. Consciousness increases through evolution, when species develop and move up Maslow’s hierarchy because they have additional time to ‘think’ beyond basic primitive and primary/primal needs. Organisms only consciously worry about physiological and safety needs until their predecessors brains have enough neurons and/or time to ‘think’ beyond survival and reproduction. If a species has the capacity and time to think beyond basic survival then they can think of things like community. Communities in turn create efficiencies that create more time to think beyond survival, which then permits a higher level of consciousness. Look at how far humanity has advanced in the past few hundred years, only after farming and urban living have produced significantly more time for us to be idle, to be creative, and to think about thinking. Our consciousness now allows (most of) us to spend time higher up on Maslow’s Hierarchy.

Put another way, life requires consciousness, and it starts with the desire to reproduce. From there, consciousness coincidentally builds with an organism’s complexity and boredom, or idle processing time, when brains do not have to worry about basic survival. Our consciousness is created by the number of connections in our brains, and the amount of freedom we have to think beyond our basic survival.

But we are not the only conscious animals. To me, an animal or a tree showing some compassion to another species suggests consciousness beyond what is normally attributed to other living things. Whether it is a bear saving a crow,

or a cat rescuing a fish,

or a dying tree that feeds another species of tree which is more likely to survive during a drought,

there appears to be a level of consciousness, thinking, understanding, or intelligence that all living things have. Why else would a bear, a cat, or a tree have compassion for another species if they were not conscious?

I started by saying, “Increased consciousness beyond survival is not fundamental it is incidental. It’s an accident that is born out of intelligence having idle processing time.” I don’t really have an argument to suggest that consciousness is incidental or accidental. Maybe I should state, “Higher consciousness is fundamental, it is a by-product of processing ability and excess time to process.” This would give life itself more reason to exist, but my hunch is that intelligence was not intentional, it is a by-product of abilities exceeding needs. However if I changed my mind, I wouldn’t have an argument for consciousness being fundamental any more than it being incidental and accidental.

Final thoughts:

What prevents us from getting to full actualization of self? The story about the tree above might be a hint. It would seem that trees are interconnected by a symbiotic relationship with microbial fungus to create a greater consciousness of the entire forest. Maybe the challenge we have is that of letting go of the self and connecting our consciousness to other humans or other species in a profound way? What is the next level of consciousness that we can achieve? Maybe I’m wrong and consciousness is truly fundamental. Maybe it is the reason for life, and we are on a journey to understand how all consciousness is connected.

My second bullet below is intentionally (un)bolded to suggest both of these ideas… either way the concepts each fit with my other conclusions.

Conclusions:

  • Every living thing has consciousness.
  • Higher consciousness is not fundamental, it is incidental or accidental, (a by-product of processing ability and boredom).
  • Consciousness increases in relation to two things:
    1. More neurons or more processing ability.
    2. More idle time.
  • When basic physiological and safety needs are met by an organism they develop higher order consciousness if they have the processing ability and the time to use their consciousness. 

 

The Bell Curve of Free Will by David Truss

The Bell Curve of Free Will

Assuming Free Will: There are some interesting and compelling arguments that we do not have free will, and according to Sam Harris, that it is only an illusion. I will address this at another time, because my thoughts on this are not fully formed. I need to read and understand more, but my general thesis on this topic is that the black box of our unconscious mind is only ever opened through bizarre dreams, deep meditation, and psychedelic drug use… all of which suggests metaphorical images and thoughts that seems to transcend logic and linear processing. If that is the case, I highly doubt that our will is somehow ordained by our past experiences in some sequential domino effect. And while our conscious minds might not grasp the true decision-making processes of our unconscious mind, that does not remove the fact that our unconscious mind acts, to some extent, freely… even if our history, our circumstances, and our virtue (among other things) might influence and restrict how much freedom of choice we have.

For now, I want to assume that we all have free will. Given this, I’d like to look at The Bell Curve of Free Will that I constructed to describe my thoughts on this topic.

My Premise:

If we have free will then I believe that how much choice we have will be influenced considerably by our circumstance and by how virtuous we are.

Background on the Graph: I should have created 2 different graphs, one for circumstance and one for virtue, but the dotted line showing how one influences the other is important. Further, I could have created charts about how our choices are increased or limited based on many different factors, like our health, our culture or religion, or our parents. I chose circumstance and virtue because they are easy to connect in my example, and highly influential to our free will, or our lack of ability to make choices.

Here is the image I created:

Circumstance and Free Will: If you are destitute or impoverished, if you are in a situation where you are unsafe or starving, your choices are very limited. You are more likely to go to extreme measures to improve your safety or well-being, at any cost including illegal, unreasonable, or unconscionable means, even if you wouldn’t want to do these things if your circumstances are different. You will act to protect or feed yourself and your family and those reasons overrule reasons you would otherwise have to not do something desperate. However, your circumstances limit you from doing things many other people could easily choose to do.

On the other hand, if you are affluent and have a lot of influence, the choices you get to make are significantly greater than if you are destitute. From living arrangements, to choice of foods, to freedom to travel, to caring for your loved ones, an affluent person can make so many choices and have so much freedom to make those choices compared to those that are only thinking of survival or their next meal. This isn’t a bell curve, this is a direct relationship where affluence and power, or lack of these, directly influence the amount of choice a person has.

Virtue and Free Will: The vast majority of people have a lot of choice and free will, while people on the extremes of the virtue scale do not. If you are a genuinely evil person who gets pleasure out of being hurtful and evil, you are probably limited in your choice and ability to do good deeds and make kind choices. When you are angry, your choices become more limited, your reactions to circumstance are less likely to provide you with more options that if you were more level-headed.

On the other extreme, if you are extremely virtuous and benevolent, you simply could not make choices that are hurtful to others. You have more limited choice because your virtue would compel you to do ‘the right thing’ and not choose other options that are less kind, even if for example, they benefit you. Your choices become limited because you would not have the options that others would in your place. Mother Theresa probably could not choose to walk away from her charity, her virtue would not allow it.

High Virtue and High Affluence: This is shown by the dotted green line on the graph.

Affluence and influence do not necessarily result in endless choice. More virtuous people, who are also affluent, are compelled to be in the service of others and to use their means for good. Their affluence might provide more choice and means for them to do this, but if they are truly virtuous then they would be compelled towards using their affluence and influence in ways that demonstrate their virtuousness, thus reducing their will do to other things.

As a side note: I have seen many instances where people with very little means have gone out of their way to be generous and kind. And, our world is filled with many affluent and influential people who could be more virtuous and choose not to be so… even when it would mean far less sacrifice for them. Bill Gates explained this succinctly:

“My charitable giving is not impressive. What’s impressive is people who give to charities who have to sacrifice something to give it to him. In my family, we don’t even hesitate to buy yet another airplane. But there are people who have to choose, do I go out to dinner? Or do I give this $20 to my church? That’s a very different decision than I make. Those are the people that impress me.” ~ Bill Gates

An inherent flaw in putting these two graphs together is that an unintended extrapolation could be that the impoverished can not be virtuous, With this insight, here is one aspect of the two-in-one graph that is not shown, but should be noted:

High Virtue and Low Affluence: On both ends of these two scales the choice is limited, and so free will would be further diminished. As an example: A devout and benevolent monk or priest who is in the same destitute situation as someone equally as impoverished (but less virtuous) could not choose to harm or steal from someone even if it was to feed his/her own family.

Final Thoughts: I wonder if conscientious people who think about philosophy, and/or are compelled towards the sciences to do ‘good’, and make a difference in the world, are more likely to believe that there is no such thing as free will… since by nature of their virtues, they have less free will than someone that is not as concerned about the well-being of humanity? In a way, I could have titled this graph ‘The Curse of Free Will’ because either you are cursed to be evil, or you are cursed to be kind, since in both cases you are allotted less choice in life, less free will. Is it somehow more blissful and less restrictive to live a somewhat selfish life? Is our propensity towards this unenlightened life the reason religions are born? If free will does not lead us to be more virtuous, what does?

 

Likes, likes, and more likes

I am fascinated by the whole process of ‘Liking’ something on social media. So many people use it in different ways. For a long time, my ‘liking’ habits looked like this:

  • Facebook: Family, a few friends, ignore everything else.
  • Instagram: I love the photo for it’s artistic qualities, or ‘No like for you!’
  • LinkedIn: Great article, a like will probably also get a share and/or a comment too.
  • Twitter: I really like what you said and want to ‘keep’ it, or someone shared something of mine and I want to thank them.

But that has evolved… or rather devolved. Now a ‘Like’ is just an acknowledgement. I shifted to this unconsciously as I’ve watched others do the same. It wasn’t intentional or thought out at all. I miss being a lurker on Facebook, not caring if others knew I came to visit things they shared or not. I miss seeing my favorites on Instagram only being wonderful photographs. I miss going to my ‘Likes’ on Twitter and only seeing things worth reading again.  I’m still not that much of a ‘liker’ but I definitely ‘like’ far more than I used to.

I’m not sure I’m going to change my habits back? It feels rude. Isn’t that interesting? I feel an obligation to be more generous, more ‘like’-able. I share an anniversary photo on Facebook, someone takes the time to send us well-wishes, I guess I should like their comment. I share something on Twitter and someone responds. I don’t have a response in return, so I should like their tweet as my response/acknowledgement. Someone shares a wonderful family moment on Instagram, I should be nice and like it, after all, they liked my family photo. And so suddenly my habits above became watered down to things I should do to be polite on social media.

We have moved to a world of likes, likes, and more likes… and I’m not sure I like it?

Ideas on a Spectrum

The world seems so bipolar right now! Topics that used to be on an ideological or political spectrum have become dichotomies.

di·chot·o·my. /dīˈkädəmē/

noun ~ a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

It can be dangerous to take a spectrum of ideas and polarize them. We do not live in a Yin or Yang, black or white, world. Where the greatest danger lies in this polarization is in the importance of having a right to free speech. As I said in My one ‘ism’:

“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”

It is getting harder and harder to do this because people find opposing views, equally as hurtful as hateful acts. This is delicate, and very problematic. This is where we need some bipartisan cooperation. 

bi·par·ti·san. /bīˈpärdəzən/

adjective ~ of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other’s policies.

Right now there are untouchable (un-discussable) topics that make dialogue impossible. 

di·a·logue. /ˈdīəˌläɡ,ˈdīəˌlôɡ/

verb ~take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem.

In a civil society, dialogue is the one problem-solving strategy that should be sacred. To do this, free speech is essential. But right now there is a culture of ‘attack the opposition’ that is very scary. This seems to play out at its worst on Twitter:

~ A prominent person tweets something insensitive or careless and they are attacked as if every fibre of their being is evil.

~ A little-followed user tweets something ‘inappropriate’ and suddenly they are famous in the most infamous of ways. 

~ A person with an unpopular opinion tweets that opinion and they become ‘memed’ as the poster child for ridicule on the topic. 

We can’t live in a civil society where dialogue is shut down, because at that point hate and violence are too easy to be responses, where dialogue should suffice. We are seeing this happen on different ends of the political spectrums, such as: 

~ undemocratic societies shutting down/arresting/killing opposition to those in power.

~ extreme right wing groups being unabashedly hurtful. 

~ extreme left wing groups physically attacking journalists and public figures with opposing views.

None of this moves us towards a freer, more open and accepting world. None of this fosters conversations and dialogues that can help us grow as a society. None of this creates an environment where middle ground can be found, to allow the vast majority of us to coexist in a civil society. 

We are living in a time when the extremes seem to be the voice of everyone. That’s scary! If someone has a centrist view they are identified by the extremes to share the opposing extremist view. Or, they are considered collaborators, co-conspirators, or unacceptably sympathetic to the other extremist view, (sometimes by both sides simultaneously). And so the vast majority of people that do not hold extremist views are either pushed out of the conversation, (forced to be silent for fear of some form of retribution for holding a ‘wrong’ view), or they are attacked in unfair and hurtful ways. 

I don’t pretend to have answers, but I’m pretty sure that two things can move us in the right direction:

  1. We need to recognize the difference between opposing views shared in discussions and hurtful acts, and treat them differently. When someone does or says something harmful to a person or group of people, legal responses and a judicial process should prevail. When someone says something hurtful (as opposed to hateful/harmful/prejudiced), the response should be dialogue. That dialogue might not bring about any kind of consensus or agreement, but it is what we need to do in a civil society that allows freedom of opinion and speech.
  2. We need to move away from public attacks and shaming as recourse for every wrong-doing. Treating every mis-step and error a person makes as unforgivable is harmful to our society in two ways: First, it does not provide the space for apology, forgiveness, and learning; Secondly, it actually waters down the response when someone does something truly unacceptable and deplorable… if they are treated no worse than someone who mis-spoke and is apologetic. 

We can not let the extremists and the misguided be the voices for the masses. Most people in a civil society have opinions that lie on a spectrum, and not at the polar opposites of each other. To focus on the extremes is to move us towards a society that is less free.

“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”

More on this idea here: Having hard conversations