Here’s where I got it no philosophies
No need for abstract, abstract inventions. A natural-scientific approach is already possible to explain everything.
Here are my premises: General Algorithm of Mind and human biology. I will say right away the final conclusion: human biology is still stronger than reason.
About the world. He is material, but unbalanced and changeable. New structures are created and disintegrated. But there is a “arrow of time”, the complication has reached a person, and a new round of development has loomed, when artificial intelligence and even life are formed.
In this regard, about miracles that defy the explanation of physics. I myself have never seen it, but they write so much that I am afraid to say: “It can never be.” My late friend, physicist, academician V. Ye. Lashkarev said: “There is another physics. Sometimes it closes in on ours, and then miracles happen. ” I will not presume to comment. This may have to do with God … If there is “physics” with a different matter, space and time, then why not be a different mind and different ethics? So much for God! However, our banal materialism is quite enough for me: it can explain everything about man and the world. Including the need for miracles and God.
Above all Reason. Ah Reason! The mysterious High Judge, the subject of myths. Maybe I’m a braggart, but 25 years ago I proposed a hypothesis about the General Algorithm of Mind, as if it operates in all living systems from the cell to society. I speak responsibly: books have been written, dissertations defended, models are being made.
In our department, we have created on computers heuristic models of the organism, personality, society in order to equip the operational mind of a doctor, teacher, politician, scientist with them. Many have not succeeded: there is no demand for real intelligence, which means there is no money either.
And one more thing: even if psychologists do not believe, artificial intelligence is possible. I say this seriously, although I am perfectly aware that it is still unsubstantiated.
Oh, Man, a riddle of riddles, the crown of nature and her curse! Scientists have measured that 95 percent of our genes are the same as those of apes. I can’t even believe it: Christ, Buddha and a gorilla next to it. Sad …
Human nature: a herd animal endowed with a creative mind. Animal means instinct. Reason means taking into account the circumstances, the distant future, the choice of goals. But there is creativity and, therefore, alteration of oneself. But how much? Two thousand years of the science of psychology, and there is no consensus as there is no one. And inventions continue: socialism, fascism, socially just and other societies. Everything with the expectation of an ideal person.
All living beings have three general programs, in order of their importance: to preserve themselves, to continue the race, to improve the species. True, this order changes depending on the breeding cycle, living conditions, sex and age. Basic programs are split into many specific needs. Combined with reason and time, they give a great variety of feelings. They cannot be accommodated in any model, you have to generalize.
Here’s what I researched using questionnaires in Literaturnaya Gazeta, Nedelya, Komsomolskaya Pravda, as well as various experts. People are different. According to the main quality of character strength, which determines the ability to stress, 10 percent of the strongest differ from 10 percent of the weak by 3 times. Apparently, the same differences in needs, although it was not possible to clarify. Different people have different priorities for needs, depending on the degree of satisfaction. Undoubtedly, the strongest pain, hunger, property. In second place, and sometimes in the first place, sex, love for cubs. On the third (not all and not the same) social needs: communication, leadership, freedom, but also submission to authority, imitation.
This also includes the roots of ethics: a sense of justice in any exchange of things, words, deeds. This is where selfishness and altruism manifest themselves. The need for truth: for words to match images.
A lie is unpleasant. The Need for Faith. Likes and dislikes to hatred and aggression. Curiosity ranks fourth.
This is what the numbers say. Beliefs from ideology are added to the biology of feelings. These are verbal formulas instilled by society: “good, bad” and “right.” So: the significance of beliefs is estimated at only 30 percent of feelings. Educability as an opportunity to change innate needs is estimated at 25 percent. This means that you cannot turn a “highly greedy” into a generous one, but only, perhaps, reduce greed.
Education and the importance of beliefs are the only levers for ideology to change the citizen. As you can see, the possibilities are slim. If we take into account that egoism and altruism correlate as 10: 1, then what are all fantasies about “make a revolution, change conditions, improve upbringing and create an ideal society”? No, you can’t transform citizens into angels.
The question is: what, then, to count on? How to construct a society? Most of the strong needs are greed, the passion for leadership is antisocial. If they are still trained to 30 percent and armed with hatred, then what scoundrels you can get! Are the experts exaggerating? I think no. It’s like that. Fortunately, nature has several other favorable factors in reserve. First, leaders and extreme egoists are in the minority. They are opposed by a mass of middle and weak, who have a need to unite against rapists and power-hungry. This is the hope of democracy. Secondly, there are altruistic leaders, they themselves can organize society so that there is “order”, not hesitating to use fear, persuasion and deception. And, thirdly, there is hope for reason, if you develop it with education, then people will calculate compromises and find the optimum of coexistence. So our business is not hopeless. Reason will help. Of course, he is also “carried over”, but the higher the level of development of society, the less. Therefore, science is needed for the ruling elite, and education for all citizens.
We tried to embody psychology in personality models. They summarize the attitudes of citizens and society to work. With extreme simplification, three equations can be derived: “labor is wages” is an incentive, “labor is tediousness” is a brake, “payment is a feeling” – the increase in pleasantness from payment and decrease from fatigue. The latter directly depends on fitness and strength of character. It is necessary to determine not only how much a person will give out labor, how much he will earn, but also what level of mental comfort he will receive, that is, how much happiness and unhappiness he will have in this regard. Of course, this requires taking into account many needs, the dynamics of “hopes and disappointments.” The models are drawn up taking into account the types of activity, the subject’s attitude to the government, ideology, another social group, the level of satisfaction with material life and the results of assessing his role in society. This is our research in only one area of work.
My verbal conclusion, so as not to tire with scientific charts and figures, is this: a person is rather bad than good. His animal nature is ineradicable, and it can only be brought into some framework, using restrictions, education and the need for faith. And be sure to feed them materially. In order to determine how to do this, you need to talk about ideology.
Yes, our ancestor got the lucky ticket to the creative brain. Yes, speech and weapons have expanded the pack, increasing survivability and handling. And then the history of ideologies began.
Ideology is the subject of inventions, like technology. To do this, you need to select a generalized concept from the sea of images, designate it with words, train it with repetitions and authorities, until the word becomes a feeling-conviction. According to them, the world is then assessed and actions are prescribed “this is good, this is bad”, “it should not be possible”. Alternatives and observations of people serve as material for generalizations. Such, for example: are people equal or not? If not, then the power of the strong, smart, rich is legitimate. If they are equal, then democracy. Ownership: “mine” or “ours”? Personal or General? Likewise, labor: individual or collective. “Eye for an eye” or non-resistance to evil? Freedom or Submission? Aggressiveness or Tolerance? Finally, matter or God?
Images and feelings are behind the set of words. Some are activated, others are inhibited. This is how ideologies correct “biological psychology” and construct relationships. Of course, they are related to economics and technology, but not strictly. Different systems of beliefs, power, property can exist on one technical basis. Optimality seems to be decided by selection. But it turned out to be very difficult and drags on for decades.
I tried to build such a mechanism using a coordinate system where the abscissa “X” is property, the relationship between state and personal (from socialism to capitalism), the ordinate “Y” is power from totalitarian to pluralism, the coordinate “Z” is the level of the economy. By the way, it seems that it is not directly related to ideas, but turned out to be the most important, because the whole civilization is in it: wealth, technology, education, satisfaction of biological needs.
Auxiliary coordinates of ideologies – religion, morality, aggressiveness, even attitude to nature.
Optimality is determined by quality criteria. The most common good of the people. The rulers swear to them. In the model, this is the level of mental comfort, as well as the stability of politics, fluctuations, and economic growth. Progress. Survival.
In order to more fully investigate the quality of ideologies, it is best to reflect them in the models of states, which take into account the level of gross national product per capita, the nature of property and power, the distribution of citizens by social class and for each material situation, relations with the authorities, education, conditions labor. Another separate government. Social psychology. groups is embodied in the “personality model”.
As a result of the research, it turned out that one could expect, based on human nature. Let us recall a chain of decreasing priorities-feelings: pain, fear, hunger, sex, children, property, freedom, empathy, interest, and, finally, beliefs. So, a meticulous analysis showed: the rich, free, educated one degree of satisfaction of needs, the poor and exhausted another. Accordingly, different foresight of the distant future, planning.
We took the rich, middle and poor countries and calculated from socialism to capitalism in relative numbers. There is no point in citing figures, the reality of recent years has highlighted everything. Private property is better than public property. But even under capitalism, at least 30 percent of the gross national product is required by the state to improve social assistance. Socialism loses out to both the middle-rich countries and the poor. There are no rich socialist countries. However, capitalism does not help much when there is no capital in the country, citizens are illiterate and give birth to many children. It is very difficult to get the economy going.
As for the government, the situation is something like this: the optimum fluctuates from limited democracy and even dictatorship in the very poor to the pluralism of rich countries.
Well, with the “good of the people” the matter is completely confused. Strong and leaders are always happier, especially under capitalism. Socialism does not allow them to unfold, on which the whole system loses. The weak are better under socialism: they pay little, but live more securely, and you don’t really need to work.
Or maybe you don’t need to strain as the Japanese do? Fatigue does not add happiness. Under socialism, working at ease … Why the big growth of the economy? Consumerism is bad! It turns out, no, you need to work hard. Socialism detrains and corrupts society, there is no order. The efficiency of the economy, that is, how much a citizen consumes from a hundred of accumulated work, falls to 30-40 percent or less instead of 60-70. Resources are wasted.
If it were like that all over the world, then maybe they would get used to it and would not know that it is possible to live better. But when a completely different rich person is nearby, it is already impossible to resist. Leadership does not allow.
Such are the things regarding the optimal ideology. This is “capitalism slightly tweaked by socialism.” Although personally I am disgusted with the eternal race for money. “But there is always not enough sweet gingerbread for everyone” as my beloved Okudzhava sings.
The ideal is generally impossible. All philosophers would like to reorganize humanity according to reason. The case turned out to be small: biology does not allow. Man is “calculated” by evolution for a rigid hierarchical flock, in which, first of all, the program “for oneself” is worked out, this is already naked egoism, and then “for the race” it is a distraction for the young. And only at the end “for the sake of appearance”, that is, for the whole flock, but so that in it the strongest are selected for reproduction. Otherwise, the species will wither. As you can see, it has not decayed. But not only smart ones were selected, but also cruel ones. And the weak are always bad.
But: this lucky ticket with a brain dropped out! Is it really impossible to extract anything from reason for the happiness of all? There is some kind of education in a person. Use it, look for compromises with nature … Or is everything already hopeless, and humanity will perish from greed, selfishness and aggressiveness? I’m talking about the so-called “global problems”. Nuclear war, it seems, will not happen, but the ecological catastrophe still scares the world. The population is increasing, the consumption of material goods per capita is growing, fossil resources are rapidly melting, chemistry is strangling all living things. Let’s die from hunger and genetic diseases!
People on the planet look into this gloomy future as if enchanted and do nothing. Science says: “You can resist, fight! Take action! You don’t need so many things and even food for life. Moreover, weapons. Rich, help the poor rise out of ignorance. Here’s the perfect technique, cheap and reliable birth control. Take action and I will provide you with abundance! ” But everyone continues to live as before. Humanity can die from the contradictions between the power of reason and its animal nature.
I made a small attempt to figure out the future of the planet. Again, through calculations that take into account the psyche of its inhabitants. Key ideas: countries behave like people: the same mind and the same feelings. Reason, science and technology provide the means. In addition, they predict, predict. But the coefficient of the reality of the future in people is so small that future misfortunes are much weaker than the present day.
This is how feelings dictate: the fear of disaster is great. But: the coefficient of the future for a well-fed and educated is conditionally 20 years. A hungry and ignorant 5, God forbid him, live today. One more thing, “mine” is 30 times stronger than “our”. Aggressiveness is 50 times stronger than empathy.
Result: rich countries have put things in order on their territory and can even plug the ozone holes. The poor are developing, as they can, the cheapest, but harmful industry, pouring pesticides, clearing forests to eat. They have no time for the future. They also make progress, but it is hampered by the lack of capital, high birth rates, dullness of the people, and the rise in the cost of resources. If the growth of the gross national product is only 5 percent (even 5!), And the lag behind the rich is 20 times, then it will take 120 years to catch up. But the very poor (which is 1/5 of the world’s population) have a real growth of 0-2 percent. There is no question of “catching up”, just not to die. They are fed out of mercy, they do not die, but they continue to give birth to children following the chain of priorities of feelings.
Another fact: a poor and ignorant people cannot quickly become rich and smart. Even if many schools are opened, each generation can master the addition of education for five grades. And here it takes 80 years to reach Japan and the United States. Therefore, it is impossible to dramatically accelerate (5-10 times) the wealth and education of poor countries. Human nature does not allow. But you can still push. All kinds of projects have been proposed in the UN on infrastructure, raising yields, and developing production. Calculated: you need $ 150 billion for ten years. So far, they give about 20. And half of it is spent on saving lives for food and medicine. At the same time, 1,000 billion is spent on military purposes a year. This is the relationship between the strength of feelings of aggressiveness and altruism. It cannot be moved too much. It is known that “weak” and “medium” countries pollute water and air three times more per unit of production than strong and rich countries. Again, help is needed. But the ocean and the atmosphere are not “mine”, but “our” …
These are the general “quality” reasoning. But what the calculations say, very approximate, for 75 years ahead. I set the deadline, believing that by that time a new technological era would begin. So: the population will double, there will be 10 billion earthlings. The gross national product will rise, mainly in medium and weak countries. They will get rich 2.2 times versus 1.5 for the rich, but they will still remain five times poorer. However, for a tolerable life, this is quite enough if it were distributed evenly. The poorest about 1 billion will live on the brink of hunger. Only the help of the rich is not so much, about 50 billion a year in bread will keep them from starving to death.
The reserves of mineral resources accounted for today will be almost completely depleted. The probable reserves are half. Life will not stop, scientific and technological progress will cope, but the efficiency of the economy, the percentage of personal consumption will be reduced by a quarter. Especially sensitive to the poor.
Fear of environmental pollution will force you to spend money on the environment: there are many rich, fewer poor. This will cut consumption again. Even now, scientists believe that 5 percent of the gross product should be spent on these needs. In the future, it will take 10-15. Now it is 1-2. Although poor countries will save money, I believe that the damage to nature on a global scale will still be reduced by 30 percent of a unit of gross product. This means that the “current” harmfulness of our civilization will increase by 2.3 times, taking into account the processes of self-purification by 2.
So what? Let’s start dying? No. I am a doctor not only for diseases, but also for health. For this figure, the average increase in the harmfulness of the reserves of a person is enough. There will be more diseases, but if culture and medicine improve, the losses will be compensated. So the children born today will still have time to live life according to the old models. However, not all. Among the billions of very poor people, millions will die due to poverty. Do not forget about selfishness: according to our surveys, people are ready to donate as much as 0.1 percent of their income for the children of Africa. This is our nature.
Humanity will not die. Reason will win in the future, people will grow wiser. The population will stabilize and will slowly decrease. Science and technology will deliver some major breakthroughs. I believe that the main coordinates of the ideology (the most optimal) private property and democracy will remain. Further consolidation of countries around the UN will take place. But human biology will not change against this background: there will be explosions of hostility and fanaticism, and a guarantee of military power will be required to maintain stability.
Models, schemes, mathematics … It’s good that they can be used to prove that humanity will live. Well, what about happiness? Will a person be happy? And under what conditions? But it depends on whether people will be able to find compromises between reason and biology. I want to dwell on them in order to complete the article in good health. This is how they appear to me.
God is matter. You cannot give up God. Even if it’s not there. Only in it is a reliable condition of morality. The Algorithm of Reason does not allow believing in materialistic theories of morality such as “reasonable egoism”. God is diverse. For some, he only launched the celestial mechanics and moved away, for others he does not even allow a hair from his head to fall without his will. For the unreasonable, Hell and a punishing God are needed, for intellectuals it is enough to believe that there exists (from some kind of matter?) A bearer of the ideal, good, who reproaches for sins by his very constant presence.
The main line of opposition and compromise in moral values is between the team and the individual, equality and freedom. Collectiveness and equality for the weak. Personality and freedom for a strong minority, which, however, determines progress. Religion does not reject personality, but requires the strong to be personally accountable to God for actions to the detriment of the weak. A reasonable society seeks a compromise, dosing freedom in the power system and increasing the degree of social protection of the weak under private property. But not to the detriment of progress.
A few more lines of compromise are important to us. For example, between tolerance and aggressiveness. The idea of not resisting evil by violence is wonderful. But Moses (and human nature) requires an eye for an eye. The increase in the rationality and security of society shifts ideologies towards tolerance, but does not guarantee against cruelty. Punishment is inevitable. Even death.
A compromise between work and rest. Bad work, preference for recreation for collectivists, not for privateers.
A compromise between material and spiritual. While the material is overpowering. However, as society grows rationally, the discomfort from the realization of this fact increases, which inspires hope.
I would like to live in a good society in order to get a return if you do good. I would choose socialism, but human nature does not allow it, because it never existed and never will. Only compromises and hopes for the progress of Reason remain.