Humanity Ought to Steer the Future Using the Philosophy of Functionalism by Brad Arnold

Brad Arnold

Essay Abstract

The best functioning organisms will tend to survive, which ought to be our main goal in crafting policies. Methodologies can be established that pick the best practices.

Author Bio

I am a member of Mensa, and a USCF National Master at chess. I am a Transhumanist and a nihilist.

Download Essay PDF File

Joe Fisher

Mr. Arnold,

Is there no way you could rewrite your fine essay using a smaller font size, and ask the Foundation to substitute the rewrite for the presented one. It was somewhat distracting to read because of the many end of line word breaks.

Brad Arnold

I apologize for the font and formatting choices, but after converting a .txt document to .pdf, and then publishing it, I reverted to my nihilist roots and refused to care about it's obvious deficiencies.

Wesley Hansen

I enjoyed your little art piece but, given that you're a self-proclaimed nihilist, I'm surprised you bothered. So the question I ask is this: does form follow function or does function follow form? You seem to suggest the prior, nature selects those forms which function the best, but what if it's the other way around? If your premise is true consider religion. Most scientists and certainly all nihilists find religion foolish but yet it has resisted the onslaught of natural selection for millenia: why? Be careful of that question for it could cause your nihilist platform to crumble . . .

With regards

Brad Arnold

I forwarded the tautology that the best way to steer humanity was by selecting the best policies, as in the ones that function the best. You are correct, that the ideally best functioning may not be optimal unless human psychology, sociology, economics, etc are considered. In other words, ought follows is, rather than the other way around, but the dynamic of what is is partially human values of what ought to be. In that sense, form follows function, but function is partially form.

Jayakar Joseph

Dear Brad,

The best functioning organism is the Virus and only Virus will survive finally on earth, if Humanity does not Steer the Future in the right pathway. Then Virus will also go because of its dependency. Universe is eternal whereas the Earth is not, but we may able to Steer for prolongation, to some extent.

Brad Arnold

It is true that the virus is optimal in some sense, but it seems mindless. Humans, on the other hand, have the free will to be consciously dynamic. I am recommending the selecting of maximization functions based upon the enlightened self-interest of the group.

What you may be referring to is the "Profit Maximization Paradox" where 'it is broadly assumed that maximizing functional performance will maximize profitability, but such an assumption leads to inconsistent results and pervasive alignment issues. The answer to the paradox is a basic recognition of its existence, and therefore examination of current performance metrics in the light of how they impact profitability and life time value.' In other words, balancing the short, medium, and long term, rather than simply trying to maximize profit mindlessly (like a virus).

Vladimir Tamari

Brad,

Yours would seem to be the perfect answer to the overreaching essay Question. But as in most things the devil is to be found in the details. Evolution takes eons, but human biology psychology and society and the terrestrial environment are so complex, and the means of global catastrophe so readily at hand that disaster could strike long before any desirable future to speak of can be achieved. A more creative route for Humanity's salvation than evolution is needed.

Good luck to us all

Vladimir

Brad Arnold

I applaud you for pointing out that evolution is a long term phenomena, whereas avoiding short-term extinction is a more immediate phenomena. In that sense, we are our own worse enemy, for instance, environmental degradation and the Tragedy of the commons. As you can see from my bio, I am a Transhumanist, but I am also a Singularitarian. Therefore, I believe that technology will (in the next twenty to thirty years) develop super intelligent artificial intelligence. Then all bets are off, with hundreds of monomaniacal Einsteins working on every maximization problem, and coming up with potential solutions our limited human minds might not even grasp. OTH, some fear that the Singularity might actually be a human extinction event. It is hard to find any piece of high technology that isn't dual-use, and I doubt Mankind's Salvation lies in avoiding high technology because of it's inherent danger.

Turil Cronburg

I'd never heard of Dawkin's Information Bomb idea of a different sort of exploding cosmological body. Thanks!

And, regarding your "Exponential growth is hardwired

into the system" comment, you might find my own paper interesting... I offer a highly organized (if very general) map for how we can, indeed, "cut present-day problems down to a manageable size".

John Hodge

Do you accept that survival should be the only goal?

Brad Arnold

Wow, that is a great question. While I believe that survival, and therefore best functioning, ought to be the main goal, it is a means to an end, which is F = T в€‡ SП„, or in other words the equation for intelligence, which is maximization of future freedom. Due to space restraints, it is best to cite this link to further explain: http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_for_intelligence

Brad Arnold

James Dunn

We tend to agree on similar foundations. I am promoting the certification of common sense.

http://www.ua-kits.com

I am currently taking applications for Board Members to act in the development of the Certification Agency.[\b] support@ua-kits.com

I created the website and business model to support an actual actionable development of the essay submitted. This is to be a 501(c)3 that is supported by a diversity of business models. The intent is to scale the efforts globally.

Functionalism identifies relationships and acts upon them with logical priorities. The attempt is to eliminate all contradiction from efforts.

Common Sense = Self-Esteem Critical Thinking Predicting Consequences

Let me know if you have an interest to create actionable functionalism.

I disagree in part with total functionalism, because art and expression need not be functional to be an emotional benefit. Picasso never produced anything I found interesting, but other forms of art I enjoy. So included should be the emotional, social, and communication processes that support functionalism; i.e. Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.

James Dunn

FQXi Submission:

Graduated Certification for Certification of Common Sense

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2045

James Dunn

Optimization is goal-centric. When there are competing goals, there can be compromise, thinking outside the box to provide for everyone, or the more likely scenario, unethical allocation where opportunities are allocated to support personal agendas.
The diversity of options to consider to support optimal functionalism would require all of us to be hooked up to a supercomputer to act upon choices in real-time.
This is why policies are used. They save human resources a great deal of time and provide a level of ethical consideration while still being competitive in providing business services.
I do believe that business operations needs to slow down. Impulsive decisions is often where corruption lives. Unethically Allocating opportunities and/or resources and entrenching themselves in processes to prevent correcting their corrupt activities. Adding a time-delay in making decisions allows for more time for ethical evaluation and organizing an effort to stop corruption before it becomes entrenched.
James Dunn
FQXi Submission:
Graduated Certification for Certification of Common Sense
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2045

[deleted]

I thank you very much for the invitation, but I am a schizoid. I agree with you, and laud your efforts, but I must point out that technological progress is exponential, and will soon outpace conventional human organizations. For instance, in about ten years, we will have the first AI that credibly passes the Turing test. In about thirty we will have a supercomputer that exceeds the processing power of all human brains combined. In addition, it is predictable that manufacturing and settlement activities will be conducted outside our gravity well within our lifetimes. The result will be less cooperative and compromising involving top down bureaucracies, and more competitive and enterprising involving widely diverse independent companies and settlements.
In other words, I can understand forwarding a formula for efficiently directing actions, but I think the days of allocation of scarcity and the dictating of policies are near an end.
By the way, in reference to your statement: "So included should be the emotional, social, and communication processes that support functionalism; i.e. Ethos, Pathos, and Logos." I totally agree that the three pillars of argumentation (i.e persuasion) ought to be included in any expression of functionalism, because to impose an artificial external paradigm of functionalism, rather than a consensus organic internal paradigm of functionalism would be inefficient, since there will be natural resistance from the participants.

Hoang Hai

Dear Arnold
I agree with you regarding the use of the philosophy of functionalism.
Because, according to my absolute theory : the function is to decide the value of everything.
The highest point for you with best wishes - Hải.CaoHoàng

Brad Arnold

Yes, in object oriented programming there are the objects (i.e. variables), and the functions (i.e. formulas). How can the variables be evaluated except via the formulas that operate on them?
I believe that people get sidetracked because of the implicit belief in intrinsic value, which accords objects some transcendent meaning apart from the functions. It is a fundamental misunderstanding because everything is relative, and leads to all order of dysfunctional and schizophrenic prescriptions.

Anselm Smidt

Gesellschaft verurteilt Galileo. Funktion ist oft eine begrenzte Sicht.

Brad Arnold

"society condemned Galileo. feature is often a limited view."
I agree that pure functionalism (as in Galileo declaring that the Earth revolves around the Sun, in essence implying that the Earth isn't the center of the universe) is often opposed for political reasons. As stated in an earlier reply I made to a comment, I believe that "consensus organic internal paradigm of functionalism would be more efficient, since there will be natural resistance from participants."
Let me also state that you can develop a mathematical model of the Earth being the center of the universe which still obeys all the mathematical laws of motion, thus pacifying the political objection. The problem is always the imposition of "an artificial external paradigm of functionalism."

Next Page »