We tend to assume that historians can say something meaningful about history and that history can help us learn to...

We tend to assume that historians can say something meaningful about history and that history can help us learn to avoid mistakes
If complexity theory, and additionally recent cognitive science, is to be understood it is unlikely that something meaningful is actually been told by historians
First consider that it is difficult to make conclusions of a complex system by pure thought alone. Second, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Third consider that human rationalisation is directed by cognitive biases - which really are better understood as heuristics useful in our former survival
So what is history then? It can best be understood as an entertaining story

The point of using history to 'prevent the mistakes of the past' isn't necessarily to precisely predict future outcomes.

Almost all political philosophy, for example, integrates history and past knowledge extensively. The fact that we recognized we fucked up before doesn't necessarily mean we won't fuck up in a different way (or sometimes even the same way) in the future, but it's completely foolish to disregard the past / its analysis and the vast amounts of knowledge we pass on. Humans as a species are uniquely capable of self awareness and introspection, why would we not also do this at a societal / civilizational level?

Some people think the idea of 'progress' as a historical phenomenon is a meme, but so long as we are regularly preserving the knowledge of the past, passing it on, and iterating on it, that is progress. The worst thing that could happen would be something so cataclysmic that it wipes out the knowledge we as a species have collectively gathered over the many centuries since we found effective systems of passing it on beyond a genetic / instinctive level.

I am glad this post motivated you to write what you wrote. By no means do I want to point history towards the dustbin
Storytelling might be one of those features which makes humans unique, and it helps us inform us and make way of the world

I am reminded how development in technology our science has informed our views of the human mind, such as that period in which we assumed it was like a machine since that was our reference, and now with algorithms we assume it is works like an algorithm, because that is our new reference

While we it might not be possible to use history to predict we could use it as a reference what can happen

I am not claiming that history is not useful, what I am claiming however is that it can strive to be accurate but will never be accurate enough to be considered anything more as a story

That story could still be meaningful, and I am not even claiming that no conclusions at all can be made, just that it isn't always possible to do such a thing, and so that story can certainly inform us and makes us move around as it were

>Humans as a species are uniquely capable of self awareness and introspection, why would we not also do this at a societal / civilizational level?
Here I would like to inform you that cognitive science has shattered this image, perhaps not the self-awareness part but most certainly the introspective part
Tests have been done with people that I am not capable of describing in detail from memory but the conclusion is that people make up stories about their decisions that aren't accurate at all

We are not self-aware of why we make decisions, at least that is what cognitive scientists and neuroscientists claim, they could of course still turn out wrong

Doesn't mean we cannot make meaningful use of information

>We are not self-aware of why we make decisions, at least that is what cognitive scientists and neuroscientists claim, they could of course still turn out wrong

How could this possibly be measured?

Just because our introspection has the potential to be flawed doesn't mean we aren't introspective. The very fact that cognitive science exists is proof of our introspection, our desire to understand ourselves and the way we think.

This ape seems to think that decisions are somehow made independently of the chemicals that transmit them.

You can be as reductionist as you want, those chemicals are part of a greater system that creates our consciousness, and we are consciously capable of identifying and rejecting instinctive impulse if it turns out to not be beneficial for us.

Actually. As someone who has been on anti-psychotics, I can vouch that I have had personal experience with lack of free will.

Basically, certain drugs like Saphris will make you just not want sex, have no interest in it, and you get nothing out of looking at porn.

In theory, you could make people not sin by putting this shit in the drinking water.

The weird experience is that my lack of interest in porn felt like a personal preference rather than related to whatever chemicals in my body.

After I stopped taking the drug, I started collecting porn again.

If I were to place water in a jug, then carry that jug some distance. Did I move the water? Or did the jug?

>How could this possibly be measured?
I can't recall it from memory so I have to look it up, it were certain patients, possibly split brain patients, having been told what to do by a scientist and afterwards telling a story about why they did it which wasn't true
>This ape seems to think that decisions are somehow made independently of the chemicals that transmit them.
It is not nice of you to say that because I don't think I said that nor does it seem that you could take that conclusion from what I said
>You can be as reductionist as you want
I by no means am an expert nor have I the ability to gain expert knowledge on complexity theory, but that goes directly against what I said because the core of complexity theory is "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts", you are also making assumptions based on what I wrote instead of directly engaging with it

And I can be wrong, which is very likely, so point out the flaws in my reasoning but it seems that conclusions are being made that I simply didn't make
>we are consciously capable of identifying and rejecting instinctive impulse
This is up to debate, if what I have read is true, it is not that we consciously make decisions, but mostly or perhaps all (which is still up to debate remind you) is made unconsciously and the reasons we give for it are made post-hoc

But we are digging in the realm of free will and for my claim more important is the notion that our rationalisation is flawed, by post-hoc rationalisationg but also due to other cognitive biases

Please do point out defects in my reasoning, since that is to be expected once you know about cognitive biases, but please do not make assumptions based on what I say you associate those thoughts and conclusions in your brain with

Also, Saphris makes you want to eat all the time.

Like you want to eat and that you are personally choosing the eat.

After I stopped taking it, I lost 30 pounds in two weeks.

At both times, I felt like I had free will to chose how much I wanted to eat.

Its kind of deceptive like that.x

How can it be possible to know a human can consider multiple possibilities if every human interaction has a single outcome.

>If I were to place water in a jug, then carry that jug some distance. Did I move the water? Or did the jug?

You have answered the question.

>It is not nice of you to say that because I don't think I said that nor does it seem that you could take that conclusion from what I said

Ape is not an insult.

No I meant that you assumed that I think "that decisions are somehow made independently of the chemicals that transmit them"
Which perhaps I misunderstood but that is not what I am saying

This seems like the sort of topic for a thread that Stardusk/Thinking Ape and/or TFM (Turd-Flinging Monkey) would come up with if they browsed this board.

How can we seek to understand how consciousness works when we always have to use consciousness to study it? I admit to not knowing nearly as much about the relevent science as the people who advocate for such theories as the ones proposed in this thread regarding free will and introspection, but I don't believe any of it. Studying how consciousness works through the lens of a similar consciousness seems prone to tons of problems, and assuming empirical facts cannot be found regarding consciousness for the reasons I have said, I have to rely on intuition, which for every human being throughout history has inclined them to believe that they have free will to authentically make meaningful choices.

>we are consciously capable of identifying and rejecting instinctive impulse
It turns out you could be right and I was wrong, so here is something for you and If I manage to find more I will post it but I am not actively searching for it

I think the first post in response to you was the most sensible so far.

Basically, the past is a a lot more useful than you think, but not as useful as your critique suggested.

The whole point of using history is so that the PIECES of the past that are still relevant today are not repeated.

I'll give you two examples.

1. The 2008 economic crisis was found to be caused by lack of government interference in the markets. The markets after that became less free and managed through copious control measures to ensure that nothing like that would happen again.

That is always going to be relevant in the future for as long as -free and -market are terms that might apply to way humans exchange goods.

2. Two armies were in battle, one pretended to retreat but in fact led the opposition into a trap.

Do you honestly believe the lesson learnt here is not at all applicable to the modern day?

A preemptive thank you for seeing the light and agreeing that History is very useful now and always.

>I think the first post in response to you was the most sensible so far.
Agreed, I thought so as well. He put effort into his post and didn't make assumptions.
>The 2008 economic crisis was found to be caused by lack of government interference in the markets. The markets after that became less free and managed through copious control measures to ensure that nothing like that would happen again.
Seems possible.
>2. Two armies were in battle, one pretended to retreat but in fact led the opposition into a trap.
Even in this case you could argue whatever it was really the trap that was decisive.

However the point is that in certain cases history is so complex, because it has so much variables, that we cannot deduce any meaningful conclusions from it.

Compare your example of the two battles versus the collapse of Rome. Even in the case of the 2008 economic crisis it could be more complex as one might think, I recently reread a book on complexity economics and it proposed that boom and bust cycles are inherited dynamics of some (some) systems.
>A preemptive thank you for seeing the light and agreeing that History is very useful now and always.
I was having some fun and thought a provoking post would stimulate more discussion. Though that doesn't necessarily result in quality posts, more likely - I'm assuming - the opposite.

>the collapse of Rome
> so complex

Yes, there were many reason. You list the reasons and apply whichever ones still apply today. I think all of the main reasons still apply today e.g.

-East and West Rome not working together i.e. power-split.

-Greed to keep the whole of Rome resulted in equally spaced defence of land. They didn't defend the cities most important to them and lost Rome. Who the fuck does that?!

>I think all of the main reasons still apply today e.g.
>-East and West Rome not working together i.e. power-split.
>-Greed to keep the whole of Rome resulted in equally spaced defence of land. They didn't defend the cities most important to them and lost Rome.
But how did you come to these conclusions?
How do you know these still apply to today?

Because all of the things I listed are concepts. Concepts are always applicable.

More examples of historical concepts that still apply today:

-Islam is a cult that attracts followers with the promise of eternal bliss so long as they are willing to die for the cause.

Now look at the cults formed in america. Exactly the same format. You will be blessed if you die.

See: suicide cult.

-Another example: Swift and speedy attacks are effective

See: Mongol hordes.

Does that apply today? Yes the US army uses it all the time.

-Another example: Russia is cold as shit. Napoleon got rekt.

See: Hitler not learning from History and making the exact same mistake Napoleon did.

I rest my case.

>Swift and speedy attacks are effective
I can only agree with this one, solely on inuitive grounds, and it is still context dependent.
The others are still assumptions you make, and you avoided answering my question. You cherry pick examples to suit your concepts and make the assumption that they are always applicable.

It seems to me that people took the result of that experiment way too far. First, lifting a finger, when we know (or just believe) that it will do nothing, is a "decision" of insignificance. Secondly, (unless I misunderstand) the participants were already prepped to make the decision, so of course their brain was preparing it for them. If you throw an object at someone not expecting it, the likelihood of them catching it is much less than someone who knew to expect it.

Taking the result of that test and saying it applies to major decisions that we know have implications now and in the future seems absurd.

>The others are still assumptions you make

No, the tough Russia climate was one of the primary factors for Hitlers loss. Would you say that the climate was of little effect?
How would you then describe the folk songs that have lines like "mother Russia has always protected us, she will protect as from you Nazi-scum"
How do you dismiss the fact that the cause of death for Germans in Russia was largely from freezing to death?

If you are unhappy with my examples, list some more and I'll tell you whether they have lessons that can be applied today.

You have the right attitude, there is all the reason to be skeptical of that
But I posted it more so about the part in which it said that scientists and philosophers think that consciousness works like "free won't", which that user said and which has support for it

More important to my opening are cognitive biases, which the split-brain stuff with post-hoc raitonalizations is one of but might not even be that useful for what I said since there is a difference in making arguments for history and your own decisions

>Would you say that the climate was of little effect?
Of course not,
The idea is not that things do not have effects, the idea is that we have difficulty with causality especially when we reduce that to a single effect in your case the climate

In some cases it might be possible to do this, i.e. to reduce something to a single cause, in other cases I am skeptical of that

I can see the confusion now. You seem to think I suggest that it's the whole and only reason. No, my friend, I'm arguing that we can compare specific aspects of the past to specific aspects to the future. Parts of a whole, basically.

When you say that you cannot use the whole history to compare to the whole future, I absolutely agree, but you can compare parts of history to parts of the future.

A huge part of our survival has been social. Even when we were in the trees we lived in groups. Your picture of an orangutan perfectly illustrates your weak understanding of the matter as they are the only non-social ape.

Having been in groups our heuristics have evolved to solve group problems which all bare a remarkable similarity seeing as we are on average still the same. There will always be angry people, idiots, smart people, mentally ill people etc. It is simply 'the way'.

You are mostly not wrong, but what has this to do with my claim that history is mostly story telling?

You are incorrect.
>The whole point of using history is so that the PIECES of the past that are still relevant today are not repeated.
See:

Well damn, maybe I am messing up, in which case people here need to study complex systems themselves
But the whole point of complex systems is that you cannot reduce the whole in pieces unless again I have it wrong which is perfectly possible

But nobody has yet pointed out I am wrong with that and instead most talk around me. Hope this thread dies

>you cannot reduce the whole in pieces

This is obviously ridiculous. Your idea is that whole things are complex but not made out of smaller pieces. The statements it'self is illogical.

This is a cool thought bruv, I just imagined articulating what you said and I don't think I could have done it.

Same guy. I liked reading this thread, I'm just wondering do you guys post this sort of stuff on reddit, or do all your debating etc on Veeky Forums? And if so why (you sound like the kinda guys that won't be the "fuck off reddit scum" idiots)

I wouldn't say shattered this image, cognitive science is an extremely imprecise field and they really have trouble (and replicating) the findings they have on experiments to actual real world and especially to the extent of proving something as profound as major flaws in introspection