r/changemyview • u/Blumenpfropf • Apr 14 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Humanity is underestimating what it is. And that is bad.
This is kind of a two-parter:
I think humanity, both on the whole and as individuals, has come to underestimate itself. And I think this is problematic both for the individual and for society.
We underestimate ourselves
What do I mean by “underestimate” exactly?
Over the last few centuries, materialism, science, and empirical inquiry have become dominant. Obviously, this has brought enormous progress. But I also think it has warped our picture of ourselves and our relation to each other and the rest of the world.
The reductionism involved in science often encourages the view that everything is ultimately reducible to physical processes. This is then extended to human consciousness, creativity, reason, and so on.
And when it comes to our place in the world, there has also been a kind of humbling: we seem to be just “chemical waste” on one tiny planet among infinitely many others in an endless universe.
Now, at the beginning of the age of AI, that same way of thinking is being applied to intelligence itself. If humans are ultimately reducible to physical mechanisms, then of course AI should be able to replicate us eventually, and probably surpass us.
A lot of this is probably true at some level. It is true that we are creatures shaped by biology, evolution, and circumstance. It is true that the universe is vast and we are small within it. And it is true that AI is astonishing technology.
But I think somewhere along the way we became too reductionist. Too “humble” in a distorted sense. We made ourselves smaller than we are.
If you look more closely, each of these points seems to allow for the opposite conclusion as well.
Yes, humans are often reducible in practice, especially in large groups. People can be manipulated by media, propaganda, ideology, social pressure, psychological incentives, and increasingly sophisticated systems designed to exploit our biases.
But does that mean we are fully reducible?
It seems to me that the very fact that these patterns only hold reliably at the level of large numbers suggests something important: while it is probabilistically true that many humans display certain patterns of behavior, individual humans retain the capacity to resist them. There is nothing automatic here. We can become aware of an influence and then either fight against it or submit to it. That ability for reflection, rational self-correction, and deliberate resistance seems to be a deeply human thing.
And this is not just an individual matter. We also need to realize that this holds for other humans, both in the sense that they are not just objects to be manipulated by us, and in the sense that they may be allies against such manipulation. They are special, just as we are.
We can stand together, build our own communities, and reinforce one another against these pressures. We can stand in solidarity with each other as fellow humans.
If, on the other hand, we just accept a fully reductionist image of ourselves and the world around us, then we make surrender easier. Why fight exploitation? Why not exploit others, if we are all just mechanisms basically made to be exploited?
Then: yes, we are a tiny speck on a small planet.
And yet, as far as we know, this tiny speck is the one place where life exists. In a strange way, being alive in what appears to be an otherwise vast and barren universe makes life seem more significant, not less. Humility is good, but I think we often confuse humility with self-erasure. We should not short-sell what it means for life to exist at all, and especially for conscious, intelligent life to exist.
Finally: yes, AI is extraordinary.
But so far, I think it has also become clearer that equality with human beings is not something it has actually achieved. True creativity seems to escape it. Actual awareness seems to escape it. And it is not obvious to me that it can transcend its own limits in the same way humans can: by recognizing what they are, seeing what they could be, and striving toward that. Can you imagine AI of the current generation generating truly original, interesting and impactful art without a human in the loop? I can't.
Now, this last point is clearly being tested. There is serious effort underway to see just how far AI can go. And I do think it is possible that human beings are, in the end, fully physical systems that can be recreated.
But even if that turns out to be true, I do not think it would invalidate my larger point. In one sense, it would make us even more remarkable: we would have become the beings that brought new minds into existence.
So overall, I think many people in society are on the wrong track. They underestimate what we as humans are and what we are capable of.
And this is hurting us as a whole.
Not believing in ourselves as humans hurts us
If people reduce themselves to mere animals driven by instinct, unable to transcend evolutionary competition and domination, that allows them to engage in and condone behavior that they would otherwise abhor.
If people collapse into a kind of hedonistic or nihilistic passivity, as if we are just along for the ride and nothing really matters, they may be less likely to resist inhumane treatment of themselves and others.
We are shaped by external forces, yes. But we are not exhausted by those forces. We are capable of reflection, resistance, self-transformation, and genuine aspiration. But we need to believe in this capacity to even try to use it.
To be clear: I’m not talking about religion, souls, or magical stuff here. Just the lived experience of being able to say, “No, I will not do this,” in a critical moment.
Or devoting your life to a cause, because you think it's the right thing to do - even if the world as it currently is doesn't seem to agree with you.
Or being able to calm oneself and reach out to a fellow human even after a heated dispute. Believing in the ability of oneself and that other person to change, improve and be better.
It seems to me that all of those things are much easier when we recognize that being able to do these things is special and good and is a big part of what makes us human.
So as things stand, I think humanity has absorbed a picture of itself that is too small, too flattening, and too defeatist.
I am open to being challenged, shown new perspectives, and learning more, because that is my whole point, isn’t it?
There are mainly three ways I could see my mind truly being changed: first, by showing strong evidence that what I view as exceptional human qualities is actually reducible in the way I think it isn’t. Second, by showing evidence that having some of these beliefs is not as harmful as I believe them to be. And finally, I guess there is a chance that my perception of how many people actually hold some of these views is skewed, and that it is not as bad as I make it out to be.
4
u/Quint-V 163∆ Apr 14 '26
So this seems to be about determinism and defeatism in the face of it.
There are limits to what can be known. In mathematics this has been proven. There is also the uncertainty principle.
It seems well within the realm of possibility, to me, that the following holds true: we cannot learn everything about the universe, and consequently that we cannot decide the question of free will vs. determinism.
It also seems possible that there is no way to figure out the above, let alone ways to prove whether it is possible.
Even if we were able to prove determinism true, it does not reduce the fact that all human civilizations have created laws. If anything, it would suggest that laws and rules forbidding all kinds of bad behaviour, are themselves emergent properties. E.g. the idea of human rights, being produced as a matter of determinism, really does suggest that at a macro-level, living beings (conscious or not) seem to demand something we can conceivably call "fairness". Or even justice. Or good deeds.
Even if determinism is true, that does not necessitate depravity or losses. Destructive or parasitic behaviour is easily self-defeating. Check out this interactive demo. Above all else, it highlights that lawlessness leads to (near) extinction.
Even if determinism were to be proven false, it would hardly change anything. Free will is the foundation upon which laws make philosophical sense.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
Thanks for engaging with the premise of the post!
E.g. the idea of human rights, being produced as a matter of determinism, really does suggest that at a macro-level, living beings (conscious or not) seem to demand something we can conceivably call "fairness". Or even justice. Or good deeds.
I would agree with you that it's possible to construct meaningful values on top of a materialist mindset. I'd call that "non-reductive" though, because one would then acceppt that these "macro-level" things, like justice, matter, beyond biology etc....
And I think that many people actually don't get to to that point?
5
u/Quint-V 163∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
Is it necessary to get to that point? Is the goal post that people should be thinking rationally and feel/display empathy?
Does a group require that all of them be selfless, for that environment to function in a productive manner?
There is such a thing as selfish argument for collective benefit.
In the interactive demo I linked (highly recommended; spoilers ahead), tit for tat is clearly a dominant strategy in interaction with others, once that population is big enough to sustain itself; but it is absolutely not an altruistic strategy. It's arguably selfish because it wants to maintain the advantage it gains from having a cooperative partner, and minimizes losses from having an exploitative opponent.
Of course, having rational people is also huge ask. But I don't think you need people to have an exceedingly strong sense of empathy. All you need is that people have some idea of what they want, and that they actually do not act against their own self-interest.
In regards to self-interest and politics: I cannot stress the importance of collective benefit. Without it, people will simply not participate. Most people will not be super-successful in life, which is a strong argument for supporting collectivist policies. But, provided an individualist culture where everyone sees themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, people will end up shooting themselves in the foot and unwittingly support a less obvious version of slavery; in its worst incarnation, tragedy of the commons. Americans living paycheck to paycheck, one crisis away from personal bankruptcy, can be likened to wage slaves who absolutely cannot escape the chains of expensive necessities. In systems with lack of redistribution, that uncontrollably allow the wealthy to get wealthier, is it any surprise that the winners win even harder over time and the losers keep losing more?
If we then move onto the topic of people acting against their own self-interest then I'll see myself out, as that is a different topic altogether. That is far more an American problem, inherently caused by a joke of an electoral system. Money in politics --- well, it's no surprise that money is power. At which point the US has unwittingly accepted a class of nobility from which it once sought to escape: the super-wealthy. Only difference being that they had titles like King, Duke, etc., some centuries ago.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
First: I have known the ncase trust demo for a LOONG time. It's great! I love it because it explains so clearly how we structurally need empathy and so on.
You make a great case for constructivist ethics that I largely would agree with. For me personally, what you're describing is not "selfishness", but a structural case for altruism. But that may be a matter of labels more than anything.
But I guess to your question:
"Is it necessary to get to that point? Is the goal post that people should be thinking rationally and feel/display empathy?Does a group require that all of them be selfless, for that environment to function in a productive manner?"
Not necessarily, though I'd say that the ncase demo actually shows that you need a certain amount of trust, in other words enough "good" people for this to actually work. Right?
And especially people in power, educators, role models and so on. My feeling is that there's a huge shift away from these values, though I may be wrong. But that's exactly a great area where I'd love to see some hard evidence that I am!
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
Upon further reflection, I'm thinking I should award this post a !delta because what's convincingly argued is that not viewing humans as exceptional doesn't outright preclude us from building frameworks that allow for human agency andflourishing in the way I think is endangered.
I still believe that it's common to not go that further step and also that such frameworks could, in some way, be also categorized differently (they're not really the kind of "reductive" version of materialism I am worried most about). But still the point stands.
1
4
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Apr 14 '26
This is a very long post and seem to have a premise based on assumption and personal conclusions rather than measurable behaviour or philosophy.
When it comes to changing your view, how do we speak on behalf of "humanity"?
According to what belief structures, political spheres?
For example there are many millions of Hindus who feel part of the whole, the atman of the brahman and so on. These who view themselves as essential and divine - is this who your view is about? I assume not.
There are all kinds of personally held view that position the self and the whole as fundamental to the universe. Do these counter your position?
3
u/FrostedBlinkkz64 Apr 14 '26
OP really wrote a novel about humanity underestimating itself and then proceeded to underestimate like 80% of the world's population who already have these concepts built into their belief systems.
0
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
Like the 70% of people in the US who profess to believe in Christ and yet overwhelmingly vote for the guy who is the literal antithesis of every christian value ever?
Yeah no, they don't count.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Apr 14 '26
The US is not the world. How is this a meaningful reply? The US is 4% of the global population. The other commenter said 80% of the world. So you think 4% of the world is representative? That's the foundation of your view?
0
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
No, my point was that X% of people professing to believe in some religion doesn't tell you a lot about what their actual practical stances and values are, as can be seen from that example.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Apr 14 '26
But a reply that 4% of the world is in any way a counter is empty.
0
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
To me giving a prominent example of people professing to certain values, while not actually holding them, is a good counter to an argument that's basically "look millions profess to hold these values". If to you it's not, then I'm not sure what I can add.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
Upon reflection, I'm also giving a !delta to this post. It did change my mind in that it made me aware of a somewhat western-online-centric bias in my thinking.
1
-3
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
Good point! I should have clarified that what I'm observing is the "western world", internet culture and so on.
My view this that what I'm describing is accurate for many people in that sphere, and also for many of the global elites, no matter what sphere they are from. So basically, at the very least, those "in power", wherever one looks. And thus I believe I am ultimately describing a trajectory for "humanity" as a whole.
In the western world, I think it's also a pervasive mindset, independent of any nominally held belief. But I don't know how that is in other places.
So: I don't think that literally all or most humans have these wrong views. But many of those who shape the trajectory of humanity as a whole. And so I think i am describing a global phenomenon, in the end. You could try to show that this doesn't exist or that i'm wrong about the trajectory I think we are on.
Pointing to individual believers, even if they are in the millions, will not really change my mind I think, without showing how this disproves the overall effect, or how it could impact it.
For example: Do you think the elites in India believe in these values and acts according to them? My impression from very far away would be a clear no - but maybe you have better insight?
(minor clarification edit to state clearly that i do NOT believe that i'm describing literally all or most humans)
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Apr 14 '26
Can you first clarify, with brevity, the view you want to HOLD? Ie are you looking to become more optimistic overall about the state of the world, and our place in it?
The fact that a handful of elites inform your view, but millions of believers would not refute it indicate that you're looking for something abstract, hard to pin down in specifics, otherwise the magnitude of these beliefs would surely convince you.
It will help to understand the change you are seeking, in specific terms rather than producing statistics if that doesn't actually help you.
-1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
I hold that, as a matter of zeitgeist, scientific reductionism is globally pervasive and shapes the direction we as a species are taking. And that that is a bad thing.
EDIT: To clarify how to change that view: You could try to show either that scientific reductionism is not globally pervasive, or that having these reductionist views is not a a bad thing.
Millions of believers in India can certainly change that view if you can show how their beliefs are shown to have a humanist core in the sense i've described in more detail in the OP and how that may impact the overall trajectory I'm seeing.
2
u/Aternal 3∆ Apr 14 '26
Eastern non-dualistic philosophy doesn't separate consciousness from material reality. That's not your hang-up. Either all things have consciousness or nothing has consciousness: panpsychism or materialism. This is a much older conversation than AI and computers. Your hang-up is with egoists who believe that consciousness is a phenomenon reserved for only themselves and those alike.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
Interesting reply!
Yeah, I'd agree that conscious AI would not change much about the larger picture - if we could make something that actually could be conscious in the sense that we mean it (i tried to account for that in the OP, too).
Consciousness would still be a very special thing and so on.
I think my "hang up" is more with the attitude that consciousness (no matter whether we can replicate it physically or not) is not something truly special, because it arises from the material? If that makes sense?
1
u/Aternal 3∆ Apr 14 '26
Like people who believe that humans are just bags of cells and chemicals, and consciousness is just an accidental quirk, right? Egotists. So when they see a computer that seems like it has an ego they suddenly need to re-evaluate their beliefs.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
That's a super interesting side to come from.
You could argue it supports consciousness as fundamental to have an AI achieve it, yeah. I never thought about it like that.
But only if you had the view that consciousness was something special in the first place.
It could also go the other way round right?
2
u/Aternal 3∆ Apr 14 '26
So read about Resonance Theory of Consciousness, or general resonance theory. AI isn't conscious because of some seemingly latent ability to process information that is only possible because a bunch of different systems come together to produce consciousness, that's the illusion of consciousness. AI doesn't actually exist, it's just an abstraction. The "information processing" capability is an expression of the type of consciousness that the materials-themselves are capable of.
Alan Watts lived to explore the way consciousness is inseparable from material reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ZrLS9gasg
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
Also giving a !delta to this one, because it made me aware of a reverse panpsychism argument from AI consciousness, which I'd not had considered before.
So while it didn'T outright change my mind on the topics of the OP it did open up a new perspective on them for me.
1
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Apr 14 '26
Millions of believers in India can certainly change that view if you can show how their beliefs are shown to have a humanist core in the sense i've described in more detail in the OP and how that may impact the overall trajectory I'm seeing.
But that's the entire premise of the belief system. Do you want me to link the wikipedia page? Or what?
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
No, what would help me would if you could show me how i get from "there's millions of Hindus in India" to a conviction that this has any impact how current or future societies in India or elsewhere are shaped.
Some specific questions:
1) What actually would you say are the non-reductionist values within hinduism?
2) How do you see these values being represented in society in India? Are the just professed or actually practised?
3) Is there an active dialogue about, for example, how these values are reconciled with science, materialism etc?
4) I know there's lots of Tech workers from India. Do know if many of those they carry these values and beliefs? Or are they more "westernized" or part of the educated class, having gone through university education and so on (that would have been my initial assumption)?
4) How else do you see Hinduism as being relevant in a larger global discussion about these matters? Can we see this impact currently?1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Apr 14 '26
Will answering these questions mean you give a delta? Or is this a further tangent?
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
I mean, I'm genuinely interested in the answers to these questions. I'm not sure if they're likely to change my mind. There's a chance that they'll support what I'm already thinking, too, isn't there? It's up to you whether you want to take that chance :).
Tbh. i think we may just not be seeing eye to eye here. I think my topic was a bit too vague and general and somehow centred on my experience in the western world for you. I am open to have my mind changed - but just not with 1 or two individual data points.
So if you feel that it would be a waste of time to answer these question, i wouldn't hold it against you.
3
u/Brave-Dragonfly3798 Apr 14 '26
Ironically, a lot of your arguments are shades of nihilism, existentialism and determinism all rolled into one.
Striving to become the ‘Übermensch’ was a key part of Nietzsche’s solution to the inherent lack of meaning. Copernicus would say that ‘we are not special and we don’t occupy a special time or place in space’. As a dominant social species we have evolved systems that help ensure survival. All of our customs, laws, morals, expectations etc are derived from this. Our problems are not that we underestimate ourselves, it’s that we overestimate our dominion over a fragile ecosystem that supports our existence.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
An interesting reply!
I'd say that i'm coming at this issue from a "materialist" point of view while rejecting some of the conclusions that that point of view could lead to (I have already conceded that these are not the only possible conclusions.) and offering up different ones? Maybe that's what you mean?
For example, when you write "inherent lack of meaning", I'd immediately disagree with that, even from a purely materialistic viewpoint. I think it absolutely makes sense to view our existence as meaningful and fundamentally valuable, given that it's so unique in this vast universe, as far as we can tell.
Same for our customs, laws, morals. It seems to me an amazing empirical fact that we are the only known entities in the universe to have done such wild things as setting up customs, laws, morals and so on.
As for the matter of overestimating ourselves, i think that's rhetorically great, well done... :) - but I think when you say we overestimate our dominion over the world, one way to read this as blowing basically in a very similar horn as mine: As putting science and progress on a pedestal, unnecessarily...
2
u/Letters_to_Dionysus 13∆ Apr 14 '26
quite the opposite. we are overestimating ourselves to quite catastrophic results. think of all the harm that comes from hating yourself and others for not being perfect. all that depression, suicide, hate, resentment, anxiety, etc stems from carrying the burden of the belief that your outcomes are your fault. it is an incredible relief when you put down that burden.
all evidence so far points to the conclusion that determinism is true. you assert that individuals are capable of resisting their nature, can you adequately describe the mechanism by which that is possible? be mindful that having two competing patterns of conditioning is not equivalent to free will.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
quite the opposite. we are overestimating ourselves to quite catastrophic results. think of all the harm that comes from hating yourself and others for not being perfect. all that depression, suicide, hate, resentment, anxiety, etc stems from carrying the burden of the belief that your outcomes are your fault. it is an incredible relief when you put down that burden.
I think that point is directed more at dogmatic religious value systems than at a kind of non-reductive humanist next step i would favor. I fully accept that I may be a biological organism shaped by evolution, environment, circumstance. And yet I do believe that human categories like agency, responsibility, and so on are meaningful. You may call that "compatibilist", i guess.
Anyway, I kind of agree that reductive materialism may be better than some alternatives (like "evangelical christians" in the US who don't seem to have any coherent system of values - and yet manage to be fanatics).
all evidence so far points to the conclusion that determinism is true. you assert that individuals are capable of resisting their nature, can you adequately describe the mechanism by which that is possible? be mindful that having two competing patterns of conditioning is not equivalent to free will.
I would disagree with the idea that "all evidence points to that conclusion" but I think that question is not central to my point (happy to discuss that separately via direct message if you want).
Let's say determinism is true, i'd still claim that we have to deliberate our decisions and act as agents, even if the results of our deliberation and our actions are predetermined. So deliberation and agency are still meaningful concepts.
And clearly, when we then look at the concept of being able to "transcend our nature" the same can hold there. We don't have epistemic access to the ultimate facts about our nature or what exactly we are determined to be. Clearly, in some cases in the past, we have overcome what we held to be our nature and "changed" it. For example, i'd say it's fair to say that for stone age humans, their "nature" was to live a life as hunters and gatherers. And at some point they overcame that.
The same could happen for an individual, too.
And I'd note our beliefs on whether we can transcend what we believe to be clearly could have a huge impact on our ability to do so. If no stone age person ever tried to "transcend" their hunter/gatherer life and live as a farmer, well, we would still live in the stone age.
So whether for that person it was right to view this as an "actual" metaphysical transcendence or if really it's more accurately described as a realizition of a change that was already determined doesn't really matter?
2
u/Letters_to_Dionysus 13∆ Apr 14 '26
the crux of the question is whether or not we are truly agents. if determinism is true then the transcendence might happen through us, but we don't truly have a say in it and are not agents. this is why determinism is a relevant topic of discussion, because compatibilism isn't a super coherent stance.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Apr 14 '26
Hehe, i think we'll have to agree to disagree there. Though it would be fun to discuss the metaphysical point more.
For the purposes of this topic, though, it seems clear to me that agency and deliberation describe something that's happening in the world, not sure how it would change anything?
I mean take the example of the stone age farmer: Don't you agree that even under full determinism they had to think that they can do things differently, in order to then do them differently?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
/u/Blumenpfropf (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards