Article 18: Freedom of Thought or License for Falsehood?

[accelafine]

Who are you talking to? And why are you interjecting that into the conversation? Are you a machine that only interjects insults or do you have the free will not to?

There is no free will, so I have no control over what I do. I'm also determined to tell you that it wasn't directed at you.

Would you please include in your responses which American you are referring to so that I know whether or not I am the one being insulted? Not that I will insult you back, but I don't want to feel left out.

I have no control over that...

[Gary Childress]

There is no free will, so I have no control over what I do. I'm also determined to tell you that it wasn't directed at you.

Would you please include in your responses which American you are referring to so that I know whether or not I am the one being insulted? Not that I will insult you back, but I don't want to feel left out.

I have no control over that...

OK. Fair enough.

[godelian]

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The first question is why does an idea get transmitted from generation to generation?

Such idea necessarily has three parts:

(1) The instruction to transmit the idea to your children
(2) The instruction to carry out violent reprisals against anybody trying to prevent instruction (1)
(3) The actual idea X to be transmitted

Now we can express the fundamental lemma governing the intergenerational transmission of ideas:

No idea will successfully survive in a long-term transmission chain from generation to generation unless it explicitly contains instructions (1) and (2).

Concerning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself, it obviously contains neither (1) nor (2).

Hence, as an idea, it fails to encourage and protect its own transmission. Therefore, it is not suitable for its own long-term survival. Regardless of what else the idea contains, its structural design is already clearly inferior as it is in violation of the fundamental lemma.

There is an interesting article, "How Developers Stop Learning: Rise of the Expert Beginner", that famously coins the term "Expert beginner".



The term quite accurately typifies the kind of people who were involved in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Error number one. Never make a list of people's rights. Always make one of their obligations. Every right always corresponds with some other person's obligation. It is these obligations that you need to mention.

For example, it does not matter that you may have a right to get fed. What truly matters, is on whom ultimately rests the obligation to feed you?

The expert beginners who drafted Universal Declaration of Human Rights never mention the corresponding Universal Declaration of Human Obligations . That is just one of the many reasons why their document is a laughable joke.

The expert beginner is convinced that he knows, but in fact, he knows fuck-all The West is an expert-beginner civilization. It won't survive. That is by design so.

[LuckyR]

The expert beginner is convinced that he knows, but in fact, he knows fuck-all The West is an expert-beginner civilization. It won't survive. That is by design so.

Interesting. So what is your understanding of what kind of civilization is in the East?

[BigMike]

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The first question is why does an idea get transmitted from generation to generation?

Such idea necessarily has three parts:

(1) The instruction to transmit the idea to your children
(2) The instruction to carry out violent reprisals against anybody trying to prevent instruction (1)
(3) The actual idea X to be transmitted

Now we can express the fundamental lemma governing the intergenerational transmission of ideas:

No idea will successfully survive in a long-term transmission chain from generation to generation unless it explicitly contains instructions (1) and (2).

Concerning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself, it obviously contains neither (1) nor (2).

Hence, as an idea, it fails to encourage and protect its own transmission. Therefore, it is not suitable for its own long-term survival. Regardless of what else the idea contains, its structural design is already clearly inferior as it is in violation of the fundamental lemma.

There is an interesting article, "How Developers Stop Learning: Rise of the Expert Beginner", that famously coins the term "Expert beginner".



The term quite accurately typifies the kind of people who were involved in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Error number one. Never make a list of people's rights. Always make one of their obligations. Every right always corresponds with some other person's obligation. It is these obligations that you need to mention.

For example, it does not matter that you may have a right to get fed. What truly matters, is on whom ultimately rests the obligation to feed you?

The expert beginners who drafted Universal Declaration of Human Rights never mention the corresponding Universal Declaration of Human Obligations . That is just one of the many reasons why their document is a laughable joke.

The expert beginner is convinced that he knows, but in fact, he knows fuck-all The West is an expert-beginner civilization. It won't survive. That is by design so.

Godelian, while your critique of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) raises provocative points, it misses the deeper context of my original argument about Article 18, especially when viewed through a deterministic lens. Let me explain its relevance.

The deterministic perspective on the transmission of ideas directly addresses your "fundamental lemma." Ideas that survive generationally do so not because they are inherently "designed" for survival in a vacuum but because they arise and propagate within deterministic systems governed by societal, environmental, and historical forces. Instructions like "transmit this idea" or "defend it violently" aren’t inherent features of successful ideas—they’re emergent traits shaped by the causal conditions in which the ideas take root.

Article 18 reflects an idealized view of freedom that assumes a level playing field for thought and belief. However, deterministic systems show us that such neutrality is an illusion. Beliefs and ideas don't simply coexist peacefully; they compete for survival in minds shaped by upbringing, culture, and power dynamics. This is where your critique of obligations becomes particularly relevant: while the UDHR outlines rights, it doesn’t sufficiently address the obligations required to safeguard those rights against deterministic forces that perpetuate harmful ideologies.

For instance, the freedom to transmit religious ideas—when combined with deterministic factors like childhood indoctrination—can lead to a propagation of falsehoods that undermine intellectual autonomy. The deterministic framework suggests that this freedom should be balanced by obligations: obligations to ensure ideas are evidence-based, to protect children from undue influence, and to create conditions where critical thinking can flourish. Without these obligations, the "rights" enshrined in Article 18 risk becoming tools for perpetuating misinformation and cycles of conflict.

Your dismissal of the UDHR as structurally "inferior" because it lacks self-reinforcing mechanisms could also apply to the propagation of harmful ideologies. The deterministic insight is that these mechanisms are not inherent; they’re contextually determined. The real challenge isn’t drafting a document that self-replicates like a virus but creating a framework where the transmission of ideas aligns with intellectual integrity and societal well-being.

In short, determinism underscores that the survival of ideas—including those in the UDHR—isn't a matter of design alone but of the causal conditions that shape their adoption and transmission. This is why obligations, such as grounding beliefs in evidence, protecting intellectual autonomy, and fostering rational discourse, are vital. Would you agree that focusing on these obligations aligns better with a deterministic understanding of how ideas influence human behavior?

[godelian]

Instructions like "transmit this idea" or "defend it violently" aren’t inherent features of successful ideas—they’re emergent traits shaped by the causal conditions in which the ideas take root.

Well, the DNA of a lion is an abstract idea that gets transmitted from generation to generation. This information automatically contains some clauses that will trigger violent reprisals if anyone or anything tries to prevent its transmission:

Countermeasure number one:



Countermeasure number two:



You will discern these additions and clauses in every kind of information that is shaped for long-term generational transmission. DNA is, in fact, just one of the many examples.

[BigMike]

Instructions like "transmit this idea" or "defend it violently" aren’t inherent features of successful ideas—they’re emergent traits shaped by the causal conditions in which the ideas take root.

Well, the DNA of a lion is an abstract idea that gets transmitted from generation to generation. This information automatically contains some clauses that will trigger violent reprisals if anyone or anything tries to prevent its transmission:

Countermeasure number one:



Countermeasure number two:



You will discern these additions and clauses in every kind of information that is shaped for long-term generational transmission. DNA is, in fact, just one of the many examples.

Godelian, your analogy between generational transmission of ideas and the DNA of a lion is interesting, but it reinforces my point about causality rather than undermining it. The traits you describe as "clauses" embedded in DNA—such as aggressive countermeasures to threats—aren’t consciously designed for survival but are emergent results of evolutionary pressures within deterministic systems. Similarly, the "instructions" within human ideologies arise not because they are inherently written into the fabric of ideas but because they evolve and persist within the causal dynamics of human societies.

This brings us to the crux of Article 18 and why I advocate reframing or even dismissing the concepts of "religious freedom" and "free" speech. These ideals, while noble in theory, operate within deterministic systems that favor the survival of certain ideas over others based on their transmissibility, not their truth. Harmful ideologies often persist because they exploit vulnerabilities in our cognitive, social, and cultural systems—much like a predator exploits weaknesses in its prey.

Just as the lion’s DNA perpetuates through deterministic interactions in its environment, so do ideas that prioritize their own survival, regardless of their alignment with reality or human well-being. This is why unqualified "religious freedom" or "free" speech can be dangerous—they enable the unchecked propagation of falsehoods and dogmas that distort minds, perpetuate conflict, and hinder progress.

Reframing these freedoms means recognizing their deterministic consequences. Speech and belief should be free insofar as they foster intellectual honesty, evidence-based reasoning, and the capacity for critical thinking. When they cross the line into spreading misinformation or indoctrinating vulnerable minds, especially children, they cease to serve humanity’s collective good and become tools for harm.

Your example of DNA illustrates how deterministic systems favor survival traits, but it also underscores why we, as rational agents within these systems, must consciously intervene to prioritize truth and well-being over mere transmissibility. Would you agree that the survival of ideas, like DNA, doesn’t inherently make them beneficial—and that a more intentional framework is needed to guide which ideas we allow to shape future generations?

[godelian]

This is why unqualified "religious freedom" or "free" speech can be dangerous—they enable the unchecked propagation of falsehoods and dogmas that distort minds, perpetuate conflict, and hinder progress.

Assessing the truth of the information is another question altogether. In my opinion, it is much more interesting to investigate the effectiveness of the countermeasures that the information includes.

I don't think that the Soviets initially understood that the countermeasures in Afghanistan were strong enough to destroy their empire. They clearly saw it too late. In that sense, the Americans deserve some credit, since they still left in time, before it was too late.

So, the real question becomes: Who exactly is supposed to risk their lives and die to overcome the countermeasures that protect the idea?

We are talking about potentially a hell of a lot of dead bodies.

I am afraid that your views will never survive a detailed cost-benefit analysis. They won't survive a feasibility study either. These investigations are indeed the kind of things Hitler should have done before trying to invade the Soviet Union.

Some ideas are so well protected that adopting them makes a lot more sense than to trying to fight them.

[accelafine]

Instructions like "transmit this idea" or "defend it violently" aren’t inherent features of successful ideas—they’re emergent traits shaped by the causal conditions in which the ideas take root.

Well, the DNA of a lion is an abstract idea that gets transmitted from generation to generation. This information automatically contains some clauses that will trigger violent reprisals if anyone or anything tries to prevent its transmission:

Countermeasure number one:



Countermeasure number two:



You will discern these additions and clauses in every kind of information that is shaped for long-term generational transmission. DNA is, in fact, just one of the many examples.

And YOUR DNA will tell you that your parents were at least first cousins, or more likely siblings.

[BigMike]

This is why unqualified "religious freedom" or "free" speech can be dangerous—they enable the unchecked propagation of falsehoods and dogmas that distort minds, perpetuate conflict, and hinder progress.

Assessing the truth of the information is another question altogether. In my opinion, it is much more interesting to investigate the effectiveness of the countermeasures that the information includes.

I don't think that the Soviets initially understood that the countermeasures in Afghanistan were strong enough to destroy their empire. They clearly saw it too late. In that sense, the Americans deserve some credit, since they still left in time, before it was too late.

So, the real question becomes: Who exactly is supposed to risk their lives and die to overcome the countermeasures that protect the idea?

We are talking about potentially a hell of a lot of dead bodies.

I am afraid that your views will never survive a detailed cost-benefit analysis. They won't survive a feasibility study either. These investigations are indeed the kind of things Hitler should have done before trying to invade the Soviet Union.

Some ideas are so well protected that adopting them makes a lot more sense than to trying to fight them.

You raise a crucial point about the cost of challenging entrenched ideas and their "countermeasures," but I think this analysis can be reframed within the deterministic perspective I’m advocating. You’re correct that ideas with strong protective mechanisms—whether cultural, ideological, or violent—can be incredibly costly to confront. However, that cost doesn’t make such ideas inherently worth adopting. It simply reflects the power of the systems that perpetuate them, not their truth or value.

From a deterministic standpoint, those "countermeasures" are themselves the result of prior causes—historical, social, and psychological forces that shaped the survival strategies of the idea. The strength of those defenses doesn’t validate the idea; it merely shows how effectively it has adapted to its environment. The persistence of an idea like religious fundamentalism, for example, might reflect its ability to exploit fear, tradition, or tribal identity rather than its alignment with reality or human well-being.

Your argument about cost-benefit analysis is valid, but it assumes that challenging harmful ideas always requires direct confrontation. Determinism suggests another approach: rather than attacking the "countermeasures" head-on, we can change the environment that sustains them. By shifting the conditions that allow harmful ideas to thrive—through education, access to evidence-based information, and fostering critical thinking—we can weaken their hold without necessarily engaging in costly, direct conflict.

For instance, religious ideologies often rely on early indoctrination and the suppression of questioning to maintain their influence. Addressing this doesn’t require "dead bodies"; it requires reframing societal priorities to ensure that children are taught how to think critically and evaluate evidence, rather than being handed dogmas they’re not equipped to question.

Adopting harmful ideas simply because they’re well-protected is akin to submitting to a tyrant because resistance seems costly. Determinism teaches us that the systems that perpetuate such ideas are malleable—they arose through causes, and they can be reshaped by new causes. The question isn’t whether resistance is feasible but how to create the conditions where truth and intellectual honesty naturally undermine the falsehoods.

Would you agree that reshaping the environment—rather than directly attacking the "countermeasures"—might offer a more sustainable and less costly path forward?

[accelafine]

AI?

[Wizard22]

AI?

Took you long enough... what gave it away?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your argument about cost-benefit analysis is valid, but it assumes that challenging harmful ideas always requires direct confrontation. Determinism suggests another approach: rather than attacking the "countermeasures" head-on, we can change the environment that sustains them. By shifting the conditions that allow harmful ideas to thrive—through education, access to evidence-based information, and fostering critical thinking—we can weaken their hold without necessarily engaging in costly, direct conflict.

For instance, religious ideologies often rely on early indoctrination and the suppression of questioning to maintain their influence. Addressing this doesn’t require "dead bodies"; it requires reframing societal priorities to ensure that children are taught how to think critically and evaluate evidence, rather than being handed dogmas they’re not equipped to question.

Over the last few days I have felt a veritable shift within my brain: I sense new neural pathway being formed as the basic, evidence-supported truths BigMike reveals — with such patience and perseverance — have rearranged my neurons, caused proper firings of synapses and a healthier flow of ions in such a way that not only do I agree with him, but I see the value of his social and educational program.

Here on our beloved forum can all now be said to have been “rearranged” properly? Can we now establish a properly grounded Determinism truth-council with the wisdom of inner alignment so that falsehoods are recognized, countered, and brought into accord with the right way to see? My hopes lie here.

Given my realization — who besides Dubious has made such clear league with BigMike? I am the only one (so far) — so given my realization I think it fair that I be given status as First Lieutenant of the BigMikean Program. Therefore, we have a Truth Council of two. May others come forward and join. “Drill down” into your wills and let rearrangement begin.

I simply hope that all of us here will allow the neurons to be allowed movement into proper alignment. For I realize now: my errant will had been opposing obvious truths! These are the fundamental facts defined by physics, inalterable, eternal. No need to fear the realignment process. Let us all “ground” ourselves there for the benefit of all.

Mike, do you have a few encouraging words to offer here? I cede the Podium to one with such clarity — to have realigned such a wretch as me! A super-human feat!

[accelafine]

AI?

I was referring to that particular post. His posts aren't all Ai. AI doesn't have a sense of humour or a personality. I'm pretty sure they can't write books by themselves.

[Impenitent]

destroy the dreams of the children who want to grow up and be the Easter bunny, Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy...

-Imp