Comments on “When will you go bald?”



Kenny's picture

I’ve been loving the recent posts (I write as I’m currently several weeks behind). I’m enjoying the riffing.

One thing I found amusing is in thinking that, in practice, ‘baldness’ really could be ‘sharpened’. IIRC, there have been studies about the precise ‘distribution’ of ‘redness’ among peoples. If there was a sufficiently motivating purpose, I could readily imagine “Ahh, yes, he has {0.13, 0.57} hair distribution; very much what would have been previously considered ‘bald’.”

There’s a kind of [ha!] shadow corollary to your meta-rationalism thesis (and you’ve definitely mentioned it, if somewhat indirectly) [emphasis mine]:

Is vermillion (differing from central red mainly in hue) more or less truly red than crimson (differing from central red mainly in lightness)? You could create a unified difference metric by choosing axis weights, but it would have no meaning, unless it were formulated to address a particular practical purpose.

While there is no eternal meaning, absolute truth, or perfect rational algorithm for either forming (absolutely) true beliefs or making optimal decisions, we could get arbitrarily close – if we wanted to.

Spatial distribution matters; that is why hair transplantation surgery can make a bald person non-bald. However, distribution would be difficult (and probably meaningless) to quantify.

I’m less skeptical that it hasn’t already been done and isn’t meaningful too (to someone, for some purpose).

[I realized, after typing the above, that this is ‘just’ a restatement of things you’ve already written about, extensively!]

Existence/reality, viewed as a ‘charnel ground’ (or hell): there is no eternal meaning, absolute truth, or perfect rational algorithm for either forming (absolutely) true beliefs or making optimal decisions.

But there’s lots we can do instead of lamenting the impossibility of fixed, eternal, absolute ‘perfection’.

Indeed, biological evolution has done a pretty good job of producing ‘biotech’ for the creation of meaning and truth via ‘good enough’ (tho also very sophisticated!) algorithms, as you point out in footnote [5], where you mention the color constancy that our eyes and brains calculate.

And, after giving up on ‘escaping the charnel ground’, we can notice that the fact that there is any stable meaninginess, that any kind or degree of truth is possible, or that any algorithms are even ‘good enough’ (for often fantastic purposes), is amazing and, in some sense, a miracle. (Existence is also a ‘pure land’!)

Add new comment


This page is in the section Part One: Taking rationalism seriously,
      which is in In the Cells of the Eggplant.

The next page in this section is Overdriving approximation.

The previous page is Are eggplants fruits?.

General explanation: Meaningness is a hypertext book. Start with an appetizer, or the table of contents. Its “metablog” includes additional essays that are not part of the book.

To hear about new content, Subscribe by email subscribe to my email newsletter, Follow Meaningness on Twitter follow me on Twitter, use the Syndicate content RSS feed, or see the list of recent pages.

Click on terms with dotted underlining to read a definition.

The book is a work in progress; pages marked ⚒︎ are under construction.