“I'd ask you at this point: given naturalism, why would you believe that ANYthing is compelling, given that you're merely matter in motion, receiving and reacting on neural impulses over which you (since "you" don't exist; matter exists and you're a material machine) have no external control?” -Rhology
I will start by stating that I am not a philosopher, and some of what I say is probably false, simply because I do not know everything, nor do I have all the answers. The following is me trying to illuminate my thoughts on the matter.
The view questioned here is determinism: the idea that all of the decisions available to us are based on prior events and decisions. This would mean that all choices are not available to everyone. IE: The choice to “work hard and save money” is not available to someone who has never been taught the value of hard work and fiscal responsibility. I am not sure I have ever claimed determinism in my conversations with Rhology, however it is somewhat implied under a naturalistic world view. I am not what some would call a “hard” determinist (meaning everything is determined and we have no control at all). I would consider myself a “causal” determinist or compatibilist (we have some sense of choice, resulting from our prior states). As an aside, I am not completely sold on the compatibilist stance. If different data becomes apparent, I will go with the best theory. There is still a LOT of work to be done in the world of experimental psychology and cognitive neural science.
Now to the questions at hand: “Why would you believe ANYthing is compelling?”
The obvious answer is: I am genetically predisposed, and causally situated, to find facts about our natural universe riveting. Of course this could be a correct answer, but not very satisfying to the Calvinist trying to undermine my love of existence. So why then? I must admit I had never really contemplated “why?” until this question was posed. I am left to wonder: what about determinism inherently makes the world less compelling? Why would it follow that our universe is less intriguing without free will? Does going to an upscale restaurant and not being able to order uranium stew detract from the experience of the eatery? Let's use an example; imagine you are on a train. There are some friends, and there are people you find yourself less akin to. Now you can move about the train, talk to people, meet new friends, eat food, enjoy the view, or many other things. On the other hand, you could be a psychopath, manipulating and murdering your way to the caboose. Does it really matter to either of the characters that they cannot steer the train off the track? Is it of consequence that this train to Paris cannot leave earth and land on the moon? Now let's enlarge the example to a cruise ship. Imagine the plethora of food and selections of things to do. Do vacationers writhe in apathetic distress at the fact they cannot ride the cruise ship on a tour of Saturn's moons? Look at the earth; we have little say in our position in the galaxy. We are orbiting a star that is itself moving in one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Does not having ultimate freedom of movement make moving about the surface of the earth pointless and mundane? So what then should we do? We make the best of what we have and where we are. We enjoy the cup of tea on the way to Paris. We revel in buffets of food that could feed an entire third world country. We live our lives each day working and playing, oblivious to the fact we have no control over our position in the universe. Looking at data from experimental psychology and research in the fields of sociology, it would seem we only have a selection of choices. Our selection is based on chemistry, social status, upbringing, and scents surrounding us, etc. We make decisions every day with these things pulling and pushing us subconsciously. Does this somehow undermine your experience? I would argue the opposite. After all, life is short, and this is all we have. If there is no afterlife, it gives more reason to make EVERYTHING compelling and important.
“Merely matter in motion?” Do you understand what that means? Can you fathom the neural process with which you are comprehending this text? Do you really understand what matter actually is? Can you grapple with the processes required just to move your hand? I surely can not. When you grasp even a little bit the scale of these things, and the inter-connectivity, this realization leads away from: “We have the answer.” and much more to: “We don't have answers, that's why we are looking.”
The obvious answer is: I am genetically predisposed, and causally situated, to find facts about our natural universe riveting. Of course this could be a correct answer, but not very satisfying to the Calvinist trying to undermine my love of existence. So why then? I must admit I had never really contemplated “why?” until this question was posed. I am left to wonder: what about determinism inherently makes the world less compelling? Why would it follow that our universe is less intriguing without free will? Does going to an upscale restaurant and not being able to order uranium stew detract from the experience of the eatery? Let's use an example; imagine you are on a train. There are some friends, and there are people you find yourself less akin to. Now you can move about the train, talk to people, meet new friends, eat food, enjoy the view, or many other things. On the other hand, you could be a psychopath, manipulating and murdering your way to the caboose. Does it really matter to either of the characters that they cannot steer the train off the track? Is it of consequence that this train to Paris cannot leave earth and land on the moon? Now let's enlarge the example to a cruise ship. Imagine the plethora of food and selections of things to do. Do vacationers writhe in apathetic distress at the fact they cannot ride the cruise ship on a tour of Saturn's moons? Look at the earth; we have little say in our position in the galaxy. We are orbiting a star that is itself moving in one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Does not having ultimate freedom of movement make moving about the surface of the earth pointless and mundane? So what then should we do? We make the best of what we have and where we are. We enjoy the cup of tea on the way to Paris. We revel in buffets of food that could feed an entire third world country. We live our lives each day working and playing, oblivious to the fact we have no control over our position in the universe. Looking at data from experimental psychology and research in the fields of sociology, it would seem we only have a selection of choices. Our selection is based on chemistry, social status, upbringing, and scents surrounding us, etc. We make decisions every day with these things pulling and pushing us subconsciously. Does this somehow undermine your experience? I would argue the opposite. After all, life is short, and this is all we have. If there is no afterlife, it gives more reason to make EVERYTHING compelling and important.
“...given that you're merely matter in motion”
“Merely matter in motion?” Do you understand what that means? Can you fathom the neural process with which you are comprehending this text? Do you really understand what matter actually is? Can you grapple with the processes required just to move your hand? I surely can not. When you grasp even a little bit the scale of these things, and the inter-connectivity, this realization leads away from: “We have the answer.” and much more to: “We don't have answers, that's why we are looking.”
The Fable, and Morality
As for your fable, it would seem to further enhance the importance of our short existence here. The fact that there is no ultimate meaning of life makes our relationships and actions much more important. Many people have lived in ways that still affect us today. Bell, Einstein, Lewis are all names that, in well read circles, invoke thoughts of greatness and purpose. Are their lives less influential/important by their inescapable death?
I suppose at this point it would be prudent to explain what I mean by terms like “good” and “bad.” The fact that there is no good basis(including divine character) for moral realism does not make it less pragmatic. For instance, you stated yourself there may not be a basis for logic. Does that make logic less effective? Do our computers function erratically as a result of the unfounded use of logic? What then of morality? Does the lack of philosophical foundation prevent us from utilizing morality? To answer these questions, we need definitions for “good” or “bad.” Harris starts with a definition of “bad” as the depths of suffering for conscious creatures, then projects “good” as getting incrementally less “bad.” Therefore there are multiple ways of constructing “good” societies. Now one might ask: “Why is the suffering of conscious creatures bad?” Evidence can be presented of brain scans and the apparent health benefits from certain choices, but what makes physical health “good?” This can lead to a nonsensical infinite regress not unlike the one brought with theistic ethics. What is good? God's character. How do we know God's character is good? Because God is the only way goodness makes sense... You asked me to just accept “God” as the standard all propositions are weighed against. I would ask you to do the same with “bad.” The point is: even without ultimate definitions, there are ways of conducting your life that are better than others. The distinction is not always clear, but that is why we have debates and discussions on said topics. These debates lead to an even better understanding of what is moral. Just a few hundred years ago, lynching in the name of God was considered moral. Thankfully, we have developed beyond such ignorance. The point remains: the way to discuss these things is not to accept absolute roots, which are irrefutable, but honest discussion.
As for your fable, it would seem to further enhance the importance of our short existence here. The fact that there is no ultimate meaning of life makes our relationships and actions much more important. Many people have lived in ways that still affect us today. Bell, Einstein, Lewis are all names that, in well read circles, invoke thoughts of greatness and purpose. Are their lives less influential/important by their inescapable death?
I suppose at this point it would be prudent to explain what I mean by terms like “good” and “bad.” The fact that there is no good basis(including divine character) for moral realism does not make it less pragmatic. For instance, you stated yourself there may not be a basis for logic. Does that make logic less effective? Do our computers function erratically as a result of the unfounded use of logic? What then of morality? Does the lack of philosophical foundation prevent us from utilizing morality? To answer these questions, we need definitions for “good” or “bad.” Harris starts with a definition of “bad” as the depths of suffering for conscious creatures, then projects “good” as getting incrementally less “bad.” Therefore there are multiple ways of constructing “good” societies. Now one might ask: “Why is the suffering of conscious creatures bad?” Evidence can be presented of brain scans and the apparent health benefits from certain choices, but what makes physical health “good?” This can lead to a nonsensical infinite regress not unlike the one brought with theistic ethics. What is good? God's character. How do we know God's character is good? Because God is the only way goodness makes sense... You asked me to just accept “God” as the standard all propositions are weighed against. I would ask you to do the same with “bad.” The point is: even without ultimate definitions, there are ways of conducting your life that are better than others. The distinction is not always clear, but that is why we have debates and discussions on said topics. These debates lead to an even better understanding of what is moral. Just a few hundred years ago, lynching in the name of God was considered moral. Thankfully, we have developed beyond such ignorance. The point remains: the way to discuss these things is not to accept absolute roots, which are irrefutable, but honest discussion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it is kind of ridiculous that any human would claim that rationality is a reason to not find things compelling simply because they are absolutely denying nature at that point.
ReplyDeleteAs a human, the one making that claim is bound by his own human nature and does not live his life as a robot. He is a curious being. He finds something new has never been discovered and he says to himself, "wow, this is interesting". There is probably a moment every day when he thinks, "wow, I did not know that".
Yes, we can all come out of our bodies and look at the universe and think, well, it was all there before we discovered it and we have no affect on its course, but to deny that, as a human, we find it emotionally compelling, is to deny our nature and I find that to be highly irrational.
It is like those who feel as though you are not allowed to be happy when you know the truth. If anything, you are more able to be happy. You can be amazed every day at something with an amazingly low statistical probability every time you look in the mirror. You have a shot at this thing called happiness, and how many collections of molecules get a chance at that and for how long? If anything, people deciding to take this moment and waste it trying to deny how awesome it is....well, they can not enjoy what they have while I do. ;)
I think someone who spends their time being upset that their train cannot magically jettison into the the sky is not exceptionally aware of what existence is, most especially their own.
Also, what can be deterministic about making decisions for which you have no basis?
For example, when early peoples were trying to decide whether to migrate to the west or to the east, having absolutely no knowledge of what was ahead of them, how could that be based on something predisposed?
And a decision as small as that, left or right, has formed languages, races, religions....how much of who a person is was started by some whimsical choice of left or right?
To say this was determined beforehand, I kind of feel may be impossible, since so many decisions that affect existence follow suit. Door A or Door B?
I don't feel as though we can say that this human existence is the only human existence that could have been because there have got to be an infinite number of decisions, whimsical choices, that have affected where it is and continue to affect where it is. It is just as infinitely impossible as any other path we are not on.
It is different than a universe with a set of constants though because there is a lack of knowledge on the human's part of what the best decision is. There is no universal truth when you have no basis for understanding something you are deciding.
This design is incredible! You obviously know how to keep
ReplyDeletea reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my
own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Fantastic job.
I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.
Too cool!
Also visit my website ... buy hgh
At this time it appears like Movable Type is the preferred
ReplyDeleteblogging platform available right now. (from what I've read) Is that what you are using on your blog?
Also visit my web-site ... buyproenhance.eklablog.com
I think the admin of this web page is actually working
ReplyDeletehard in support of his site, as here every information is quality based material.
Also visit my web-site: virility ex pills side effects