Re: Meditations
Posted: 13 Oct 2013 13:37
I'm still curious about this discussion on nature. It seems there is still a lot to be considered depending on your overarching world view or your commitment to how to live your life. On the level of a kind of emotionally cold commitment to naturalistic science (defining as something like science alone can give us truth and we should ignore all metaphysical [unobservable] considerations) we can simply say that whatever people do is in the end determined (in a strong sense, in a perfectly consistent cause and effect universe with no uncaused events, all things are determined by the starting conditions of the universe and nothing could be otherwise) and it is completely amoral (neither good nor evil) so don't get too excited and just do what you would do anyway and try not to let it bother you. Although if it does, hey, it's determined. So, it is natural and amoral for mankind to destroy itself and for whats left of the planet to become ruled by apes.
On the other hand, I think you can include many metaphysical considerations without violating scientific naturalism. I myself am a compatibilist in that I can't ignore the argument for consistent cause an effect relationships, however I believe that there is great weight to the fact that we are decision making mechanisms who can weigh effects and make informed judgments. (I mean "mechanisms" in a very broad sense. A computer has little or no decision making abilities. We could discuss whether it is decision making at all to simply recognize a 0 or 1 and react to it according to a script. However, I can imagine a computer that is somehow self aware and thus nearly human. So the range from the simplest of amoebas which make "choices" based on a kind of genetic script of reactions, to thoughtful people navigating the complex range of data in order to achieve their abstracted values and goals, are all choice making mechanisms, but some with exponentially greater influence and power than others.) The mental image I get is that on the strictly level of scientific observations, the world can be seen as a flat line without variation, but when you add the consideration of complex choice making mechanisms, there becomes great valleys of complex information processing under the surface of that flat line of externally observed cause and effect. The external observer cannot directly perceive all these choices, even within one self, and thus can place too much emphasis on mere external observations and not enough on the massive weight of abstract decision making that goes in to even the simplest of human beings. I'm amazed that I heard a determinist say something like, "people have the same freedom to act as a rock does to fall." Perhaps if you think people merely have a rock in their head. I think it is a vast complex of decision making based on the influences of the external world we observe. To negate that with such a platitude seems inane.
Now, all of that relates greatly to how we view "nature" and how we think we should let our massive power of self determinism effect each other and our environment.
@WorldisQuiet: life is complex and painful, but it may be our only chance to experience pain, face it down, and overcome it. It is an integral part of our Completion. Ending that prematurely will surely negatively effect anyone's completion.
@zombyrus: Hey! I just showed back up after a long hiatus too! I actually started getting notifications that my favorite thread of all time was becoming active again! So here I am again.
On the other hand, I think you can include many metaphysical considerations without violating scientific naturalism. I myself am a compatibilist in that I can't ignore the argument for consistent cause an effect relationships, however I believe that there is great weight to the fact that we are decision making mechanisms who can weigh effects and make informed judgments. (I mean "mechanisms" in a very broad sense. A computer has little or no decision making abilities. We could discuss whether it is decision making at all to simply recognize a 0 or 1 and react to it according to a script. However, I can imagine a computer that is somehow self aware and thus nearly human. So the range from the simplest of amoebas which make "choices" based on a kind of genetic script of reactions, to thoughtful people navigating the complex range of data in order to achieve their abstracted values and goals, are all choice making mechanisms, but some with exponentially greater influence and power than others.) The mental image I get is that on the strictly level of scientific observations, the world can be seen as a flat line without variation, but when you add the consideration of complex choice making mechanisms, there becomes great valleys of complex information processing under the surface of that flat line of externally observed cause and effect. The external observer cannot directly perceive all these choices, even within one self, and thus can place too much emphasis on mere external observations and not enough on the massive weight of abstract decision making that goes in to even the simplest of human beings. I'm amazed that I heard a determinist say something like, "people have the same freedom to act as a rock does to fall." Perhaps if you think people merely have a rock in their head. I think it is a vast complex of decision making based on the influences of the external world we observe. To negate that with such a platitude seems inane.
Now, all of that relates greatly to how we view "nature" and how we think we should let our massive power of self determinism effect each other and our environment.
@WorldisQuiet: life is complex and painful, but it may be our only chance to experience pain, face it down, and overcome it. It is an integral part of our Completion. Ending that prematurely will surely negatively effect anyone's completion.
@zombyrus: Hey! I just showed back up after a long hiatus too! I actually started getting notifications that my favorite thread of all time was becoming active again! So here I am again.