|
Now we can eat a Mc Chicken or a Crispy Chicken, both, nothing or something different.
If whichever of these options we choose, influences who we are, then we will never know whom we might had become, had we chosen differently, unless we travel back in time.
It will take two more minutes to invent timetravel, so lets take that time and think about how we made choices before it was invented. We tried to make predictions based on the models we created from past experiences. Lets keep in mind that this is all under the assumption that what we choose influences who we are.
Now we go back in time and eat both, surely not our first choice, but we just wanna know where that path will lead us. So either our model was good, and eating both is a terrible idea, or we improve our model for choice making. Eventually we end up with a model of the world that is more accurate, and better yet, if it fails we just go back in time. Now all the coices we make will be in tune with who we are and strive to be. These aren't exactly choices, these are logical steps.
So then there really ever only was one choice, wasn't there? Who are you?
There is something not accounted for in the first sentence, the something different part. What if that actually sums up infinite somethings. Now even a timemachine does not do the job of giving us the accurate model. If there isn't and can't be an accurate model, then we are left with choices we make, the intentions we had, the effects that ... well, do they affect us?
If they do, then the more time we spend living, the more we might move away from our selfs. Might, because what if, by serendipity a wrongly predicted outcome actually moves us closer to who we want to be. Is life like playing darts, trying to hit bullseye and sometimes your failures land in tripple 20?
Another assumption made was that "Who are you?" is a choice. What if it isn't? Now life becomes truly dull. Now free will and choices are nothing more than the attempt to follow your model of the world with precision.
Lets take a stand right now on wether who you are is a choice or not, before looking into the implications of a world, where the effects of the choices you make do not influence who you are. Do I care wether I chose to be who I am or just am who I am? Nope.
So, Hedonism? It does not work on a physical level, as our brain will strive to balance out happy and sad, wether we win the lottery or are an inmate on deathrow. That doesn't mean it won't work on a spiritual level, so we then are free to make whatever choice to the best of our abilities, to see if we find something fun for the immortal soul. And we get to try over and over again, maybe not as precise as we would if we had a time machine, but there is plenty room for error.
What if this is all backwards? What if life isn't about creating a good model and reasonable decisions? What if we don't know the answer to "Who are you?" and by intuitively stumbling through life instead, everything we recognize as a choice, tells us something about who we are? A timemachine would then have the most destructive effect on the psyche, as it robs us
from discovering who we are, as we would have to live with having made all the choices.
If an inaccurate model is part of the human condition, then who cares about free will, if life feels like living again if all we gotta do is stop thinking for a second?
So I guess, what I wanna tell myself, is to stop predicting the future and start discovering the past while moving forward.
|
Something in our psyche, whether it be cultural or biologically innate, requires us to think we have this free range of choices, when really, the only choices we could have made are the ones we did. On top of that, we have no control over where we are born, where we live, and circumstances of existing, such as natural disasters, moments of luck, random stingray attacks, errors in the judgement of others, and microscopic viruses. Do you think one-third of the population of Europe CHOSE to die from the black plague during the Dark Ages? Maybe if they had access to soap... but alas.
|
Causation may be merely opinion.
Since we do not know the formulation of causation, we cannot comment on the existence of free will from the typical philosophical perspective: determinism. Most philosophers, notably especially Daniet C. Dennett embrace a loose form of compatibilism which is essentially an acknowledgment of causation (that it exists), and that free will, whatever it is, is compatible with causation, whatever it is.
Dennett himself is seen in lecture to provide extensive background modeling including the famous "life world" modeling and several other conceptual projects which support his view that free will (as Dennett is seen to understand it) is compatible with causation (as Dennett is seen to understand it).
We do not know anything about causation, in the opinion of many enlightened philosophers. This concept began with David Hume, that we simply have insufficient knowledge of causation. Physicists, notably Brian Greene of Columbia have presented models of time wherein there is a rate of information transmission (bounded by Einstein's theories) wherein the current situation on Earth is transmitted sufficiently to the rest of the universe. We do not know what that entails, in my opinion, because it seems very opaque, from my current knowledge of the physical universe. Other planets in the universe may not be informed of our whereabouts, which creates significant confusion from the perspective of Earth. Does the physics of other places in our world adequately acknowledge the present state of Earth. To be honest, I do not think we can answer this question.
Therefore, your past is speculative from the global worldview. I would not be depressed about it.
|
Your blog has been very helpful in crafting my philosophy book which is now nearing 60,000 words. Particularly, I found myself asking, "What if I could live the lives of all things cotemporaneous to my own life?" The prevailing theory is that if everything lived perfectly my life would be perfect. I don't think this entails or debunks hedonism. I don't know if it does.
Actually I found myself asking the other night whether there was much sense in the usual sado-masochism. There are some interesting esoteric physics hypotheses like "quantum immortality" and "the everett multiworld hypothesis" that seem to tie into what you've written, and I think a lot of people have written on this question. We can see there are a variety of strategies for navigating whatever terrain is presented in these ideas. But it seems not many people have a solution that they like themselves. There are obvious psychological advantages in various strategies like "depression" "mania" and similar mental functions, but it is never obvious that the functional role could not be maintained without resorting to the states of illness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
