|
Hey teamliquid! Haven't posted in a few years, so I don't imagine anyone will remember me. Years ago, I used to have some wonderful philosophical discussions on the teamliquid boards, and I would love to experience that again. Lately, I've been thinking almost endlessly about social structures, and our basic understanding of what "we" are, and what kind of universe we inhabit, and how a faulty conception has lead to a unnecessarily horrible social structure.
I feel my ideas are a rather disjointed mess at the moment, and so I'm going to sit down and attempt to get the majority of them down, and hopefully have some constructive criticisms and objections to my ideas, and perhaps hear some ideas on how to expand them. To give fair warning, this might get extremely long, I don't know exactly what ideas I will run in to, but I absolutely need to get these ideas on paper, I think that is the only way to release my mind from them!
*Note - My degree is in sociology, and this post will mainly be discussing philosophy and modern physics (and a bit of metaphysics, but you don't need to take that part too seriously), two areas that I am only an amateur (although I did minor in philosophy). If I make mistakes in my explanations please correct me!
At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis.
The teachings of many spiritual leaders who have spent significant amounts of time in similar contemplation and solitude all seem to teach a similar idea of oneness. These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory, or Membrane theory, which is a continuation from string theory, postulating that the universe that we experience is simply one membrane folded over on itself an astounding amount of times, giving the perception of distinct, and separate objects. At it's heart, the leading scientific theories of today go hand in hand with the spiritual teachings of many classical “enlightened” thinkers.
A few years ago, a young boy made headlines after word began to spread that he was meditating for previously unthinkable amounts of time. Ram Bahadur Bomjon, or “Buddha boy” as his followers call him, has been filmed by both Discovery and BBC film crews for over 96 hours. In both cases he spent the entirety of the filming session almost motionless, seeming to defy modern science by remaining alive. While the exact time he spends between drinking and eating is heavily debated, the fact that he is doing something extraordinary is without question.
Upon request, he addressed his followers with a message. The message of his speech was one of unity, and of compassion. There was visible strain on his face when attempting to explain the ideas of oneness, as the understanding and the means he used reached it is difficult to explain in words. His message was primarily about the mistreatment we perpetuate of each other. He seemed to make no distinction between human well being, and the well being of animals, perhaps even focusing more on the injustices of animal mistreatmrent.
From these examples, I feel it isn't an extraordinary extrapolation to suggest a correlation between the universal oneness that these men experience, and the teachings that the only sin is ignorance. After all, if we are all one universal entity, by harming others you are in fact harming yourself, and I believe these actions do take a toll on the happiness of the individual. While this theory clearly falls short of what we might consider scientifically valid (especially in regards to “Buddha Boy,” and I would say that chances are high it is at least exaggerated if not a complete hoax), I believe that the message of these men is worth exploring further.
Universal unity and spiritual mumbo jumbo aside, I think Socrates still has a rather important argument if we consider it from the perspective of determinism. Once the domain of philosophy alone, science now has the tools at it's disposal to join in on the free will debate. Before we go further, I think it's important to briefly analyze the potential structures of the universe we are discussing in relation to free will.
I see time as being crucial to understanding the deterministic properties of the universe. If we rewind time and play a single moment over and over, would the outcome change as we go back and replay the event? If not, it is safe to say that we are determined to make that choice. If there is variation in our actions, or even in the event's around us, we can safely say we are not determined. To analyze the nature of determinism is to analyze the nature of the universe. We know we live in a world with 3 dimensions we are aware of physically, and within this 3 dimensional world there exists an arrow of time, shown to us through our lived experience, but also though the nature of the universal “burn out” that results from energy being used, known as entropy. This has been coined the “arrow of time” by physicists.
If we imagine the ability to view the universe from 4 dimensions (all 3 of our physical dimensions plus time) we could imagine the universe as a 4 dimensional statue. If we assume determinism to be true, we see that the universe is a fixed entity, with one path for time to follow, and no matter how many times we rewind the universal tape, the same story plays over and over.
Now let's think about the potential that quantum mechanics introduces to our 4 dimensional universe. While the possibility remains that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the inherent randomness within the mathematics of quantum mechanics is in fact reconcilable with our previous notions of a deterministic universe, either through lack of understanding of the complexities behind quantum mechanical mathematics, or perhaps by the influence of our actions and observations changing the result, showing us an illusion of random occurrence that is in fact determined, all we can do for now is go with the understanding that we have currently, and that is that we can't predict the behavior of an electron with certainty, but instead only make a calculation on the probability it will do certain things.
We can predict the probability that a particle will behave in a certain way, but we can never predict it with exact accuracy, unless we are actively observing it (this seems to take the randomness away for whatever reason). Under this quantum mechanical universe, the determinism of the past, present, and future is in a state of constant change. If we attempt to imagine this as a 4 dimensional universe, we see the same 4 dimensional statue, however it is in a constant state of change due to quantum variation.
Now let us imagine a universe where the inherent principles of string theory are correct. Not only does this complicate things in the number of dimensions that exist (as most theories postulate the existence of 11 dimensions), but we also introduce the potentiality of an infinite number of alternate universes. Assuming we stay with the understandable 4 dimensions, we might see an infinite number of potential 4 dimensional universes, each with their own variation on the quantum level. Perhaps there exists a solid 4 dimensional statue for each possible quantum variance. While these possibilities might move us past the idea of a deterministic universe, if we are truly seeking evidence of free will, quantum variation is not exactly what we mean. Slight variations on the mathematics that govern our choices does not introduce the feeling of us being free, but rather being more controlled than ever, destined in a sense to the random variation of our own universes set of quantum fluctuation. This mean's that if in one universe we chose to get off the couch and start a workout program, and in one universe we continued watching and wasted away our lives potential, it is no fault of our own, but simply the random variation within quantum mechanics.
The only way around this that I see is to think of ourselves as somehow beyond the rules of the universe, and to think of our brains as beyond the mathematics that govern all else. This is an idea that has been suggested by philosophers such as Aristotle or Descartes, who postulated that we are an immaterial entity attached to a physical body, and while the body is bound by the laws of physics, the “essence” of what we are remains the only known “uncaused causer” in an otherwise material universe of mechanical causation (although it seems to me that the objective assumption is that we are nothing beyond our bodies and as such are still bound by the rules of the universe). It seems reasonable to me to believe that Descartes is searching for what he would like to be the case, rather than what is, similar to his attempted proofs at the existence of god.
So if Descartes is incorrect, we seem to be at least primarily determined by the whims of the mechanical properties of the universe. If he is correct, and we truly do have some type of immaterial soul, it is clear that our “human” needs often trump the rational side that most people would identify as “us” quite heavily. In other words, our innate instinctual drives play far more of a role in determining our choices than the “us” we identify with. To use Daniel Khaneman's idea of System 1 and System 2 thinking, we could see our system 1 as our “mechanical” functions that our material bodies give us, in other words, our animalistic humanness. Our system 2 on the other hand could be seen as the immaterial self that Descartes suggested. However, most of our day to day functions and choices are determined almost entirely by our system 1, without any conscious input from our system 2 whatsoever. With this view in mind, some neuroscientists believe we are simply a bundle of sensory inputs, processes, and drives that determine our actions, and the only control we have is to determine what we focus our attention on at any given time. Neurobiology is increasingly showing us that our brains are simply 'meat computers' programed by our genes and experiences to convert various inputs we experience, into a predetermined output.
This seems to lead us to the idea that the “us” we believe to exist is simply an illusion created by the various sensory inputs and processes that go on inside our brain, giving us the experience of being a thinking, living thing. Regardless of the nature of the universe, it seems that free will is, at least majorly, an illusion. Most people find this idea repulsive, due to the strength of the illusion of free will. Because of this, it could be quite some time before the general population accepts that we are all primarily determined by our past experiences, and current situations.
While this might seem like a depressing idea to some, I see it as empowering. By understanding the rules that govern our behavior we can begin to take advantage of them. In Thomas Nagel's s brief summary of philosophy 'What does it all mean?' he brings up an important idea when he says: “Besides not being able sensibly to blame yourself for having had cake [assuming you chose it over salad], you probably wouldn’t be able sensibly to blame anyone at all for doing something bad, or praise them for doing something good. If it was determined in advance that they would do it, it was inevitable: they couldn’t have done anything else, given the circumstances as they were.”
From this, we see that when someone performs an evil action, it isn't because he is a terrible person, instead he was simply making an action based on his previous life experiences and whatever current conditions influenced him at the time of his action.
I would argue that our world view becomes much better if we adopt this attitude when analyzing the behavior of others. This causes us to no longer get angry with people for their actions, but to want to promote positive behavior. This comes into play when we consider the differences between a penal system designed for punishment, and one designed for rehabilitation. By influencing others we are changing their future behavior. No different than if we punish the dog for peeing on the rug. We don't hold the dog accountable, but we also want a future that doesn't include the dog peeing on the rug. Even in our own lives, this is a powerful idea to adopt, as the choices and positions we make for ourselves now have strong influence in the future.
Understanding our lack of control under certain circumstances allows us to place ourselves in positions that enable us to make better decisions. I would argue that the first step towards mastering your life is being aware that under certain circumstances, we make certain choices. It seems obvious to me that if we allow ourselves temptation it becomes much harder for us to avoid it. If this is due to a fundamental sense of determinism, or if we maintain a small fraction of free will, we can still be aware that we are weak. There is an idea within cognitive psychology that simply “willing” yourself to do something just doesn't work. There has been research done in this area, and the result of the research shows that if we want to control ourselves, we must place ourselves in the position to behave in the manner we wish ourselves to behave. Attempting to overcome our own temptation from will power alone is simply not an optimal method. I believe that from this, the question we must ask ourselves is not what we believe, but how we want to live.
So what are some potential arguments against his case? Kierkegaard said that Greek philosophy “was too happy, too naïve, too esthetic, too ironic, too witty—too sinful—to grasp that anyone could knowingly not do the good, or knowingly, knowing what is right, do wrong.”
While he brings up a valid argument, I wonder how Kierkegaard would respond to the notion that if you are causing harm to others you are actually harming yourself in the process. For example, if someone knows he is harming someone by stealing another man's wallet, but knowingly does it anyway, this might seem to be an exception to Socrates idea, and give support to Kierkegaard. However, I would make the argument that the man stealing the wallet is actually hurting himself as well, and while the material items he will purchase with the money might make him happy in the short term, he will be a happier person in the long run if he avoids causing harm to others. His desire to steal was rooted in the ignorance of what will truly make him happy, not the ignorance of the results of his actions.
However, while education is important in the reforming of people and their ideals, we also must hold people accountable for negative actions. Going back to the idea of the dog peeing on the rug, we decided that to shape the future in the manner we wish it to be, we would punish the dog for his negative actions. It is important to note that shaping behavior does not have to be done through negative means, and it has been shown that positive sanctions work better, and have a more significant long term affect than negative sanctions. Looking again at our penal system with the information we have established, we see that our current method of punishment without attempt at changing a persons future behavior is simply absurd, and has lead to a huge atmosphere of criminal behavior among large segments of the population. Instead of punishing people for making poor choices, we need to understand why they made these choices, and modify our social structures in a manner that will attempt to alleviate the environmental pressures that caused someone to commit a crime in the first place.
Regardless of if our actions are caused by free will or determinism, they still shape the future of the universe. If this is due to our sense of free will, or the actuality of it is irrelevant. If we accept this and place ourselves and others in positions to make the best possible choices, we allow ourselves (both as individuals, and as a society) to follow the best path. So while the universe may or may not be determined, due to our position in time, to us it feels as if we shape that universe with every choice we make, and indeed we do.
To return to the original message that Socrates, Buddha, Thoreau and Christ all share, we see a similar idea of happiness coming not from your own successes and pleasures, but from within. The message is that material goods do not bring us happiness or peace, but instead we find these things through good and just actions that lead us to an overall contentedness with ourselves. It would seem that the reason all of these teachers shared a similar message, is rooted in the idea that all wrongful actions are caused from a lack of understanding on what truly makes human beings happy. This flies in the face of our modern ideals that we accept within a capitalistic society, and this idea has been addressed in more modern times by Sociological theorists such Marx and Max Weber. I believe that if this idea becomes internalized by the majority of the population, we will see a drastic shift in the way we structure our society.
Jeez that took a long time to finally get to my point.
I really want to expand on the social implications of this, but I have been writing for two hours straight and need a break. If anyone actually made it this far, thank you for humoring me. I might write more on this later if there is any interest, I realize most people won't want to read such a long winded post.
|
I'm looking but can't find anywhere a relation to Starcraft. Please post in the community general forums, not in SC2 ones.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On May 04 2015 10:30 varsovie wrote:
I'm looking but can't find anywhere a relation to Starcraft. Please post in the community general forums, not in SC2 ones.
This, moved.
|
i get mad at my medics when they don't follow my marines around... the real reason is probably garbage micro by me.
however, is this due to free will or determinism? 
wtf is this doing here?
|
On May 04 2015 10:30 varsovie wrote:
I'm looking but can't find anywhere a relation to Starcraft. Please post in the community general forums, not in SC2 ones.
Oh, oops! Didn't realize two 'General' sections existed. Thanks for moving it.
|
You made one big mistake. Lack of free will is not empowering because even our decision-making is deterministic. You can't "take advantage" of the lack of free will, because that decision isn't "yours" to make. The way your brain works determines what decisions you make. There's no disembodied consciousness controlling your brain.
Basically what I'm saying is that even your thoughts are controlled by physical processes.
|
On May 04 2015 11:15 Millitron wrote:
You made one big mistake. Lack of free will is not empowering because even our decision-making is deterministic. You can't "take advantage" of the lack of free will, because that decision isn't "yours" to make. The way your brain works determines what decisions you make. There's no disembodied consciousness controlling your brain.
Basically what I'm saying is that even your thoughts are controlled by physical processes.
I completely agree that our thought processes are controlled as well. I am merely suggesting that the understanding of the deterministic nature of humans allows me to place myself in a better position to succeed, such as keeping myself away from negative influences. Of course, if we are determined, I was going to do this anyways, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a positive influence in my life.
For example, I smoked weed daily for years, always thinking it was completely under my control to stop. I even told myself I would quit a few times, but I always ended up justifying a reason to smoke. Every time. When I came to the conclusion of how determined we are, I realized that the control was actually out of my hands, and the only way to not smoke was simply not have access to it. So, I kept it out of my house, and now I no longer smoke.
I'm also not completely sold on determinism, rather, I think a healthier approach is to attempt to understand the limiting factors that such a universe has, and apply them to your life, with the understanding that we are either completely, or mostly determined.
Having no free will does not take away from the illusion of it in any way, or the consequences of your choices that result.
|
I see Yokokano has a new rival.
|
No, sadly. This is pretty standard "I read some philosophy books on my won" boilerplate. I salute you, OP, for your tenacity. Better men have made the same mistakes as you. Never change.
|
At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20.
The teachings of many spiritual leaders who have spent significant amounts of time in similar contemplation and solitude all seem to teach a similar idea of oneness. These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory, or Membrane theory, which is a continuation from string theory, postulating that the universe that we experience is simply one membrane folded over on itself an astounding amount of times, giving the perception of distinct, and separate objects. At it's heart, the leading scientific theories of today go hand in hand with the spiritual teachings of many classical “enlightened” thinkers. Your conception of oneness must either be so broad to apply to all and be a meaningless term, or only applying to a select few and wrong on all. What you're describing as a unity amongst "enlightened" thinkers is truly a disunity. The best you can hope for is some kind of consensus on a reality apart from physical observed reality ... what empirical sciences can tell us. Even then, enlightened is pretty vacuous in this use since you're already honing in on primarily "spiritual" thinkers. In short, you're hopelessly overgeneralizing on historical great thinkers or meritorious meditating men. The examples you cite lend no support to the following QM/String/Determinism proposals.
+ Show Spoiler +Religion threads are rather doomed to fail; I bring up the misconceptions of a quasi-Unitarian belief to simply persuade the author to do what he already knows: leave the "Universal unity and spiritual mumbo jumbo aside."
|
On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20. Show nested quote +The teachings of many spiritual leaders who have spent significant amounts of time in similar contemplation and solitude all seem to teach a similar idea of oneness. These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory, or Membrane theory, which is a continuation from string theory, postulating that the universe that we experience is simply one membrane folded over on itself an astounding amount of times, giving the perception of distinct, and separate objects. At it's heart, the leading scientific theories of today go hand in hand with the spiritual teachings of many classical “enlightened” thinkers. Your conception of oneness must either be so broad to apply to all and be a meaningless term, or only applying to a select few and wrong on all. What you're describing as a unity amongst "enlightened" thinkers is truly a disunity. The best you can hope for is some kind of consensus on a reality apart from physical observed reality ... what empirical sciences can tell us. Even then, enlightened is pretty vacuous in this use since you're already honing in on primarily "spiritual" thinkers. In short, you're hopelessly overgeneralizing on historical great thinkers or meritorious meditating men. The examples you cite lend no support to the following QM/String/Determinism proposals. + Show Spoiler +Religion threads are rather doomed to fail; I bring up the misconceptions of a quasi-Unitarian belief to simply persuade the author to do what he already knows: leave the "Universal unity and spiritual mumbo jumbo aside."
Great response, and you might be correct that I should leave the "oneness" out of the discussion. While I believe there is something there, I'm not even sure enough of what I think on the topic to really explain it to anyone. I do think my argument could be made purely from a deterministic perspective, and not include the spiritual side at all.
Do you think it would help my argument to remove that part entirely?
|
On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20.
While you aren't incorrect, I would like to make a distinction between the actual teachings of Christ, and what Christianity became. Christianity was not founded by Christ, and I believe the bible is a perverse concoction of ideas that Christ would not have supported in many cases, nor would he have supported what Christianity has become. Similar to all great philosophical teachers, their actual message ends up getting diluted by the followers (and those seeking power on their coattails).
In short, I dislike Christianity, but I do believe Christ gave us a great message, and I attempt to distinguish the man from the religion.
|
From my personal experience I can attest to the fact that its much better to put yourself in a situation where it is very hard to do something than to use your willpower alone. I used to think it was silly that people couldn't simply choose what to do, I thought it was very weak minded, but the truth is we are all naturally weak minded in this way and its hard to resist various urges or cravings. In that sense it is empowering to 'use' determinism to help yourself.
But with respect to your main point about how people are only evil out of ignorance. First of all I'm not sure its universally valid because there could be people who are 'wired' wrong - i.e. psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. who may genuinely enjoy causing suffering to others. Its not immediately clear that they are simply in a deep state of ignorance; though it is still possible I don't think its obvious.
But besides those fringe cases, if you don't take the 'oneness' idea literally as a new age spiritual person might, I think you have to appeal to the existence of some kind of universally shared, 'objective' morality. Because only under that system would the wallet thief feel any remorse - again maybe its just a fringe case as above, but some thieves may actually get a thrill out of it and not regret it at all.
And even to the extent that they do feel remorse, it could be more than balanced out if there is a lot of good events that follow. For example a person who steals a large sum of money from a wealthy person, and consequently turns his life around with that and leads a very magnanimous, positive life. He will certainly feel bad assuming he has standard human morals, but the positives outweigh the negatives enough that stealing in that exception case would be considered a net good for that person; especially if we assume the alternative is that he remains destitute and dies broke and alone.
Most spiritualists would say if you steal from him you ultimately harm yourself - in this case, I can't see the harm you've done to yourself; maybe some moral concerns at most, but hardly enough to outweigh the benefits. In general the argument you made at the end of your post was a bit tenuous, but I can imagine you were pretty tired of typing at that point so I understand.
Anyway I do feel that ideally a system should be created where people aren't put in these absurd situations; i.e. that there is a social safety net etc. to help people before they reach this point. In that sense you could argue that evil is ultimately conquered at the institutional level, and that we have to consider all spheres of human influence when creating such unusual hypothetical events. In conclusion I guess its probably true at a very broad level, barring certain exceptional cases.
Also I don't think you necessarily need a 'oneness' philosophy to argue this, it could equally be viewed as the consequence of a utilitarian philosophy where people naturally try to maximize their happiness, which naturally requires that people cooperate and create a better system for all.
As a physics student I don't buy the idea that everything is fundamentally random. They said that Bell's inequality effectively proved the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (that a particle has no clear position or momentum until its measured, after which it 'collapses' into a particular state), but the whole inequality relies on the principle of 'locality' or that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. If one simply postulates the existence of extra dimensions, then information could easily travel 'faster' by effectively jumping through wormholes like in science fiction (remember, the sheet of paper representing spacetime, that you fold in two and jam a pencil through, representing the wormhole?). Then in that case the inequality is plausibly violated; photons of opposite spin travelling in opposite directions can influence each other when one is measured. It would be totally bizarre if it weren't the case; there is still no coherent explanation for how entanglement operates instantaneously across any distance in spacetime. So as far as I'm concerned the orthodox model has a pretty big hole in it and its hard to take seriously as it stands anyway.
Maybe another physicist can help me understand. I'm only finished third year 
|
On May 04 2015 12:24 dream-_- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20. While you aren't incorrect, I would like to make a distinction between the actual teachings of Christ, and what Christianity became. Christianity was not founded by Christ, and I believe the bible is a perverse concoction of ideas that Christ would not have supported in many cases, nor would he have supported what Christianity has become. Similar to all great philosophical teachers, their actual message ends up getting diluted by the followers (and those seeking power on their coattails). In short, I dislike Christianity, but I do believe Christ gave us a great message, and I attempt to distinguish the man from the religion.
Jesus claimed to be God; assuming you are OK with the parts of the Bible which give us Jesus' directly spoken teachings, you would have to accept that to be the case. Either he was a madman who thought he was God but was not, or he was actually God. If he was indeed God, then it follows that the rest of the Bible is also his teaching (given that he claimed to be God in front of the Israelites, as an Israelite, and did not claim to be any other God but their own). You cannot discard the majority of the Bible as not the teachings of Jesus and still claim that he was a great philosophical teacher. Either he is a madman and the Bible is false, or he is a great philosophical teacher and the Bible is true. (Or he's a lying philosophical teacher, in which case his integrity is in question and his teachings also doubtful).
|
On May 04 2015 11:48 ninazerg wrote:
I see Yokokano has a new rival.
At this rate everyone on TL will be highly educated in metasociophysics in no time and we'll see more educational literature pieces (blogs) so that more people from outside of TL can be educated.
Free education!
Because education is priceless.
Because education is liberation.
|
On May 04 2015 12:19 dream-_- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20. The teachings of many spiritual leaders who have spent significant amounts of time in similar contemplation and solitude all seem to teach a similar idea of oneness. These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory, or Membrane theory, which is a continuation from string theory, postulating that the universe that we experience is simply one membrane folded over on itself an astounding amount of times, giving the perception of distinct, and separate objects. At it's heart, the leading scientific theories of today go hand in hand with the spiritual teachings of many classical “enlightened” thinkers. Your conception of oneness must either be so broad to apply to all and be a meaningless term, or only applying to a select few and wrong on all. What you're describing as a unity amongst "enlightened" thinkers is truly a disunity. The best you can hope for is some kind of consensus on a reality apart from physical observed reality ... what empirical sciences can tell us. Even then, enlightened is pretty vacuous in this use since you're already honing in on primarily "spiritual" thinkers. In short, you're hopelessly overgeneralizing on historical great thinkers or meritorious meditating men. The examples you cite lend no support to the following QM/String/Determinism proposals. + Show Spoiler +Religion threads are rather doomed to fail; I bring up the misconceptions of a quasi-Unitarian belief to simply persuade the author to do what he already knows: leave the "Universal unity and spiritual mumbo jumbo aside." Great response, and you might be correct that I should leave the "oneness" out of the discussion. While I believe there is something there, I'm not even sure enough of what I think on the topic to really explain it to anyone. I do think my argument could be made purely from a deterministic perspective, and not include the spiritual side at all. Do you think it would help my argument to remove that part entirely? Insomuch as you already seem willing to leave it all behind aka flowery intro, but the meat is found later on.
On May 04 2015 12:24 dream-_- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:At the heart of my thought process is an idea that many famous thinkers have proposed, which is ignorance being the source of all wrong actions (and the deterministic qualities that the idea seems to convey). Socrates holds that all who do evil do so involuntary and all who do injustice do so in ignorance. Socrates isn't alone in this belief. The Buddha, H.D. Thoreau and even Christ (forgive my tormentors “for they do not know what they are doing” [Luke 23:34]), all had similar sentiments on the origin of wrongful actions. Looking at these characters, it seems that there is a certain pattern of enlightenment behind these thinkers. Buddha, Thoreau, and Christ all spent large amounts of time alone in silent contemplation, most likely partaking in the act of meditation on a regular basis. The larger narrative for Christian worldview philosophers is wrong actions as a product a fallen sin nature (See the book of Genesis, Romans 5:12, etc. Also known as original sin). The notion that ignorance is the cause is dismissed numerous times in the same book, particularly Romans 1:18-20. While you aren't incorrect, I would like to make a distinction between the actual teachings of Christ, and what Christianity became. Christianity was not founded by Christ, and I believe the bible is a perverse concoction of ideas that Christ would not have supported in many cases, nor would he have supported what Christianity has become. Similar to all great philosophical teachers, their actual message ends up getting diluted by the followers (and those seeking power on their coattails). In short, I dislike Christianity, but I do believe Christ gave us a great message, and I attempt to distinguish the man from the religion. If you have a better source for his teaching than that book, you'll have to name it. Similar to all unsupported claims, it is very easy to pick your man (any man, really) and claim he was deeply misunderstood by modern scholarship and contemporary disciples. Sadly, like others, this goes deeply off topic and you're better off discussing your primary topic with that topic's interested parties. Even if your favored philosophers were counter-intuitively united in ethereal fashion, it does very little beyond serve as an intro or tie-in to your point.
|
These teachings go hand in hand with M-theory Never laughed so hard.
Ninazerg is starting to leave an impact...
|
In short, I dislike Christianity, but I do believe Christ gave us a great message, and I attempt to distinguish the man from the religion.
Yeah Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the mount) particularly the part about praying is how I imagine the difference between Christians and Christ's teachings.
I also agree ignorance is at the root of a lot if not all sin/evil, and I also think it's easy to extract that from Christ's teachings. Separately, Original sin is essentially a story about ignorance and our desire to understand.
I also don't think the commonality is inconsequential. Not sure how much it supports or ties into a multiverse, but it has social and philosophical significance.
|
the view on free will vs determinism is pretty straight forward for me - some people have it, some don't.
in the context of evolution: - when a change is needed, you'll have a rise in free willies which will drive that change. when a stable period is needed, you'll have more determinists and so on and so forth.
tick - tock - tick - tock, and so it moves.
history is the proof and witness of it all.
|
I gave spare change to two guys discussing philosophy at school. It was an insult because I am a marketing major.
|
On May 04 2015 18:19 tshi wrote:
I gave spare change to two guys discussing philosophy at school. It was an insult because I am a marketing major.
Why is it an insult because you do marketing?
|
On May 04 2015 17:26 xM(Z wrote:
the view on free will vs determinism is pretty straight forward for me - some people have it, some don't.
in the context of evolution: - when a change is needed, you'll have a rise in free willies which will drive that change. when a stable period is needed, you'll have more determinists and so on and so forth.
tick - tock - tick - tock, and so it moves.
history is the proof and witness of it all.
While I don't share these views I wonder how you came to that conclusion because I, if anything, would come to the opposite conclusion?
Aren't a lot of epics about heroes fulfilling a prophecies? Great forebears like Achilles, who knew of their destines, often just playthings of the gods and yet bringing great change in their roles.
Same goes for revolutionaries, often these people feel their actions are a natural consequence of their surroundings, which gives them justification for their action as well as some kind of fanatical strength needed for revolutions.
|
@op:
For the love of God, either you stick to positivism or you stay the hell out of it!
Don't use physics to justify your anti-positivist agendas!
|
On May 04 2015 18:39 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 18:19 tshi wrote:
I gave spare change to two guys discussing philosophy at school. It was an insult because I am a marketing major. Why is it an insult because you do marketing?
why is it not an insult because he did marketing?
hahahaha
|
On May 04 2015 21:10 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 17:26 xM(Z wrote:
the view on free will vs determinism is pretty straight forward for me - some people have it, some don't.
in the context of evolution: - when a change is needed, you'll have a rise in free willies which will drive that change. when a stable period is needed, you'll have more determinists and so on and so forth.
tick - tock - tick - tock, and so it moves.
history is the proof and witness of it all. While I don't share these views I wonder how you came to that conclusion because I, if anything, would come to the opposite conclusion? Aren't a lot of epics about heroes fulfilling a prophecies? Great forebears like Achilles, who knew of their destines, often just playthings of the gods and yet bringing great change in their roles. Same goes for revolutionaries, often these people feel their actions are a natural consequence of their surroundings, which gives them justification for their action as well as some kind of fanatical strength needed for revolutions.
i don't know man, are those epics real in any shape or form?. i don't really get where you're coming from here. even if i were to take those epics at face value, you'd still have to provide a timeline for prophecy <> deed <> story creation.
as far as revolutionaries go, you'd have to define these people and clarify why, for them, the natural consequence of their surroundings, is different than for other people.
(but mostly, i have no idea what you're trying to say )
|
On May 04 2015 17:26 xM(Z wrote:
the view on free will vs determinism is pretty straight forward for me - some people have it, some don't.
in the context of evolution: - when a change is needed, you'll have a rise in free willies which will drive that change. when a stable period is needed, you'll have more determinists and so on and so forth.
tick - tock - tick - tock, and so it moves.
history is the proof and witness of it all.
Without any significant knowledge on this field what so ever, i would assume that the theories of respectively free will and determinism are mutually exclusive.Those who you consider "free willies" might aswell just represent a tipping point in an already pre-determined chain of actions.
In regards to everything being one, i would actually assume this to be correct. Now i would really like for someone to prove me wrong, but if we assume that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, then wouldn't the logical assumption be that we are all part of the same ecosystem? At some party a while ago i talked to a friend of mine who worked at CERN, mind you we were both wasted, but if i am not mistaken, he told me something along the lines of: i could measure you in energy. So if i am energy, and i can consume and give away energy, and the amount of energy is total, then aren't we all one? At least potentially.
Also for the record i study law, so this is by no means within my field of expertice.
EDIT:
So i thought of another argument in favor of determinism. Most people would agree that when you roll a dice, the outcome is based on luck. The reality is however, that is it in fact not based on luck, but on a set of physical factors. What we call "luck" is in fact just circumstances that are out of our control. Could it be that what we consider "free will" is essentially just the roll of a dice, in a whole other magnitude. Impossible to control by humans, but nevertheless just a combination of physical factors.
|
Absolutely.
It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science.
Science works within the realm of the empirically testable and the closest concept of that in neuroscience is the "decision maker neuron".
In its simplest form, it is a neuron that receives input from two other neurons A and B.
Neuron A would tell the decision maker to escape, neuron B to stand still.
The organism has a memory that tells the network on certain threatening inputs to escape 100% of time.
There is no decision making involved.
Now consider a different case where neuron A would tell the decision maker to go left, neuron B to go right.
The organism has no clear memory established of which option left or right is better.
That means the decision neuron will be activated 50% of the time by neuron A and 50% of the time by neuron B.
That is because both A and B connect to the decision maker with the same number of synapses and are equally likely to fire.
That means, the actual decision depends on biochemical thresholds to be met that give the illusion of random decisions.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On May 05 2015 06:23 helpman170 wrote:
Absolutely.
It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science.
Science works within the realm of the empirically testable and the closest concept of that in neuroscience is the "decision maker neuron".
In its simplest form, it is a neuron that receives input from two other neurons A and B.
Neuron A would tell the decision maker to escape, neuron B to stand still.
The organism has a memory that tells the network on certain threatening inputs to escape 100% of time.
There is no decision making involved.
Now consider a different case where neuron A would tell the decision maker to go left, neuron B to go right.
The organism has no clear memory established of which option left or right is better.
That means the decision neuron will be activated 50% of the time by neuron A and 50% of the time by neuron B.
That is because both A and B connect to the decision maker with the same number of synapses and are equally likely to fire.
That means, the actual decision depends on biochemical thresholds to be met that give the illusion of random decisions.
This is possibly the worst description of physicalist determinism I've ever read. You should think a bit more about what exactly goes on linguistically when you say that "It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science." An arbitrary and incomplete discussion of neuronal decision-making does not support your conclusions in the way you think it does. Furthermore, you clearly haven't wrestled at all with the consequences of attempting to objectify "science" as though it exists outside of human consciousness and expression. Sure, there are "scientific" phenomena and the observed mechanics of physical existence and interaction, but they don't care what you call them, and the moment you use the word "science" to describe anything, you are implicating the involvement of a human observer and all that entails.
You've more reading to do.
|
On May 05 2015 21:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 06:23 helpman170 wrote:
Absolutely.
It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science.
Science works within the realm of the empirically testable and the closest concept of that in neuroscience is the "decision maker neuron".
In its simplest form, it is a neuron that receives input from two other neurons A and B.
Neuron A would tell the decision maker to escape, neuron B to stand still.
The organism has a memory that tells the network on certain threatening inputs to escape 100% of time.
There is no decision making involved.
Now consider a different case where neuron A would tell the decision maker to go left, neuron B to go right.
The organism has no clear memory established of which option left or right is better.
That means the decision neuron will be activated 50% of the time by neuron A and 50% of the time by neuron B.
That is because both A and B connect to the decision maker with the same number of synapses and are equally likely to fire.
That means, the actual decision depends on biochemical thresholds to be met that give the illusion of random decisions. This is possibly the worst description of physicalist determinism I've ever read. You should think a bit more about what exactly goes on linguistically when you say that "It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science." An arbitrary and incomplete discussion of neuronal decision-making does not support your conclusions in the way you think it does. Furthermore, you clearly haven't wrestled at all with the consequences of attempting to objectify "science" as though it exists outside of human consciousness and expression. Sure, there are "scientific" phenomena and the observed mechanics of physical existence and interaction, but they don't care what you call them, and the moment you use the word "science" to describe anything, you are implicating the involvement of a human observer and all that entails. You've more reading to do.
Yes, I agree I would have more reading to do if I would have the inclination for "philosophical introspection and discussion" just in order to keep up with the abstract mumbo-jumbo.
This is unfortunately not something that I very much desire.
|
On May 05 2015 21:40 helpman170 wrote:
[blahblah...] abstract mumbo-jumbo.
This is unfortunately not something that I very much desire.
Posting in this thread was your main mistake here I'd say. There were soooo many signs in the OP, or the few sentences I read at least, (and the replies) that should have made you go "nope" and turn around if you have no desire for abstract mumbo jumbo.
|
I'm coming at this from a bit of a different angle, though hopefully I won't do a completely horrible job of connecting it to the OP/current topic. I'm a bit more action-oriented as opposed to purely abstract philosophy. The two can, and often do, eventually connect but just a fair warning. I'm basically someone branching into abstract philosophy rather than having it as my starting point that I then branched out from. Yay perspectives (however flawed/uninformed mine may prove to be, heh). I'm also a longwinded, rambling motherfucker that is terrible as shit at editing my thoughts into concise statements - by my nature I place a rather high value on the ability of minor details to influence the overall picture. Thus you get to have a wall of text. You're welcome.
Super short version: Humanity needs a higher concentration of badasses before it can push past some of the current limitations.
Joke version: The 1% holding most of the power is holding humanity back. Down with the man or something.
When I read social structures in the title, my mind went in the direction of how the predominant social structure styles that humanity has used have changed over the course of history. Including how we might move forward and what the next major social structure might look like. Isn't all that directly connected to determinism, but that seems to more be an aspect of/approach to the topic to discuss rather than the actual topic itself. Or I'm just misinterpreting things... but screw it, pushing ahead anyway!
Back in the proverbial stone ages, one of the big concerns of humans was food, shelter, and clothing. Hunting played a major role, not just for food but also for the clothes/tents made from skins, tools from bones, etc. Scavenging would likely be in there as well. The leaders of a group were often those good at hunting, aka combat. Super generalization, but I'm just going for broad strokes atm. Move forward and humans more or less got the basics down when it came to obtaining food/clothing/shelter. Some stability in obtaining basic necessities allowed for other styles with less immediate results to emerge, such as farming or using traps. Repeat the progression several times and people determine with greater and greater clarity that more can be accomplished as a group that relies on each other rather than everybody acting as individuals. Humans seem to move towards actions that are perceived to be more efficient/of greater benefit, and thus the dominant social structure has changed as time passed. I'm sure a determinism focused discussion about that tendency could be easily generated, too.
An individual can certainly do just fine on their own without being connected to society, but the chances of someone 'living off the land' on their own accomplishing something like travel to the moon is all but an impossibility. The perspective that can be provided/obtained via disconnecting from society can be quite valuable, though. I certainly wouldn't call such a lifestyle 'bad' or a 'wrong choice.' There are limits to what an individual can achieve, which is why some products/events are often touted as having taken dozens or hundreds of 'man years' of effort to represent the combined effort required to bring the project to fruition.
Back to groups of people. Having determined that larger groups allowed for development and progress beyond the basic necessities, many groups of people sought to increase their numbers. One of the most common methods was via conquest and military might. Just like how hunting (combat skill) was a significant initial source when it came to obtaining basic needs, humans again went towards martial prowess to determine who was 'right' or at least who would lead. We continued doing that for quite awhile (and still do in some portions of the world), but eventually realized that killing off people that disagreed with us and marginalizing those that didn't have an affinity for conquest was only taking humanity so far. That method had limitations, so another, more productive/efficient style was eventually adopted so that human progress could continue.
Enter diplomacy, politics, lawyers, and all that fun stuff. More or less where much of the world seems to currently be at, even if the shift was fairly gradual. Ultimately, we just traded emphasizing prowess at physical combat for prowess at verbal combat. In broad terms, this social style has been more efficient than previous models. We stopped ignoring the nerds as well as decided to not chop off the head of anyone that disagreed with the majority consensus and now we have computers, launched people into space, and produced all sorts of other rapid advancements. People whose talents lie in an area other than verbal jousting and linguistics can still often get pushed aside, be taken advantage of, or have their views and what is important to them downplayed, so the current structure isn't perfect either. Just the most efficient one that humanity has come up with so far.
In contrast to the early days of human history, where practically everyone was well versed in caring for their basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.), current society is almost purely composed of specialists. I'd wager that the vast majority of us are all but clueless when it comes to obtaining food, building shelter, or making clothes (and most people that can make clothes are probably doing so from something like pre-constructed fabric/yarn/thread that they don't know how to make). It's not an inherently bad thing, just a result of advancements in efficiency to the point that a small portion of the population can produce enough to meet the needs of everyone. Thus the other portion can branch out into other pursuits. Via automation we're getting even better at it too, especially as we find more and more ways to lower the cost of using such automation methods. I'm a bit curious what society will look like/what the focus of activities might be once everyone's basic needs are more or less automatically provided for at virtually no cost. The required struggle to maintain basic living conditions is a major motivating factor for human actions and also a huge theme in lots of art/literature. The absence (or rather, automatic fulfillment) of those requirements could have an interesting impact. That seems to still be a fairly long way off, though.
In any case, with more and more specialization and the accompanying interdependence, society has trended towards taking care of the needs/wants/desires of the majority. And then minority groups start to appear. The easiest example might be racial minorities, but it can also apply to a number of other aspects. For example, the phrase "They don't make things like they used to." Modern civilization (western, at least) has put a lot more emphasis on speed/instant gratification. Many modern products have trended towards being cheap/quick to obtain, leaving those with other preferences having a tougher time finding products that fit their personal tastes.
Due to the specializing and interdependence, the 'majority' could be seen to represent the communal 'oneness' or unity while the minorities represent that society is still composed of many individuals. Minorities generally aren't completely ignored in current society, and a lot of efforts are made in many areas to provide for their needs/wants/desires as well. The situation isn't completely optimal though, even without considering the current overemphasis on a person's ability at verbal jousting.
Thus, it stands to reason that humanity should eventually find a new social model to move towards that yields even better results than the current one that is primarily used. Speculating what it might be (and thus how to get there) seems like it would first require determining the limitations of the current method. Based on my super broad, almost certainly overgeneralized analysis, it seems that society started off quite focused on the individual and gradually moved away from that to the point that it is very 'group' and majority based, almost to the point of occasionally ignoring the individual. I'm not nearly informed enough to estimate if the next major model will continue towards favoring the group or not. I do, however, believe that there will eventually be a resurgence of focus on the individual to counter-balance the extended focus on the society as a single, collective entity. Even if society is viewed as a single entity, it is made up of individuals. Strengthening the individuals will in turn strengthen the whole. We're not the Borg (yet, huehue).
As for how that individual improvement may come about (especially on a large enough scale to have a lasting impact on society) and in what form, I believe that the OP is on the right track in discussing perspectivse (holy shit, only took me what... 10 paragraphs to even remotely connect to his points? Told you I ramble) and understanding short term/long term perspectives as well as understanding the perspective of others. It is one thing to know that someone else has a different viewpoint on any given subject. It is another thing entirely to understand -why- that viewpoint is different and the thought process that led to that differing view. More people understanding how and why different individuals can reach different conclusions when presented with the same information could go a long way in pushing society forward.
To this end, I think that typology (study of personality types) has a lot of potential that is more or less being sat on right now. Laws of how the universe function are great, but we interact with the universe as people - and as previously discussed, often have to do so while working together with other people. Thus a greater understanding of the fundamental aspects of how/why our fellow humans (and ourselves) functions the way they do could lead to greatly increased capacity for mutual understanding and thus cooperation.
For those with a passing familiarity, or none at all, two of the most common/well known typology theories are Socionics (primarily popular in Europe, and has a fair amount of academic/professional backing and use) and MBTI (more commonly known in the West, though with significantly less academic acceptance). Both of those theories generally suggest the existence of 16 personality types. One type isn't considered superior to another, merely different with its own set of strengths (and weaknesses). Already it's on the track to providing additional perspective and promoting acceptance of people with differing views, even if those vastly differ from a person's own views. An individual might at least be able to better understand why those conflicting views may have come about, even if they don't completely agree with them.
As for the sixteen types, it's mostly a result of the personality 'building blocks' that have been identified and the rules about how they can fit together. The variations in which the fundamental components can be put together led to there being 16 types in those theories. Boiling down my understanding as much as possible, typology seems to generally be based on pairs. Generally one part of the pair is the 'dominant' or leading portion and the other serves as the 'auxiliary' or support portion of the pair. No particular component is always the 'leader' (as a pair could have either of it's two components in the dominant position - they're simply related to different personality types). And then those pairs form another pair, and it works its way up from there up until we have an individual's personality type. I'd suggest that this pairing can even go beyond that to a societal level, such as the 'group' being one part and the 'individual' being the other part of the pair. I already covered my view on the limitations of an individual, much the same way various social structures have run into limitations. We have examples all over the place of some people taking a leading role while other people serve as support, and yet both need each other. As the foundation of society is comprised of individuals, it makes sense to me to examine the fundamentals of the human psyche, as it should be useful information in the process of determining what may serve as the next course of action that is most beneficial to undertake.
I said that I think typology is sitting on a lot of potential. That's because right now, from my (amateur) understanding, current theories are more or less a picture of 'what is.' Roughly speaking, typology functions as a map (of human personality types) on which you can find the part that says "You are here" along with numerous instructions on how to get comfortable with where you are instead of trying to act like people that are at other locations. Socionics even has a 16x16 chart depicting how two people will likely interact based on their personality types, though there's danger of not having enough context when just casually looking at it with the eyes of an amateur. As I mentioned at the top, I'm a bit more action-oriented. When I initially read typology information (happened across a relatively high quality website), my brain almost immediately identified it as useful information that I should pay attention to (I seem to have a mental alarm for stuff like that, though it doesn't go off too often). After extensive reading I ended up with the above landscape portrait. Which is nice to look at and all, but there wasn't a lot to actually do with it. Like the difference between a cosmetic in a video game and something that actually impacts gameplay. There were also some outliers (both personal experience and reports of others) that the current theories I read didn't really explain and instead mostly try to ignore. Specifically, quite a few people have stated that although they identified with one personality type in an earlier stage of their life, there is another one that better represents them now (or that they feel they go between two types/possess more than one). Most typology professionals have concluded that you are born with one type and that you can't change it (hey, something slightly linked to determinism... I'm a helper!), thus a bit of emphasis on each type being unique and one not being superior to any of the others - you're here, might as well get cozy. I didn't think they were wrong, but I also didn't think it represented the full picture. Eventually I ended up writing a roughly ten thousand word hypothesis on how I believed it's possible to develop additional personality types (which essentially serve to strengthen and enhance the abilities of the initial, core type). Basically I took the static picture of typology, turned it on its side a few times, stared at it for awhile, and then eventually said "This isn't a landscape picture to hang on a wall, it's a map and instructions to be used for an epic road trip. And on top of that, the parts for an appropriate vehicle are lying around at our feet!" The significance of that (assuming I'm not horribly wrong) being that each personality type represents, fairly broadly, the perspective through which a significant portion of humans view the world and interact with it. Not only would developing additional personality types automatically teach a person (through personal experience, rather than third party account) that there are multiple, yet valid, perspectives; but also, if done on a large scale, there is a larger chance of people overlapping - of two people sharing at least one type, thus sharing a relatively similar thought process/communication method. Which in turns leads to better understanding, cooperation, and all that fun stuff that has thus far proven instrumental in aiding human progress.
The hypothesis I came up with is obviously that of an amateur, and although it seems to stand up to whatever angle I can inspect it from, it's still not much more than my personal musings. Finding someone that knows enough about typology to understand it would be hard enough, never mind one that feels like reading through 10k+ words, haha. Heck, it might be something they already explored and ultimately rejected, I just didn't find much about the subject during my relatively brief searches. The underlying concept of it though, is balancing the various pairs that make up a personality type. As they're all interconnected, one aspect can only get so far before the aspect (or pair) that it's connected to needs to be strengthened as well to keep up and continue performing its intended function, otherwise the leading part will push too far ahead and be unable to operate properly since it does actually need to work together with the support portion of the pair. Think of it as the difference between building a tower and building a mountain when aiming for height. A tower can generally only go so high before it starts to get structurally unsound and would be in danger of toppling over. A mountain has a massive, broad foundation built in from the start that allows it to reach extreme heights without the same danger as a tower - who's ever heard of a mountain falling on its side? Even with height as a goal, eventually you have to build out before you can go back to building up. At least until we manage to make a space elevator outside of science fiction.
The easiest example of this balancing would be Thinking vs Feeling (MBTI terminology - Socionics calls them Logic and Ethics, which at least sounds better as it doesn't imply that Feeling types don't think, lul). An average person will likely believe that rational logic and emotions are mutually exclusive forces and that one must generally be selected and the other mostly discarded when making decisions or taking action. Their preference generally being part of their personality type, and in many cases it leads to the non-selected one being considered as the inferior way of doing things (aka "omg, xbox sucks, the playstation that I use is totally better"). That line of thinking can only go so far before inherent limitations get in the way. In the process of analyzing the various building blocks of typology and how they fit together, I instead concluded that they all work together and thus both must be strengthened (there's even a suggested order of doing so!) in order to achieve the best results. Based on their personality type, a person will generally prefer one over the other (dominant/leading aspect) but the secondary aspect can't be ignored either as its support/following role is just as important as the dominant aspect of their personality.
From there, I basically followed the perceived need for having balanced development (not necessarily equal) all the way up the chain, past the individual level. Thus my assessment that while society is putting more and more emphasis on taking care of the majority, eventually there will need to be focus on improving individuals on a fairly large scale, rather than having just a few sporadic 'educated' people here and there. Even should my hypothesis be completely offbase, I still think there will eventually need to be a significant improvement to the average quality of the individuals that make up society. Thus my pointing towards typology as having a fair amount of sleeping potential. Just needs to go from being merely a nice picture to being able to present an action plan.
Hopefully that related enough to the overall topic and wasn't too much of an unrelated tangent. Like I said at the top, as an action-oriented person merely figuring out 'if we humans could get to this point, it would be an improvement over the current state of things' isn't enough for me. My brain will try to figure out steps to actually get there. Might be completely wrong, but it's still gonna try to come up with something! Being that the solution my mind came up with was essentially "We need more badasses doing badass shit" I think I'm currently okay with this process.
|
More directly in relation to determinism vs free will, why do the only options have to be A or B? Why not both/a mixture?
Assuming the existence of multiple, alternate realities why should all of them have to function off of the same option? Shouldn't it be possible for some to be based on being pre-determined while others are based off of free will? That does raise the question of what happens should the two manage to interact, of course. And if that's possible, it should further be possible for both sides of the coin to be functioning within the same reality as well, as it would just be a continuation of the possibility of two differing realities eventually interacting.
Although free will and determinism seem to be practically opposed to each other, there are plenty of other areas where things/ideas/people that initially seemed to be at odds with each other were actually found to be able to work in tandem with the other fairly well. The example of some neuroscientists believing that the only control we have is what we focus our attention could serve as a way of illustrating the concept, albeit rather clumsily.
Mainly just a further application of my conclusions from examining typology. The answer could just as easily be a simple A or B (nevermind the 'none of the above' answer which isn't all that productive unless there's supporting information to rule out the current options and/or provide an alternate solution), but rather than one extreme or the other it seems just as possible that it could be a mixture of the two that lies somewhere in middle.
Sure there's the option that some aspects of reality/people are one, some the other, and some a mixture but that's mostly a chaotic, random answer. The universe (at least the version we exist in) seems to generally function off of specific laws. Randomness/chaos is often just due to current understanding of the process being observed being incomplete/insufficient.
|
On May 06 2015 18:47 Vortok wrote:
Humanity needs a higher concentration of badasses before it can push past some of the current limitations.
Consider reading some Nietzche or perhaps Thomas Carlyle's "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History".
I think you're on the right track, that history is mostly driven by cool people doing big things, but you make a big flaw. You suggest humanity should focus on producing more of these ambitious people, while it's not at all apparent that everyone has it in themselves to become what Nietzche called Ubermensch. Look how readily the vast majority of people stop striving once they're content. These people can't be improved, because they have no real incentive to put in effort themselves. It doesn't really matter how well-educated or skilled they are if they don't have the desire to apply those traits. Only a select few have the ambition to never be content.
I think instead of trying to make everyone ubermensch, society should try to find those who already are ubermensch, and give them anything they need to allow them to do great things. Instead of getting more ubermensch, we make the ones we already have better, basically.
|
On May 07 2015 03:32 Millitron wrote:
I think instead of trying to make everyone ubermensch, society should try to find those who already are ubermensch, and give them anything they need to allow them to do great things. Instead of getting more ubermensch, we make the ones we already have better, basically.
That is a terrifying prospect and I have a very hard time supporting this idea. The world does not need more dictators and madmen in a position of power, no matter how much humanity would allegedly "improve" in the process.
|
On May 07 2015 04:40 scFoX wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 03:32 Millitron wrote:
I think instead of trying to make everyone ubermensch, society should try to find those who already are ubermensch, and give them anything they need to allow them to do great things. Instead of getting more ubermensch, we make the ones we already have better, basically. That is a terrifying prospect and I have a very hard time supporting this idea. The world does not need more dictators and madmen in a position of power, no matter how much humanity would allegedly "improve" in the process.
Ubermensch aren't necessarily dictators. Ambition doesn't have to be ambition for power. Just because its a German word doesn't mean it's evil, lol. Henry Ford, Alan Turing, Richard Feynman, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ghandi, and Teddy Roosevelt would all fit the definition of ubermensch.
|
On May 04 2015 12:38 radscorpion9 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +As a physics student I don't buy the idea that everything is fundamentally random. They said that Bell's inequality effectively proved the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (that a particle has no clear position or momentum until its measured, after which it 'collapses' into a particular state), but the whole inequality relies on the principle of 'locality' or that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. If one simply postulates the existence of extra dimensions, then information could easily travel 'faster' by effectively jumping through wormholes like in science fiction (remember, the sheet of paper representing spacetime, that you fold in two and jam a pencil through, representing the wormhole?). Then in that case the inequality is plausibly violated; photons of opposite spin travelling in opposite directions can influence each other when one is measured. It would be totally bizarre if it weren't the case; there is still no coherent explanation for how entanglement operates instantaneously across any distance in spacetime. So as far as I'm concerned the orthodox model has a pretty big hole in it and its hard to take seriously as it stands anyway. Maybe another physicist can help me understand. I'm only finished third year
I'm in my third year and I think you misunderstand the prevailing quantum mechanics model. I feel like this is a major misconception about QM propagated by people outside of physics, that it means that "everything is fundamentally random."
Quantum mechanics is fundamentally deterministic as is. The wave functions underlying everything are fully deterministic, the only thing that appears probabilistic is measurements based on these wave functions. However this apparent randomness is an illusion based on lack of perspective.
This explanation might help.
|
On May 07 2015 05:28 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 04:40 scFoX wrote:On May 07 2015 03:32 Millitron wrote:
I think instead of trying to make everyone ubermensch, society should try to find those who already are ubermensch, and give them anything they need to allow them to do great things. Instead of getting more ubermensch, we make the ones we already have better, basically. That is a terrifying prospect and I have a very hard time supporting this idea. The world does not need more dictators and madmen in a position of power, no matter how much humanity would allegedly "improve" in the process. Ubermensch aren't necessarily dictators. Ambition doesn't have to be ambition for power. Just because its a German word doesn't mean it's evil, lol. Henry Ford, Alan Turing, Richard Feynman, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ghandi, and Teddy Roosevelt would all fit the definition of ubermensch.
A lot of people "would fit the definition of ubermensch" if they were picked out for rose-tinted historical recognition. Human progress depends on a chaos of competing forces in many arenas, as much or more than the contributions of "that one genius". It's easy to look back over how we've evolved and say "that development was important"; it's much harder to picture what we might look like had that not occurred and satisfy oneself that comparing the two situations says anything about our virtues.
|
On May 07 2015 07:14 EatThePath wrote:
A lot of people "would fit the definition of ubermensch" if they were picked out for rose-tinted historical recognition. .
No man is a hero to his valet!
|
On May 07 2015 07:15 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 07:14 EatThePath wrote:
A lot of people "would fit the definition of ubermensch" if they were picked out for rose-tinted historical recognition. . No man is a hero to his valet!
I wish I could be a valet of one of them for a while
|
On May 07 2015 06:56 Rainling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2015 12:38 radscorpion9 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +As a physics student I don't buy the idea that everything is fundamentally random. They said that Bell's inequality effectively proved the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (that a particle has no clear position or momentum until its measured, after which it 'collapses' into a particular state), but the whole inequality relies on the principle of 'locality' or that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. If one simply postulates the existence of extra dimensions, then information could easily travel 'faster' by effectively jumping through wormholes like in science fiction (remember, the sheet of paper representing spacetime, that you fold in two and jam a pencil through, representing the wormhole?). Then in that case the inequality is plausibly violated; photons of opposite spin travelling in opposite directions can influence each other when one is measured. It would be totally bizarre if it weren't the case; there is still no coherent explanation for how entanglement operates instantaneously across any distance in spacetime. So as far as I'm concerned the orthodox model has a pretty big hole in it and its hard to take seriously as it stands anyway. Maybe another physicist can help me understand. I'm only finished third year I'm in my third year and I think you misunderstand the prevailing quantum mechanics model. I feel like this is a major misconception about QM propagated by people outside of physics, that it means that "everything is fundamentally random." Quantum mechanics is fundamentally deterministic as is. The wave functions underlying everything are fully deterministic, the only thing that appears probabilistic is measurements based on these wave functions. However this apparent randomness is an illusion based on lack of perspective. This explanation might help.
I think you both are wrong. And it would matter not a bit that i have my masters in physics already, as i am a terribly bad physicist.
First regarding the nonlocality: there is no plausible mechanism that would allow only entangled particles to exchange informations with infinite sublight velocities over arbitrary distances via spatial extradimensions.
All current theories predicting spatial extradimensions, predict only compact very low energy extradimensions. Those would be pretty specific in their behaviour, and nothing about them would make them behave in the way you invision them to.
Especially regarding filtering out only the interactions of matter that we would call collapse of a wavefunction of entangled quantum states. If there was real nonlocal action going on we would see it in all interactions all over the universe.
Maybe you were thinking about another theory modeling gravity as involving higher dimensions, (would nicely explain the comparative weakness of gravity) but those are no ordinary spatial dimensions that can be accessed by matter/electromagnetic energy. So it would still lack any mechanism about spin transfer which is in its fundamentals an electromagnetic interaction with the frame of inertia.
Our understanding of inertia is still lacking, but currently we are looking at a world that seems to be not perfect machian, and we probably can determine rotations to exist.
Secondly regarding determinism or not: Our human understanding of cause and effect is not evolved to accuratly capture all consequences of a fully quantum description of reality. A double slit experiment with a photon source that emits a single photon per interval still generates the interference pattern precicely because there is not a single path followed by a single photon but all paths with their respective probabilities. The probabilistic approach is not "just a tool to determine what 'might happen' but we don't know exactly". Everything we see only lets us the conclusion that nature is fundamentally behaving probabilistically and only the inimaginable large sum of interactions gives us the illusions of concrete and absolute outcomes.
|
the thing about neurons is around here:Understanding how self-initiated behavior is encoded by neuronal circuits in the human brain remains elusive. We recorded the activity of 1019 neurons while twelve subjects performed self-initiated finger movement. We report progressive neuronal recruitment over ?1500 ms before subjects report making the decision to move. We observed progressive increase or decrease in neuronal firing rate, particularly in the supplementary motor area (SMA), as the reported time of decision was approached. A population of 256 SMA neurons is sufficient to predict in single trials the impending decision to move with accuracy greater than 80% already 700ms prior to subjects awareness. Furthermore, we predict, with a precision of a few hundred ms, the actual time point of this voluntary decision to move. We implement a computational model whereby volition emerges once a change in internally generated firing rate of neuronal assemblies crosses a threshold. so, they assigned to that threshold a "urge to move" of the subject then called it volition = the act of making a conscious choice or decision.
first, i don't know how many would agree with their definition of volition. second, it says nothing about how/why did those neurons fired in the first place.
now, a firing neuron is an electric discharge. the discharge follows a chemical reaction that takes place in your brain. In most experiments, the coupling is continuous and symmetric, i.e., it resembles diffusion. Coupling between neural oscillators, in contrast, is generally pulsatile and asymmetric. A signal is transmitted from the presynaptic to the postsynaptic neuron only when the presynaptic cell's membrane potential passes a threshold. Recent experiments have shown how such behavior may be mimicked in coupled CSTRs(continuous-flow stirred tank reactor) containing the BZ(Belousov–Zhabotinsky) reaction. (more on chemical systems/systems chemistry - http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/chaos/25/9/10.1063/1.4918601 + Show Spoiler +If we were to identify three themes that dominate the “early days” of nonlinear chemical dynamics, up to about 1990, they might be these:
(1) Chemical reactions with appropriate nonlinearities in their kinetics can give rise to such dynamical phenomena as multistability, periodic oscillation, and chaos.
(2) In spatially distributed systems, the interaction of diffusion with reaction kinetics leads to patterned behavior, including spirals and other traveling waves, Turing patterns, and spatiotemporal chaos.
(3) All of these phenomena are consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, in particular, thermodynamics and kinetics, and an understanding of the general principles that govern these systems allows us both to construct reliable models and to design systems that exhibit behaviors of interest. The work of Prigogine and the Brussels school played a key role in helping chemists to appreciate the wealth of possibilities that become accessible when one studies systems far from equilibrium.25
In this section, we describe briefly some of the most important developments of the past quarter century, beginning about 1990. Again, we can point to three distinguishing, and interacting themes:
(1) The spatial and temporal patterns identified and characterized in the earlier period can be manipulated, controlled, and transformed into one another by carefully chosen, relatively small external perturbations.
(2) In many systems, interesting behavior arises as the result of interactions between many subunits, each of which possesses a nonlinear dynamical behavior. The resulting “emergent” dynamical behavior can be considerably more complex than that of a single isolated subunit.
(3) Novel dynamical phenomena occur in “structured media”16 consisting of spatially distributed arrays, which may be periodic or random, of distinct interacting reaction zones. Thus, for example, if one studies the BZ reaction in a microemulsion consisting of nanodroplets of water suspended in a continuous oil phase, the variety of patterns observed is far richer than what is seen for the same reaction in homogeneous aqueous solution.
Subsections: A. Control of chaos and other dynamical behavior B. Spiral wave dynamics C. Patterns in structured media D. Materials and chemomechanical transduction E. Synchronization: Collective behavior and emergence F. Synchronization: Chimeras and networks
also, there is no single Übermensch that can change anything. there will always be a host of other small Übermensch that will help him achieve change. you can call someone a pioneer sure, but in science he will be a nut before others will back him up(and that happens, usually, way in to the future) and in human social structures, he will need soldiers/tools to do his bidding.
Edit: emergence happens in social structures. when there is enough of <X> to demand/ask/want/need a change/something different/something else, it will happen. if it would be prevented/suppressed by any means(force mostly) chaos will ensue for a long, long time.
|
While some of the arguments you guys make are a bit, umm, .... , hand waving?, it is still nice to see people take an interest in quantum physics. Trolling or not.
So I'll just throw in some links to my favourite interpretation of QM: the path integral, aka "sum over histories". It essentially says that the probability of something happening is the sum of all the ways in which it can happen, which I find pretty neat.
wikipedia on path integrals
Quite some math in there, but that's physics for you.
another site I found
I only skimmed the second link, but the pictures seem to give a good image of what is going on.
And an article relating to QM on macroscopic scale. A group made medium-sized molecules (like 100 atoms) behave like quantum waves in a double-slit experiment, essentially setting the record for how large scale QM has been observed on.
article
hf.
|
Well, the different interpretations of QM are just different mathematical variations of one and the same experimental observation. Therefore, you can say the world is deterministic or nondeterministic based on the interpretation you choose and still get the same results. This makes the question of determinism meaningless in the realm of physics and puts it into the realm of philosophy.
In any case, you really don't need QM to explain how quasi-random decision making arises on the level of neuronal circuits.
|
Very long diatribe only to end with: Down with capitalism, up with communism! Dry - this has been repeated ad nauseum for a long time. There is no universal happiness; each individual has their own values that derive their happiness. That's neither a good or bad expression - it just is. However, you are wrong that materialism doesn't deliver happiness ceteris paribus. Ask those living in poverty, who have trouble putting food on the table, or have to fret over finances and their families well-being. Ask those people if they are happy. If you're such a sociologist, you should be aware of Maslow's hierarchy, so there is a very real causality to materialism and happiness. All in all, this sounds more like political calls to action, than anything else.
|
On May 05 2015 06:23 helpman170 wrote:
Absolutely.
It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science.
Science works within the realm of the empirically testable and the closest concept of that in neuroscience is the "decision maker neuron".
In its simplest form, it is a neuron that receives input from two other neurons A and B.
Neuron A would tell the decision maker to escape, neuron B to stand still.
The organism has a memory that tells the network on certain threatening inputs to escape 100% of time.
There is no decision making involved.
Now consider a different case where neuron A would tell the decision maker to go left, neuron B to go right.
The organism has no clear memory established of which option left or right is better.
That means the decision neuron will be activated 50% of the time by neuron A and 50% of the time by neuron B.
That is because both A and B connect to the decision maker with the same number of synapses and are equally likely to fire.
That means, the actual decision depends on biochemical thresholds to be met that give the illusion of random decisions.
That's actually not right. You're conflating the perceived best decision, with the inability to make decisions. You simply didn't address what determinism actually is - not that there is no randomness, but that you have no control over your actions. We can't simply look at a binary choice like you presented to determine with any thought either way.
I mean as someone who has a degree in the medical field, I'm well aware of how our parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system works - and how our endocrine and exocrine glands effect certain responses. The point is, while fleeing from an attacking bear would be the optimal choice, I still have the choice of doing nothing, and there are certainly people who would choose that just to spite this argument. Fate? Destiny? Do you have the illusion of free will. It's a murky area. No one is reality thinks like your binary example.
|
On May 07 2015 18:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 06:23 helpman170 wrote:
Absolutely.
It is important to understand that there is no such concept as "free will" in science.
Science works within the realm of the empirically testable and the closest concept of that in neuroscience is the "decision maker neuron".
In its simplest form, it is a neuron that receives input from two other neurons A and B.
Neuron A would tell the decision maker to escape, neuron B to stand still.
The organism has a memory that tells the network on certain threatening inputs to escape 100% of time.
There is no decision making involved.
Now consider a different case where neuron A would tell the decision maker to go left, neuron B to go right.
The organism has no clear memory established of which option left or right is better.
That means the decision neuron will be activated 50% of the time by neuron A and 50% of the time by neuron B.
That is because both A and B connect to the decision maker with the same number of synapses and are equally likely to fire.
That means, the actual decision depends on biochemical thresholds to be met that give the illusion of random decisions. That's actually not right. You're conflating the perceived best decision, with the inability to make decisions. You simply didn't address what determinism actually is - not that there is no randomness, but that you have no control over your actions. We can't simply look at a binary choice like you presented to determine with any thought either way. I mean as someone who has a degree in the medical field, I'm well aware of how our parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system works - and how our endocrine and exocrine glands effect certain responses. The point is, while fleeing from an attacking bear would be the optimal choice, I still have the choice of doing nothing, and there are certainly people who would choose that just to spite this argument. Fate? Destiny? Do you have the illusion of free will. It's a murky area. No one is reality thinks like your binary example.
I was simply presenting an oversimplified model of decision making at the level of single neurons.
No mention of determinism or free will whatsoever.
Research in that area is extremely limited because we have to make use of simple organisms that allow us to genetically trace individual neurons for experimentation.
But even in those simple organisms we see that sensory noise is normalized and integrated via thesholding and convergence onto integratory neurons. It is straightforward to project this mechanism to higher brain centers where sensory inputs compete not only with each other but also with input from other internal brain states. At each integration step, we have the confluence of several factors that fluctuate within certain parameters to determine if the downstream neuron fires or not.
Even at those simple organisms we see that behaviors are not simple reflexes that give 100% response all the time, but that the integration is watered down via multimodal input until it reaches the motor output.
There was just a paper published this week that gives you an example for this noisy integration step: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7549/full/nature14297.html
|
On May 07 2015 03:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2015 18:47 Vortok wrote:
Humanity needs a higher concentration of badasses before it can push past some of the current limitations.
Consider reading some Nietzche or perhaps Thomas Carlyle's "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History". I think you're on the right track, that history is mostly driven by cool people doing big things, but you make a big flaw. You suggest humanity should focus on producing more of these ambitious people, while it's not at all apparent that everyone has it in themselves to become what Nietzche called Ubermensch. Look how readily the vast majority of people stop striving once they're content. These people can't be improved, because they have no real incentive to put in effort themselves. It doesn't really matter how well-educated or skilled they are if they don't have the desire to apply those traits. Only a select few have the ambition to never be content. I think instead of trying to make everyone ubermensch, society should try to find those who already are ubermensch, and give them anything they need to allow them to do great things. Instead of getting more ubermensch, we make the ones we already have better, basically.
Always down for some interesting reading. I'll keep them in mind.
I wasn't quite going for a 'we should make everyone uber' theme, though my writing skills are probably lacking. I'm not advocating that everyone should be like the movers and shakers that have shaped history. As a quick, and likely poor, example, there are some personality types that naturally excel at hospitality and care for others. The people that love to arrange dinner parties, or make sure everyone at a restaurant is taken care of, things of that nature. Is someone like that particularly likely to produce some massive breakthrough that alters the course of human history? Maybe, but probably not, but they still have their own talents and purpose that is perfectly fine and valuable to society. I think we should find a way to help make people better at what they're already good at, whether they're a quantum physicist or a soccer mom. And that requires diving deep enough to reach a foundational level with core components that everyone shares.
I certainly don't expect there to be a one size fits all solution. Education is great, but we could probably talk to some old fisherman (to pick a random trade) that never went to school and he'd still likely have pearls of wisdom to share on par with some of the greatest scholars. I also agree that some people are content upon reaching a certain level. Education/self improvement takes time, just like keeping up with politics, gossip, and all sorts of other things. Some people will judge that for them personally it is more worthwhile to go in another direction than to continue their education. They generally seem to get through life just fine while ignoring what some groups may consider to be an optimal path, and the different perspective they provide can be quite valuable.
In most modern countries, it's fairly accepted that education and literacy for the general populace is almost universally good. A fair amount of progress can be observed once the general population was improved in this way. Whether this is progress towards the ubermensch or not likely depends on perspective. Thus far, the vast majority of that education is spent on purely academic subjects such as math, language, history, science and the like. Very little emphasis is placed on how to interact and get along with other people. Everyone is practically left to their own devices or to learn via trial and error at the school of hard knocks - some have natural talents in the area while others do not. There are books and courses that have been written on the subject (with varying degrees of sincerity), but it's still generally treated as something optional and non-vital.
One such book, that was placed in my hands many years ago, is "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie and was originally written close to a century ago. In the foreword it discussed that dealing with people is a huge part of our daily lives. One of their studies at the time suggested that even in a technical field such as engineering, about 15% of a person's success was due to the person's technical knowledge and about 85% relied on skill in human engineering - to personality and ability to lead people. And yet a rather significant portion of education focuses on that 15% area.
A quote of John D. Rockefeller that the book contained claimed that he said "the ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee. And I will pay more for that ability, than for any other under the sun." A fair amount of the focus of Carnegie's book relates to success in the business world, but that's just a piece of the whole and the overall concepts have fairly broad applications.
For some people, what they learn in history or science class may have very little relevance on the path they choose to go through life while for others those subjects serve as a vital foundation. Having to deal with other people is common to virtually everybody, even outside the business world. And yet instead of arming new generations with fundamental information about something so vital and common as interpersonal communication, we generally just say "Figure it out yourself, you're on your own."
The average literacy rate of the general population was eventually considered a limitation and subsequently addressed. I can see the general population's average capability at communication and understanding the viewpoints of others (which also partially connects to being able to look at a problem from multiple angles, even if working alone) as something that could be at a similar level of importance as literacy was determined to be. A lot of this post appears to emphasize people skills, but I'm thinking of something a bit broader than that. Increased people skills would just be a natural byproduct, though with significantly differing degrees of effectiveness from one person to another.
|
Nietsche's zarathoustra describe a cyclical evolution of mankind from baby, to chamel, to lion, back to baby (the superhuman). For Nietsche, it's the history, more exactly the resentment, that prevent mankind from being better, from doing good. The society cannot create that kind of man, because the society is a set of institutions and moral laws that create chamel : men who support the moral laws on their back, until a lion come and break everything (which I believe is Zarathoustra - he is not the superhuman because he is still bound by his resentment, but he announce the arrival of the superhuman), permitting the birth of the superhuman baby with no history and thus no resentment.
So the birth and appearance of great people is an historical result to Nietsche.
|
First, I'll give a few objections to the actual readings of what you're saying.
With respect to the Jesus of the Gospels claiming that the evil of man is caused only by ignorance is not convincing. You cited one specific example, that only tangentially speaks of ignorance, specifically that they do not recognize the divinity of the man whom they are crucifying. While Jesus of the Gospels never explicitly addresses the issue you are talking about, I'm far from convinced that he should be put into the camp of a traditional reading of Socrates, specifically his dialogue with Satan while he is in the desert comes to mind to tangentially refute your interpretation.
Second, I wouldn't at all put Aristotle in the same camp of Descartes with respect to the soul. Aristotle's thought regarding the soul is called hylomorphism (basically "matter-formism"), where there isn't a true duality, but is instead a monism where matter (potentiality) is opposed to form (actuality). Now you might think these two categories seem like a dualism, but really matter and form aren't two different "substances" but rather just the capacity for change versus what something is at this very moment. Aristotle borrows heavily from Anaxagoras in Dei Anima quoting him: "Mind is the ultimate reality." This implies that there is no other substance but form, where matter is just not yet actualized.
Even if you do want to argue that hylomorphism is really a dualism, it is still quite far from how the traditional reading of Descartes explained his dualism, and should not in any way be considered similarr. They really couldn't be more different. A "traditional" reading of Plato's myth of Er, however could be argued to be similar to Descartes...
And transitioning from Aristotle's Hylomorphism, your argument about the "tools of science" to address the "free will" debate, I believe is completely and utterly wrong. This "debate," I would argue, is a complete misunderstanding of terms, and if there is a debate to be had about it, this is where it should lie. Check out this comic, it gives a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/70
In short, I don't think science has anything to do with the "free will" debate, as science isn't really that great of a tool to help us describe what we mean by the "self." It only investigates questions as to in what way things behave, but doesn't really help us think clearly about the nature of our language and what we mean by certain words (however, science can indeed provide some excellent counter examples of our claims about what we "mean.")
Also, the last point I want to mention. In reference to determinism absolving responsibility of of culpability and blame, you should check out some Baruch Spinoza. He's spoke about what Nagle was speaking about (or at least what you claim Nagle was speaking of, I haven't read that essay of his) over 300 years before him.
All in all, I think you make some interesting points, but be very cautious in making claims about what previous philosophers have said. These claims are usually hotly debated (even issues that you think are obvious, just check out the "Straussian" interpretation of Plato's Socrates.) and it is quite easy to sidetrack the discussion or even discredit your education on the matter.
|
On May 04 2015 12:12 Danglars wrote:Your conception of oneness must either be so broad to apply to all and be a meaningless term, or only applying to a select few and wrong on all . . . The examples you cite lend no support to the following QM/String/Determinism proposals.
While I agree with you that the op does not cite any examples lending to understanding of QM, Heisenberg did say that Aristotle was the only man who understood indeterminacy.
So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss using ancient, especially Greek, philosophy as a way of understanding some aspects of QM. Of course, the Atomists understood atoms much differently from how we understand them, but really we just have a more detailed picture of what atoms are; it isn't that they were really wrong they just didn't have the tools that we do.
I'm really tired of people saying things like "Science is incredibly counter-intuitive," because that just isn't completely true. Sure Aristotle got a lot of physics wrong using "intuition." But the Greeks as a whole predicted atomic and evolutionary theory (often claimed to be two very counter-intuitive scientific theories). While they were indeed wrong about many things, and many specific things about those theories, they clearly had a certain perspective of the world that has been lost. While we shouldn't just take what they say at their own word, there is clearly a lot we can learn from trying to get inside their heads by reading men like Aristotle.
|
On May 04 2015 16:26 fred1 wrote:Never laughed so hard. Ninazerg is starting to leave an impact...
I agree. M-Theory is about a membrane folded in on itself?? That's really not what M theory means at all. At its core it's just a way of uniting multiple mathematical formulations of the same thing which happens to require 11 dimensions...nothing infinite about it. I stopped reading after this point. Philosophers who pretend to understand physics really irritate me.
EDIT: Drunk and wishing that there was some BW or SC2 to watch, that could have something to do with the irritation
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
