I don't know enough about how consciousness works to really make any kind of guess what's going on. You could be right, for all I know. This could be a big video game with some external soul playing out a series of lifetimes to learn how to be a decent conscious entity. All I'm saying is, even if true, the truth of that hypothesis brings me no comfort. It does NOT even any kind of metaphysical balance, as I see it.
Is the concept of karma and reincarnation a kind of 'noble lie' that helps people put themselves in others shoes and see the interconnectedness of all things? Yes. Free will is another such noble lie. We recognize when we are free to choose between a number of different, viable alternatives; and when our choices are constrained down to 'do this, or die.' God is another noble lie, a cosmic father who balances the imbalances in the end.
The far more frightening truth is, as I see it, that we are it. If we want redemption, we must provide it. If we want balance, we must create it. If we want fairness, we must enforce it. If we want love, and compassion, and someone out there who sees us and loves us, we must live it.
There is no meaning to the world except that which we assign it. No reincarnation and karma to satisfy our innate and natural sense that things must be fair and balanced and equitable. No God to make things right, except us. We're the best shot we have in the whole universe of my experience.
You want love and compassion, reciprocity and fairness? Don't trust God or Karma or Science or Human Nature to do it for you. Just do it yourself. Anything else is just a cop out, and believe me, I know all about cop outs and self justification. If I could give you a pill that showed you how to do it, I wouldn't because I'd have to take it myself because I've got no real clue how. Who knows? maybe wanting too real bad will work. I hope so because that's about all I've got.
Your points are all suspect because you profess logic and reason using emotionally loaded terms. This is hypocritical. If you believed your own theories, or knew how to live them, you could express the idea that logic and reason are good without resorting to appeals to emotion.
It does seem a fairly large practical problem, doesn't it? I mean, a father goes to a US embassy and tells personnel, "My son is plotting violence against your country." And the son doesn't even get put on the watch list, let alone the no fly list. Nobody with the power to make a difference even sees that important bit of information.
With egalitarian access to all information feeds, everyone could make use of the wisdom of other people who they trust have a similar world view and goals to theirs. A web of trust that could bring attention of the whole web to those that chose to trust that web.
IMHO, there are possible technological solutions to this seemingly intractable practical problem of information overload, but they all hinge on everyone having equal access to all information feeds.
Ever heard about the difference between rule and act utilitarianism? That's the difference between a law decided by a majority, and a case-by-case tyranny of the majority, also.
No, I have not heard of the difference between rule and act utilitarianism; but I will endeavor to educate myself as I understand your analogy describing the difference and it seems an important distinction.
Are you claiming science is perfect, and that the people practicing it, practice it perfectly? Do people, perhaps, cloak their woo-woo of the hour in the garb of science? Can you not name any scientific theories of the past that are now considered incorrect and even repulsive? And if such scientific theories do exist, how can we not suppose that some of our currently accepted scientific theories do not fall into the same category?
You seem to hold an intense desire to do away with all gray areas. Unfortunately, it is all gray. You can never get everyone to agree on a black and white world view, even using science, logic and reason. Therefore, science, logic, and reason are not the ultimate answer to societal problems.
The only concerns with sex are logical, i.e. dealing with incestuous activities which are likely to result in genetically damaged progeny and the issues of consent and age.
Please explain, logically, how we can determine issues of consent and age. And then explain, using logic, why it is anyone's business if I have a web footed duck baby because I like porking my sister.
Then, using science, perhaps you could give some evidence that a web footed duck baby is a necessary consequence of sister-porking.
Finally, explain how your emotional, derogatory attempt at poisoning the well by claiming all your opponents must be idiots not to agree with your logic is in itself at all logical.
How does one choose to make a choice? You've entered into an infinite regress here.
I still maintain that karma is a simple cop out, an attempt to explain away the fundamental problem of individuated ego: the existence of evil. Karma postulates a cosmic balance that puts things back 'in order.' Outside the conscious mind, there is no 'order' to be restored. Order, balance, good, and evil are all concepts of ego based mind.
And in the end, Karma is entirely unsatisfactory at explaining evil. In your conception, I am not the player in this game, I am the character. Why should the character care about the player playing him? The player and the character are not the same person. Why should I be comforted that the player controlling a person who harms me is themselves harmed? How does that restore balance? They are not the same person! The person committing the act does not know or care that their controlling soul may suffer for their actions, because there is no continuity of experience between the player and the character, even if there is in the other direction.
Karma and reincarnation just seem pointless and heartless to me.
I doubt a majority of totally informed people would act against a minority in a punitive way, as this would leave each individual open to punitive acts from a different majority.
Doesn't need a majority. You misunderstand people and vindictiveness. Given ease of information mining, some idiot will single out some other person, just because.
And this fact will be known by all. The person acting 'just because' will be acting on a world stage. Knowing your actions will potentially be judged by all, would you then persecute someone unfairly?
Logic, science and reason are nice, but the sad fact is that people do not always give these any credence. And, unfortunately, logic and reason operate the same way on falsehoods as they do on truths, thus getting any particular group of people to agree on what is true is not simply a matter of logic or reason. Science, though more amenable to ideas of truth, does not, ever, speak of what is true. We can't see the true functioning of the Universe, only the evidence of our senses. We can make scientific theories, and these may be highly accurate, but they are not 'true.'
And two apples added to two apples don't always make four apples. They may make 'many' apples for innumerate cultures, for instance. Two plus two equals four only for cultures with the concepts of two, four, and plus.
Your conception of free will seems to be 'random thoughts happen.' If that is the case, it is meaningless to talk about karma. The individual did not 'choose' to do something, a random thought, unconnected to any past experience, chose. Therefore, free will is unconnected to any individual, but merely a property of the randomness of the Universe. Individuals, in your theory, do not possess free will, as they are in no sense in control of their thoughts. If people are in control of their thoughts, and could have chosen something different, then it isn't randomness.
The question isn't whether tyranny of the majority is real or not. Of course it is. The question is, given the downsides of anonymity (anonymous bullying and rumor-mongering, criminal activity) outweigh the downside of total information (tyranny of the majority.) Also, there is some question as to whether the tyranny of the majority is actually wrong. The majority think murder is unacceptable, a minority consider it a fun past-time. Who, in this case, is right?
In reality, the right to privacy only exists because the majority feels it is important to uphold. If the majority felt otherwise, the minority could whine about their rights till the cows came home, but if they were unwilling or unable to fight the majority to uphold said right, such whining would be meaningless.
So, in effect, anonymity IS the tyranny of the majority. How do you like the taste of THAT waffle?
Hypothesis: either anonymity, or total information, can provide equivalent security. If everyone had access to all the information anyone else had, anonymity would no longer be necessary. As it is, anonymity is a kludge to protect those with less access to information from those who have more. It protects the guilty as well as the innocent. If everyone were totally informed (yes, this is purely hypothetical) then no one could act against another's interests unless the majority of humanity agreed with that act. While this would still leave open the possibility of a tyranny of the majority, I doubt a majority of totally informed people would act against a minority in a punitive way, as this would leave each individual open to punitive acts from a different majority.
No, you are wrong. Firstly, total randomness does not lie at the heart of quantum mechanics. The quantum wave function is deterministic. The collapse is not 'random' either, but constrained by the wave function.
But more importantly, randomness does not leave any room for free will. If something is completely random, it is not influenced by anything. If something is influenced by a hypothetical 'free will' it is not random.
As a side note, the collapse of a quantum wave function does not require a conscious observer. Wave functions collapse whenever quantum systems interact.
Though there is still some debate, the majority of neurologists and biochemists do not believe there is any quantum underpinning to consciousness. There is no hard evidence of any structures in the brain capable of maintaining coherence. Penrose's arguments have been decisively countered, IMHO.
Also, your arguments involving the quantum vacuum counter your arguments for anything disconnecting from the universe. Everything is enmeshed in that quantum sea, always. Things do not exist on their own, but only in relation to other things.
Lastly, unpredictability is not randomness. While certain things, including the collapse of quantum wave functions, may appear random, there is always the possibility that we simply don't have enough information, or the proper theory, to predict them. These things may be merely unpredictable from our vantage point, rather than truly random.
Thinking of things as a 'piece of the whole' is still dualistic, ego based thinking. And there is NOTHING that happens in isolation, everything is what it is ONLY because of it's causes. Nothing is a thing unto itself, whole and self-existing. Nothing. You are still seeing separate things where there are none. Your separate things are just ideas in your own head, categories you made up. The universe doesn't operate that way.
Oh, I'm aware of the theories. I'm just not buying it. It's a cop out, a trite explanation for the unfair, uncaring and utterly random events of life. It's a means to excuse unfairly gained power and wealth, and a method of severing compassion with the less fortunate. Each 'deserves' their lot in life, and some imaginary cosmic balance is maintained. But all it does is serve to mask the most basic mistake that ego makes: the idea that it is a separate thing to begin with. Forget karma and reincarnation and even free will, it's all a sop to an ego that sees itself as separated from the universe. Balance happens between two separate things. The concept of balance is alien to unity. Without the need for a settling of accounts, there is no need for rebirth. With no need for rebirth, suffering ends.
Note also that a robotic hand does not have the physiological limitations a human hand does.
To be more accurate, a robot hand does not have the same limitations as a human hand. For instance, while camping, a little warm bacon grease from the skillet will suffice to allow the human hand to fulfill it's duties. What kind of a battery pack would you need to drag along with this thing, and how much does it weigh? You'd probably need some kind of pack-llama to carry it, and if you've got a llama anyhow...
Fortunately for us, our emotions are a fairly good analog computational system, designed with a built-in secure communications channel (emotions are harder to fake convincingly than mere speech), that facilitate cooperation amongst humans. Emotions are not evil, beastly things that pull us away from our true, logical selves. Many emotions are good rough guides to moral behavior, because moral behavior is genetically advantageous. Some emotions may be selfish, but how odd is it then that we wear these badges of selfishness on our sleeve, for all to see?
And odd again that, although we humans hold many different religious convictions, all religions share some of the same moral tenets, such as the Golden Rule. Perhaps the morality came first, as a part of our basic, social nature, and religions simply seized on the innate morality we all feel to lend them authority.
We are no more destined to be innately selfish, than we are destined to be selfless and empathic. Human nature has two stable conditions, and based on external circumstances we may be either selfish or selfless. Generally, when we see selfish behavior all around us, we will be selfish too, to avoid being taken advantage of. When we see selfless behavior, we tend to be selfless too, because that enhances our long term chances of survival.
Social systems that reward selfishness breed selfishness, while social systems that reward fairness and reciprocity breed what is commonly considered 'moral' behavior.
Which system do we currently have? And why would you assume we can have no other?
If I'm me, then I'm not some guy who's memories and personality I don't have. If I'm some dead guy in a new body, I'm not me. The concept of reincarnation either requires an idea of 'self' that contradicts everything commonly meant by self, or it is a meaningless semantic exercise used to justify success by evil and the suffering of good.
If you need to redefine self to make it work, then why not be honest and say, (for instance) "Well, lady, your baby died because some old dead guy was evil, his soul needed punishing, and, well, your baby was him. And the guy that killed your baby, well, some guy in the future who has no memory of being a murderer is going to suffer for that!" Yeah, that's comforting.
I suppose for people who need to assign meaning to things, any meaning will do, no matter how meaningless it actually is.
Human nature is not a single, immutable thing. We have many different natures. Human society or nurture emphasizes certain aspects of our nature, and de-emphasizes others. Different societies, therefore, can find different stable configurations of our many natures.
I see how this works: it's too hard to do what's right, so let's not bother to try. And: they were doing it anyway, so why should we have to give up cheap goods?
Sheesh, try to help someone get their point across, not get ignored, and get some positive moderation, and look what you get... Maybe you are typing just to hear the keys click?
Sigh. It's too bad too, because you sound smart. You are writing to communicate ideas to others, not to hear yourself type, right? Then take the other guy's advice: make it brief, summarize and write in normal English.
Slashdot Mirror
Robots eat old people's medicine for fuel. It's a fact. People who deny this fact may themselves be robots.
I don't know enough about how consciousness works to really make any kind of guess what's going on. You could be right, for all I know. This could be a big video game with some external soul playing out a series of lifetimes to learn how to be a decent conscious entity. All I'm saying is, even if true, the truth of that hypothesis brings me no comfort. It does NOT even any kind of metaphysical balance, as I see it.
Is the concept of karma and reincarnation a kind of 'noble lie' that helps people put themselves in others shoes and see the interconnectedness of all things? Yes. Free will is another such noble lie. We recognize when we are free to choose between a number of different, viable alternatives; and when our choices are constrained down to 'do this, or die.' God is another noble lie, a cosmic father who balances the imbalances in the end.
The far more frightening truth is, as I see it, that we are it. If we want redemption, we must provide it. If we want balance, we must create it. If we want fairness, we must enforce it. If we want love, and compassion, and someone out there who sees us and loves us, we must live it.
There is no meaning to the world except that which we assign it. No reincarnation and karma to satisfy our innate and natural sense that things must be fair and balanced and equitable. No God to make things right, except us. We're the best shot we have in the whole universe of my experience.
You want love and compassion, reciprocity and fairness? Don't trust God or Karma or Science or Human Nature to do it for you. Just do it yourself. Anything else is just a cop out, and believe me, I know all about cop outs and self justification. If I could give you a pill that showed you how to do it, I wouldn't because I'd have to take it myself because I've got no real clue how. Who knows? maybe wanting too real bad will work. I hope so because that's about all I've got.
Your points are all suspect because you profess logic and reason using emotionally loaded terms. This is hypocritical. If you believed your own theories, or knew how to live them, you could express the idea that logic and reason are good without resorting to appeals to emotion.
It does seem a fairly large practical problem, doesn't it? I mean, a father goes to a US embassy and tells personnel, "My son is plotting violence against your country." And the son doesn't even get put on the watch list, let alone the no fly list. Nobody with the power to make a difference even sees that important bit of information.
With egalitarian access to all information feeds, everyone could make use of the wisdom of other people who they trust have a similar world view and goals to theirs. A web of trust that could bring attention of the whole web to those that chose to trust that web.
IMHO, there are possible technological solutions to this seemingly intractable practical problem of information overload, but they all hinge on everyone having equal access to all information feeds.
Ever heard about the difference between rule and act utilitarianism? That's the difference between a law decided by a majority, and a case-by-case tyranny of the majority, also.
No, I have not heard of the difference between rule and act utilitarianism; but I will endeavor to educate myself as I understand your analogy describing the difference and it seems an important distinction.
Are you claiming science is perfect, and that the people practicing it, practice it perfectly? Do people, perhaps, cloak their woo-woo of the hour in the garb of science? Can you not name any scientific theories of the past that are now considered incorrect and even repulsive? And if such scientific theories do exist, how can we not suppose that some of our currently accepted scientific theories do not fall into the same category?
You seem to hold an intense desire to do away with all gray areas. Unfortunately, it is all gray. You can never get everyone to agree on a black and white world view, even using science, logic and reason. Therefore, science, logic, and reason are not the ultimate answer to societal problems.
The only concerns with sex are logical, i.e. dealing with incestuous activities which are likely to result in genetically damaged progeny and the issues of consent and age.
Please explain, logically, how we can determine issues of consent and age. And then explain, using logic, why it is anyone's business if I have a web footed duck baby because I like porking my sister.
Then, using science, perhaps you could give some evidence that a web footed duck baby is a necessary consequence of sister-porking.
Finally, explain how your emotional, derogatory attempt at poisoning the well by claiming all your opponents must be idiots not to agree with your logic is in itself at all logical.
How does one choose to make a choice? You've entered into an infinite regress here.
I still maintain that karma is a simple cop out, an attempt to explain away the fundamental problem of individuated ego: the existence of evil. Karma postulates a cosmic balance that puts things back 'in order.' Outside the conscious mind, there is no 'order' to be restored. Order, balance, good, and evil are all concepts of ego based mind.
And in the end, Karma is entirely unsatisfactory at explaining evil. In your conception, I am not the player in this game, I am the character. Why should the character care about the player playing him? The player and the character are not the same person. Why should I be comforted that the player controlling a person who harms me is themselves harmed? How does that restore balance? They are not the same person! The person committing the act does not know or care that their controlling soul may suffer for their actions, because there is no continuity of experience between the player and the character, even if there is in the other direction.
Karma and reincarnation just seem pointless and heartless to me.
I doubt a majority of totally informed people would act against a minority in a punitive way, as this would leave each individual open to punitive acts from a different majority.
Doesn't need a majority. You misunderstand people and vindictiveness. Given ease of information mining, some idiot will single out some other person, just because.
And this fact will be known by all. The person acting 'just because' will be acting on a world stage. Knowing your actions will potentially be judged by all, would you then persecute someone unfairly?
Logic, science and reason are nice, but the sad fact is that people do not always give these any credence. And, unfortunately, logic and reason operate the same way on falsehoods as they do on truths, thus getting any particular group of people to agree on what is true is not simply a matter of logic or reason. Science, though more amenable to ideas of truth, does not, ever, speak of what is true. We can't see the true functioning of the Universe, only the evidence of our senses. We can make scientific theories, and these may be highly accurate, but they are not 'true.'
And two apples added to two apples don't always make four apples. They may make 'many' apples for innumerate cultures, for instance. Two plus two equals four only for cultures with the concepts of two, four, and plus.
Your conception of free will seems to be 'random thoughts happen.' If that is the case, it is meaningless to talk about karma. The individual did not 'choose' to do something, a random thought, unconnected to any past experience, chose. Therefore, free will is unconnected to any individual, but merely a property of the randomness of the Universe. Individuals, in your theory, do not possess free will, as they are in no sense in control of their thoughts. If people are in control of their thoughts, and could have chosen something different, then it isn't randomness.
The question isn't whether tyranny of the majority is real or not. Of course it is. The question is, given the downsides of anonymity (anonymous bullying and rumor-mongering, criminal activity) outweigh the downside of total information (tyranny of the majority.) Also, there is some question as to whether the tyranny of the majority is actually wrong. The majority think murder is unacceptable, a minority consider it a fun past-time. Who, in this case, is right?
In reality, the right to privacy only exists because the majority feels it is important to uphold. If the majority felt otherwise, the minority could whine about their rights till the cows came home, but if they were unwilling or unable to fight the majority to uphold said right, such whining would be meaningless.
So, in effect, anonymity IS the tyranny of the majority. How do you like the taste of THAT waffle?
Hypothesis: either anonymity, or total information, can provide equivalent security. If everyone had access to all the information anyone else had, anonymity would no longer be necessary. As it is, anonymity is a kludge to protect those with less access to information from those who have more. It protects the guilty as well as the innocent. If everyone were totally informed (yes, this is purely hypothetical) then no one could act against another's interests unless the majority of humanity agreed with that act. While this would still leave open the possibility of a tyranny of the majority, I doubt a majority of totally informed people would act against a minority in a punitive way, as this would leave each individual open to punitive acts from a different majority.
No, you are wrong. Firstly, total randomness does not lie at the heart of quantum mechanics. The quantum wave function is deterministic. The collapse is not 'random' either, but constrained by the wave function.
But more importantly, randomness does not leave any room for free will. If something is completely random, it is not influenced by anything. If something is influenced by a hypothetical 'free will' it is not random.
As a side note, the collapse of a quantum wave function does not require a conscious observer. Wave functions collapse whenever quantum systems interact.
Though there is still some debate, the majority of neurologists and biochemists do not believe there is any quantum underpinning to consciousness. There is no hard evidence of any structures in the brain capable of maintaining coherence. Penrose's arguments have been decisively countered, IMHO.
Also, your arguments involving the quantum vacuum counter your arguments for anything disconnecting from the universe. Everything is enmeshed in that quantum sea, always. Things do not exist on their own, but only in relation to other things.
Lastly, unpredictability is not randomness. While certain things, including the collapse of quantum wave functions, may appear random, there is always the possibility that we simply don't have enough information, or the proper theory, to predict them. These things may be merely unpredictable from our vantage point, rather than truly random.
Thinking of things as a 'piece of the whole' is still dualistic, ego based thinking. And there is NOTHING that happens in isolation, everything is what it is ONLY because of it's causes. Nothing is a thing unto itself, whole and self-existing. Nothing. You are still seeing separate things where there are none. Your separate things are just ideas in your own head, categories you made up. The universe doesn't operate that way.
Oh, I'm aware of the theories. I'm just not buying it. It's a cop out, a trite explanation for the unfair, uncaring and utterly random events of life. It's a means to excuse unfairly gained power and wealth, and a method of severing compassion with the less fortunate. Each 'deserves' their lot in life, and some imaginary cosmic balance is maintained. But all it does is serve to mask the most basic mistake that ego makes: the idea that it is a separate thing to begin with. Forget karma and reincarnation and even free will, it's all a sop to an ego that sees itself as separated from the universe. Balance happens between two separate things. The concept of balance is alien to unity. Without the need for a settling of accounts, there is no need for rebirth. With no need for rebirth, suffering ends.
Note also that a robotic hand does not have the physiological limitations a human hand does.
To be more accurate, a robot hand does not have the same limitations as a human hand. For instance, while camping, a little warm bacon grease from the skillet will suffice to allow the human hand to fulfill it's duties. What kind of a battery pack would you need to drag along with this thing, and how much does it weigh? You'd probably need some kind of pack-llama to carry it, and if you've got a llama anyhow...
It is also impossible to crush an egg against your own eye socket, or in your armpit, as these perfectly cup the egg, again dissipating the forces.
Fortunately for us, our emotions are a fairly good analog computational system, designed with a built-in secure communications channel (emotions are harder to fake convincingly than mere speech), that facilitate cooperation amongst humans. Emotions are not evil, beastly things that pull us away from our true, logical selves. Many emotions are good rough guides to moral behavior, because moral behavior is genetically advantageous. Some emotions may be selfish, but how odd is it then that we wear these badges of selfishness on our sleeve, for all to see?
And odd again that, although we humans hold many different religious convictions, all religions share some of the same moral tenets, such as the Golden Rule. Perhaps the morality came first, as a part of our basic, social nature, and religions simply seized on the innate morality we all feel to lend them authority.
We are no more destined to be innately selfish, than we are destined to be selfless and empathic. Human nature has two stable conditions, and based on external circumstances we may be either selfish or selfless. Generally, when we see selfish behavior all around us, we will be selfish too, to avoid being taken advantage of. When we see selfless behavior, we tend to be selfless too, because that enhances our long term chances of survival.
Social systems that reward selfishness breed selfishness, while social systems that reward fairness and reciprocity breed what is commonly considered 'moral' behavior.
Which system do we currently have? And why would you assume we can have no other?
If I'm me, then I'm not some guy who's memories and personality I don't have. If I'm some dead guy in a new body, I'm not me. The concept of reincarnation either requires an idea of 'self' that contradicts everything commonly meant by self, or it is a meaningless semantic exercise used to justify success by evil and the suffering of good.
If you need to redefine self to make it work, then why not be honest and say, (for instance) "Well, lady, your baby died because some old dead guy was evil, his soul needed punishing, and, well, your baby was him. And the guy that killed your baby, well, some guy in the future who has no memory of being a murderer is going to suffer for that!" Yeah, that's comforting.
I suppose for people who need to assign meaning to things, any meaning will do, no matter how meaningless it actually is.
Human nature is not a single, immutable thing. We have many different natures. Human society or nurture emphasizes certain aspects of our nature, and de-emphasizes others. Different societies, therefore, can find different stable configurations of our many natures.
I see how this works: it's too hard to do what's right, so let's not bother to try. And: they were doing it anyway, so why should we have to give up cheap goods?
Sheesh, try to help someone get their point across, not get ignored, and get some positive moderation, and look what you get... Maybe you are typing just to hear the keys click?
Sigh. It's too bad too, because you sound smart. You are writing to communicate ideas to others, not to hear yourself type, right? Then take the other guy's advice: make it brief, summarize and write in normal English.
How exactly is formally argued ruthlessness a mathematically supported prescription for running the world?
You do know The Prince was meant as satire, right?