Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:. . . I believe I can feel my own free will.

You, and everyone else!

So if everyone can feel their (alleged) freewill, then this feeling must be a kind of "necessary illusion," something that we have all evolved to experience. But what possible evolutionary mechanism could exert selective pressure on illusions within our consciousness? How could this illusion possibly affect our survival or the passing of genes to the next generation? If we don't really have freewill, then this means our actions are lawful and axiomatic. In other words, our actions would require no input whatsoever from our will, and would be exactly the same without this additional illusion.

So it seems impossible that natural selection could ever have gained a "foothold" on the mental mechanisms which produce this universal illusion (universal among humans). If the actions of a person would be the same whether he had this illusion or not, then there would be no way for nature to "select" between the two cases. There's no reason these types of people would so successfully out-compete the varieties without this illusion.

Therefore, from a purely evolutionary perspective, the illusion of freewill would have to confer a survival advantage. Which means a person's actions *are* different (e.g. better for their survival) when they have this additional illusion.

But now we're left with the conclusion that illusory experiences can actually confer advantages in the real world, and change a person's actions to more accurately navigate the survival factors of their environment. That's a very strange illusion! It makes a person's actions seem purposeful, intentional, and freely chosen--even though they're not--and yet doing so somehow alters their actions for the better.

In what way would a person's chances for survival be increased for them to believe falsely that they are in control of their actions? I don't think that idea makes much sense. I think that given the fact that our experience seems free, the burden of proof should rest on those who disagree. They should provide an evolutionary mechanism to show how natural selection could have shaped us to experience this illusion.

On the other hand, I can think of many ways that the reality of freewill would confer survival advantage. A being who is free, and knows it, is the best sort of "generalist," an animal which can adapt to the greatest variety of environments. It does not have to rely upon instinct or habit, but can deal with novelty in ways that other animals cannot. Even intelligence would not be enough to adapt like we have, if we were not free to try new techniques and strategies, if we didn't purposely push beyond the limits given to us in our environment.

Preaching to the choir, Z.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Yes, it matters enormously whether our universe had a cause. On this hangs the question of the meaning of our lives.

This is what I'm getting at. The meaning of my life does not hang on whether or not there is a creator. My life has meaning. To me, and given by me. Your opinion is that that kind of meaning is valueless. My opinion is that it is of supreme value. Your belief that only meaning given by a being that created us can be of value is just that - your belief. Your opinion. I do not share it. I know it is a truth to you. But that's what I'm saying in this thread; truths that have been revealed to some people via personal revelation are not only non-transferable, but they aren't important. Not to me. I have found answers in non-personal-revelation ways to the questions that have been answered for you via personal revelation.

The other kinds of truths - what substances are safe to eat; how does one avoid death from this or that illness; can I jump from X feet up with a reasonable expectation of walking away from the landing; etc - do not need to be answered via personal revelation. They can be verified objectively.

Hi, Fist,
When I say "meaning", I mean "transcendent meaning" - which would mean something objective in a permanent, rather than temporal sense. When that is taken into account, your sense of meaning suddenly becomes fleeting and ultimately meaningless - after you and everybody who knew you is dead, if you like. This is the thing I find to be inconsistent with the admission of any meaning whatsoever - that it would be impossible to discuss meaninglessness unless there really is meaning, and no meaning can be measured without an ultimate objective measuring stick. It's like the example I offered of, say, a third-century Roman slave who we have no records of today. Meaningless - unless there is a transcendent Someone or Something that can qualify that meaning. Then, and only then, can I speak about meaning in my own life and not be self-contradictory.

Zarathustra wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Still, I can't help noticing how dead the Close has been while I've been gone. maybe ya shoulda given me the Watchie for contributor to the Close....?

You absolutely should have been given a Watchie! If I weren't so apathetic about the whole award process, I would have nominated you. (Edit: woops, I notice you were nominated. I didn't vote for Close categories, only Tank.) You're a thick-skinned S.O.B to take all the pounding you get here.

Thank you!

Zarathustra wrote:

rusmeister wrote:
Yes, it matters enormously whether our universe had a cause. On this hangs the question of the meaning of our lives.

That's a kind of nihilism, to prejudge the question of meaning as only having an answer if the universe had an external cause. This is a common theme with my responses to you: Christian values devalue the world as it really is, by supposing that it can only be valuable by assuming things which go beyond it. Why can't the world--and our lives--be valuable in themselves, without reference to an external cause? Why can't it be precisely as valuable as we decide? I think a self-caused or a causeless universe is even *more* valuable than the artifact of an inexplicable being (who never seems to need an external cause to have meaning . . . curious).

I think, in your judgement of what you understand to be Christian, you have left Orthodox (and probably some important mainline heterodox Christian as well) teaching out of the account. It is essential to understand that we believe that God created the world GOOD - that it was, in all its beginnings, good. This is the first denial of the idea that we devalue the world. We state that it is fallen from what it should be, and of greater importance regarding your idea, that food, drink, sex, the material world, etc, are all good things (which is why Manicheaism - and Puritanism - are heresies (a word that needs clarification from the fuzzy understanding people have of the word today).

The next is that if the rational mind finds something to be rationally unacceptable - that it is not a question of being "unpleasant", but a question of being asked to accept contradictory and mutually exclusive propositions - then finding something unacceptable suddenly becomes the intelligent and right thing to do. Christianity (Orthodox, at any rate) is a direct opposite of nihilism.

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing — more at nil
Date: circa 1817

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism

I'd say that not only Orthodoxy, but all mainline traditional forms of Christianity qualify as opposite to that.

Saying that we should be able to determine value subjectively is about as far from any scientific proposal as any I've ever heard. It is the kind of mentality that, in economics, leads to collapsed markets. And it is a self-collapsing philosophy.

Zarathustra wrote:

In Will To Power, Nietzsche wrote: A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist.

To the extent that we judge the universe as it is to be unacceptable, and invent mythologies to "correct" these flaws (mythologies which go into the realm of the supernatural), we are nihilists.

The assumptions that a religion is necessarily mythology, and that mythology is necessarily falsehood - active untruth, rather than a metaphorical expression of actual truth - are huge assumptions, with an enormous mass of apologetics to refute such claims.

Interesting question hinted at there...is the only falsehood an active untruth? (By active, do you mean deliberate?) What do we call things that are not actively untrue?

--A

rusmeister wrote:The next is that if the rational mind finds something to be rationally unacceptable - that it is not a question of being "unpleasant", but a question of being asked to accept contradictory and mutually exclusive propositions - then finding something unacceptable suddenly becomes the intelligent and right thing to do.

It's at least possible that rejecting the unacceptable is the intelligent and right thing to do.

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

I'll go along with the first part of that sentence, but not the second.

rusmeister wrote:Saying that we should be able to determine value subjectively is about as far from any scientific proposal as any I've ever heard. It is the kind of mentality that, in economics, leads to collapsed markets. And it is a self-collapsing philosophy.

Determining the value of my own life for myself is not "scientific". It's just the way it is. I have done it; I continue to do it. Science has nothing to do with it. As for such a philosophy being self-collapsing... Well, you have no reason to believe that must always be the case. The key word being "reason." No logic; no evidence. Just your belief that, since your philosophy says your philosophy is the one and only one that is not self-collapsing, all others, including this one, must be self-collapsing.

rusmeister wrote:The assumptions that a religion is necessarily mythology, and that mythology is necessarily falsehood - active untruth, rather than a metaphorical expression of actual truth - are huge assumptions, with an enormous mass of apologetics to refute such claims.

I've never really considered the idea, but my knee-jerk reaction is I imagine most mythologies are metaphorical expressions of the truths people perceive, not falsehoods.

Hi, Fist, and thanks!

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The next is that if the rational mind finds something to be rationally unacceptable - that it is not a question of being "unpleasant", but a question of being asked to accept contradictory and mutually exclusive propositions - then finding something unacceptable suddenly becomes the intelligent and right thing to do.

It's at least possible that rejecting the unacceptable is the intelligent and right thing to do.

Fair enough.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

I'll go along with the first part of that sentence, but not the second.

It is the logical outcome of nihilism. It does mean exactly that. Anything else is simply an attempt to combine contradictory philosophies.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Saying that we should be able to determine value subjectively is about as far from any scientific proposal as any I've ever heard. It is the kind of mentality that, in economics, leads to collapsed markets. And it is a self-collapsing philosophy.

Determining the value of my own life for myself is not "scientific". It's just the way it is. I have done it; I continue to do it. Science has nothing to do with it. As for such a philosophy being self-collapsing... Well, you have no reason to believe that must always be the case. The key word being "reason." No logic; no evidence. Just your belief that, since your philosophy says your philosophy is the one and only one that is not self-collapsing, all others, including this one, must be self-collapsing.

My comment was aimed at Malik's idea. I get that you accept other paths to truth than science. As to collapse, I think my analogy a darn good one, and one that should not be dismissed out of hand. If a philosophy really is found to be, not paradoxical but actually self-contradictory, then it really does collapse - it becomes discredited (although it often undergoes cosmetic changes and resurfaces, like pragmatism, or eugenics - oops, another analogy!).

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The assumptions that a religion is necessarily mythology, and that mythology is necessarily falsehood - active untruth, rather than a metaphorical expression of actual truth - are huge assumptions, with an enormous mass of apologetics to refute such claims.

I've never really considered the idea, but my knee-jerk reaction is I imagine most mythologies are metaphorical expressions of the truths people perceive, not falsehoods.

Thanks. This is obvious to me, too. But modern usage has most people equate the term "myth" with the term "falsehood".

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

I'll go along with the first part of that sentence, but not the second.

It is the logical outcome of nihilism. It does mean exactly that. Anything else is simply an attempt to combine contradictory philosophies.

One of nihilism's tenets may be that existence is senseless and useless. I'll assume that's part of nihilism's definition, and won't argue that.

But that is not a tenet of every philosophy that views traditional values and beliefs are unfounded. No "traditional" values and beliefs does not mean no values and beliefs. Not every philosophy that views traditional values and beliefs as unfounded attempts to combine contradictory philosophies.

It is a false assumption that only meaning given to us from outside of ourselves can be free of condradiction, or that only that kind of meaning can be sensible and useful.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Saying that we should be able to determine value subjectively is about as far from any scientific proposal as any I've ever heard. It is the kind of mentality that, in economics, leads to collapsed markets. And it is a self-collapsing philosophy.

Determining the value of my own life for myself is not "scientific". It's just the way it is. I have done it; I continue to do it. Science has nothing to do with it. As for such a philosophy being self-collapsing... Well, you have no reason to believe that must always be the case. The key word being "reason." No logic; no evidence. Just your belief that, since your philosophy says your philosophy is the one and only one that is not self-collapsing, all others, including this one, must be self-collapsing.

My comment was aimed at Malik's idea. I get that you accept other paths to truth than science. As to collapse, I think my analogy a darn good one, and one that should not be dismissed out of hand. If a philosophy really is found to be, not paradoxical but actually self-contradictory, then it really does collapse - it becomes discredited (although it often undergoes cosmetic changes and resurfaces, like pragmatism, or eugenics - oops, another analogy!).

The difference between paradox and contradiction is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure you and I would disagree over whether or not certain things we each value and/or believe are one or the other. What you find to be contradiction in some aspect of my belief system may not be contradiction. It may just be that you don't understand it. Or maybe it just isn't compatible with yours. But being incompatible with yours does not define "contradiction."

Fist and Faith wrote: One of nihilism's tenets may be that existence is senseless and useless. I'll assume that's part of nihilism's definition, and won't argue that.

Been a long time since I dealt with nihilism at it's roots, but IIRC [Z is a pro at this stuff, so might answer more fully/accurately], this isn't precisely the tenet. What it really is, I think, is that existence is inherently senseless and useless...nothing is born/created/comes to exist with meaning/value, it simply is [though if I recall my Nietzsche correctly, nothing can exist without relation to other things].
From that tenet, many concluded that everything [including people/lives] always was and will be senseless and useless.
Others concluded that the tenet is what gives meaning and value to meaning and value: the fact that we start with nothing but resources, and then adapt, live, and create. [emphasis on create] A very important part of this, though, is that what you make be built on what is, not on arbitrary morals/traditions, good and evil, or magical beings and such things.

My gods. I'm a nihilist.

It is all senseless and meaningless. It doesn't bother me, it's liberating, not depressing.

--A

Avatar wrote:My gods. I'm a nihilist.

It is all senseless and meaningless. It doesn't bother me, it's liberating, not depressing.

--A

I think Isaac Asimov said something to that effect, that atheism freed him from worry and let him live his own life.

Asimov sounds like a smart guy to me. Av, too. Heh.

Thanks, Vraith.

Asimov *was* a smart guy. Literally. He was a card-carrying Mensan.

Orlion wrote:

Avatar wrote:My gods. I'm a nihilist.

It is all senseless and meaningless. It doesn't bother me, it's liberating, not depressing.

--A

I think Isaac Asimov said something to that effect, that atheism freed him from worry and let him live his own life.

A great way to avoid thinking about death. That's not so terribly intelligent. It's essence is saying "I don't want to think about it", which is surely anti-intellectual. I wouldn't say that Asimov wasn't intelligent, but such a statement represents a failure of intellect.

It's an aside, but being a Mensan (as such) has no virtue at all - it's only a way to pride and snobbery, however well-masked. Far more highly intelligent people have gotten through life without such a title than with.

Death is something that IS, and everything that is has meaning.

Don't worry Rus, Asimov had thought long about death and survival after it (see The Last Answer). This quote (I'll find it later) deals more with the relief that he wouldn't be condemned for eating pork on a Tuesday.

All right, here's the quote: "I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism"

rusmeister wrote:It's an aside, but being a Mensan (as such) has no virtue at all - it's only a way to pride and snobbery, however well-masked. Far more highly intelligent people have gotten through life without such a title than with.

Good thing I didn't renew my membership, then, huh?

If I were offered the opportunity to win money on it, I'd bet cash that at least 50% [that's minimum, it may be higher] of regular posters on the watch are Mensa-qualified. It's not that hard [heh..well, actually it is...this is just a smart place]...be that as it may...
Orlion...is that the story where at the end the computer says "Let there be light, and there was?" Great story for it's time, pretty good even now.

When I hung out with Mensa crowd, [God, I'm getting old, that's like 20-25 years ago, 30 since I first got an invite from them] it wasn't a pride and snobbery thing, it was a great way to party and talk about things without having some f-head threaten to beat you up for challenging the status quo.

And, as usual Rus, I disagree...Asimov's intellect didn't fail, his faith did in the face of his reason. He didn't say death isn't. He said he didn't believe there was anything after it, so why waste time on it. If he believed in an afterlife, I garuantee he would have kept thinking on it. [and also as usual, that isn't a slap at you, I don't believe...but sometimes I wish I did].

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:It's an aside, but being a Mensan (as such) has no virtue at all - it's only a way to pride and snobbery, however well-masked. Far more highly intelligent people have gotten through life without such a title than with.

Good thing I didn't renew my membership, then, huh?

No, seriously, my mother's husband was a member, I tested and scored high enough myself, and I talked to him about it.
Since the common factor - the club element is "Look how smart we all are" rather than actual common interests (yes, I know they arrange stuff, but my point is that it winds up being almost peripheral), it seems evident to me that a tendency (note - I say "a tendency") toward some form of pride - in the negative sense - is inevitable.

I'd say to Vraith that there IS something intellectually attractive about being here - and it is a point that it is not intellect as such that is the draw, but something else - in this case SRD.

I think that the predominating assumption that reason must somehow deny faith is completely wrong. What I see is an abysmal ignorance in our time of nearly all knowledge of theology and an enormous chunk of philosophy - nearly all that matters - prior to the Endarkenment (sometimes called "Enlightenment" in an Orwellian twist of history). Without that, of course, millions of people following basic paths of reasoning are essentially being expected to reinvent the wheel, largely without any materials. Thus, while I see intelligent people turning both toward and away from faith in the face of their reason, I am not at all impressed by the predominating assumption behind a rejection of faith due to reason.

As far as I'm concerned, reason and faith are, to a large extent, mutually exclusive. The reson being that at some point, faith must take as given something which has no evidence.

Reason cannot overcome a lack of evidence, but faith must. That's why it's faith.

--A