Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:30 am**

I think we are biologically programmed to engage in behaviour that increases our chance of survival.

And co-operation is part of that.

--A

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:03 pm**

I wonder why it is that people could not have brought their better sides to the internet rather than their worse to their face to face meetings. Perhaps this has to do with the tendancy to opt for the easy options in life rather than put the effort into the harder but more rewarding things (eg why 50 people read trash for every 1 that reads quality).

U. This (above) is not what I necessarily believe to be the case - I posit it as you say, as a possibility (though Hashi lebwhol as he states, believes us already to 'be there'). You, I know from our past postings, are an optimist by nature (and more power to you for it) and no-one will hope more than I that your faith in human nature proves to be well founded. But if it is to be the case that the inherent good in people 'will out' in our future post-religious world I think it will be perhaps dependant upon answers being made to the type of questions re morality and ethics that the thread posits. Philosophy, existing as it does for the most part in the rarified atmosphere of it's academic eyrie, does eventually filter down to influence the mainstream (how many of us are Cartesian Dualists without even realising that this is so) and thus the atention to these areas becomes the more critical. While the re-assesment you speak of may indeed occur spontaneously given time and the right circumstances, the danger must surely be that it may come as too little too late if not given some impetus by the leading thinkers of our time (who-ever *they* may be!

).

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:55 pm**

peter wrote:(eg why 50 people read trash for every 1 that reads quality).

One man's trash is another man's garbage.

I mean, a bump is a lump, but a lump does not a bump make.

Or something!

To the topic, I always find it odd that some religious people think others need a godhead in order to be kind in life. It is certainly not the case. If people enjoy believing books that tell exact details of the universe and depict a 'god' intervening in the lives of, specifically, just people on this planet, then that's nice. There are a lot of nice things written in most religious texts. There are a lot of silly things written in them, too. But if people like to take the nice things to heart, then that's great. However, some are okay with 'I don't know' as an answer without feeling diminished and having that lead them into being unkind. This whole argument starts with non-religous people having to dig out of a hole which is an unfair start point to begin with.

Posted: **Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:24 pm**

I just nominated this thread for a Watchy and it reminded me of something I had posted recently in Cail's Is the tide turning? thread:

ussusimiel wrote:...Recently I came across the idea that with the rise of socialism/communism/fascism the idea of society became imbued with religious qualities. I am beginning to think that 'liberals' (such as myself) see society as something that has a moral aspect to it. This is in sharp contrast to classical liberals for whom the (almost sacred) principle of freedom comes before everything else.

...(I am also interested in the way in which both these secular views seem to have quasi-religious elements to them.)

It is the awareness that even the most secular seeming worldviews may have a quasi-religious aspect to them that is new for me. I have had an intuition for a while that there was some other factor at play in these positions (otherwise why hold them passionately or why bother arguing for them?) and this might be it. In the case of 'liberals', society has qualities of the divine about it; in the case of classical liberals, the principle of freedom has that quality. (This is pure speculation at this stage but it does allow me frame some questions that up to this point have been frustratingly difficult to formulate.)

One of the reasons I find this interesting is that it, IMO, it highlights that the impulse towards the divine (in whatever guise) is inherent in humanity. This means that morality will always be present, in some form, anywhere there are humans (this would be one of my suspicions of AI

).

u.

Posted: **Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:34 am**

ussusimiel wrote:the impulse towards the divine (in whatever guise) is inherent in humanity.

I recently watched an interesting documentary in which part of the brain was stimulated electromagnetically, and induced a religious experience. What was interesting was that this region was the opposite of the region which shows activity during anxiety, and acts as a counter-balance to it.

Is the impulse toward the divine a neurological response to being anxious?

--A

Posted: **Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:28 pm**

Avatar wrote:
ussusimiel wrote:the impulse towards the divine (in whatever guise) is inherent in humanity.
I recently watched an interesting documentary in which part of the brain was stimulated electromagnetically, and induced a religious experience. What was interesting was that this region was the opposite of the region which shows activity during anxiety, and acts as a counter-balance to it.

Is the impulse toward the divine a neurological response to being anxious?

--A

They can do a sort of reverse of that with EMS, too...suppress moral processing/judgement.

Anyway, I can see at least some networking/connection/flow happening as you ask...a relation if not direct causation.
Cuz some of the most effective and ancient ways of feeling the divine suppress/eliminate/prohibit anxiety...
And people practicing those things almost always, at some point, will experience a wall/surge of anxiety/fear they have to get around/through/accept.

Posted: **Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:34 pm**

Avatar wrote: Is the impulse toward the divine a neurological response to being anxious?

--A

No, its just something there b/c we know there is divine. We just decide different things are divine, b/c God allows such freedom.

That's why we don't have to wonder why we're here debating divinity, when no other animal does.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:25 am**

If we knew there was something divine, (in the traditional use of the word), then we wouldn't have to argue about it.

It's because we don't know, but perhaps hope, (if you do) that we debate it.

--A

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:56 am**

Ha, I meant tho, we know something divine is out there. But yea, we don't know exactly what it is.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:02 pm**

Define "something divine".

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:48 pm**

I don't know why we would "know" any such thing.
We feel joy...doesn't mean joy is out there somewhere.

It's a state of mind/awareness/being.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:55 pm**

But why joy? There is no existential need for it. The existence of frivolous beauty and serendipity and joy, to me, is proof of God.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:59 pm**

deer of the dawn wrote:But why joy? There is no existential need for it. The existence of frivolous beauty and serendipity and joy, to me, is proof of God.

Dopamine and serotonin. It's an evolutionary trait.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:25 pm**

Joseph Conrad wrote:The mysteries of a universe made of drops of fire and clods of mud do not concern us in the least. The fate of humanity condemned ultimately to perish from cold is not worth troubling about. If you take it to heart it becomes an unendurable tragedy. If you believe in improvement you must weep, for the attained perfection must end in cold, darkness and silence. In a dispassionate view the ardour for reform, improvement for virtue, and knowledge, and even for beauty is only a vain sticking up for appearances as though one were anxious about the cut of one’s clothes in a community of blind men.

Posted: **Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:28 pm**

deer of the dawn wrote:But why joy? There is no existential need for it. The existence of frivolous beauty and serendipity and joy, to me, is proof of God.

I completely disagree.
Every single one of our aspects/states of being are
rooted in existential needs.

Posted: **Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:56 am**

Cybrweez wrote:Ha, I meant tho, we know something divine is out there.

I don't.

In fact, I assume the opposite. But I don't know either.

--A

Posted: **Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:06 am**

deer of the dawn wrote:But why joy? There is no existential need for it. The existence of frivolous beauty and serendipity and joy, to me, is proof of God.

I told myself I'd stay out of conversations like this...

There is also no existential need for sorrow or pain. Yet they exist, and in many times at much higher quantities than the joy. That, to me, is proof that there is no God.

Posted: **Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:54 am**

*shrug* There's no reason for anything, things just are.

--A

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:41 pm**

deer of the dawn wrote:But why joy? There is no existential need for it. The existence of frivolous beauty and serendipity and joy, to me, is proof of God.

To me, undeserved attention - granted, my estimation, not the observers' - that won't be easily identified, and "cosmic" tricksterism, suggests god. I guess that does wrap me pretty easily in a Discordian sphere. Too bad, or too good? I dunno. I'd rather not swap.

And of course, this does just suggest I'm self-centered - I am paranoid, or at least think along the lines of the paranoid (engage in game theories against overpowerful unknowns as though I'm an individual with a purpose), therefore I imagine a paranoid godhead that is even more at risk than I am by virtue of its relative greatness, rather than a stable one. There are probably all sorts of quotes about animals and folk imagining god in their own image.

As for an existential need, I will say that the feeling of not deserving joy has I think coincided, sometimes, with a reduction of that joy. I don't remember if that really reconciles with "existential" - that's definitely a term I've thought about at times, but I forget what it means at the moment (probably related to existence, in and of itself redundant, but as for tying to a movement, I mostly think of books about killing things and people who are excited about being confused, which, to be fair, is a great reason to be excited (?)).

rdhopeca wrote:
deer of the dawn wrote:But why joy? There is no existential need for it. The existence of frivolous beauty and serendipity and joy, to me, is proof of God.
I told myself I'd stay out of conversations like this...

There is also no existential need for sorrow or pain. Yet they exist, and in many times at much higher quantities than the joy. That, to me, is proof that there is no God.

And to counter, I cannot think of the measurements available to me measuring pain and sorrow and joy in relative quantities. But I suspect you are right. Yet, I don't see why this proves there is no god, unless god is "a being that can alleviate all sorrow and pain."

I think there are reasons though. If I think about things I've done which - to me - seem like consistent/regular/associatable actions, then certain reasons why I have done them seem clear. However, one can essentially resign oneself to willfulness or habit and defy straightforward, fairly acceptable reasons for acting in a certain way. And one can imagine people doing such things, and act against them.

Perhaps what's odd is to imagine people acting knowingly on fairly needlessly "complex" layers of action, rather than assigning the complexity to the framework we live in, or to live by guidelines one feels
are very arbitrary.

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:16 pm**

Avatar wrote:*shrug* There's no reason for anything, things just are.

--A

Well, yes and no.
I am certain there are "reasons" for everything except for the over-arching, total meta-question of "Why?"
[which, unfortunately, is the one question that, if an answer existed and we knew it, would stop almost every wrong/evil in its tracks...I say unfortunately because it is obvious such answer does not exist]

We feel joy and pain [spiritual/emotional...why physical pain would be a stupid question with obvious answer] and all the rest BECAUSE, in some way, such feelings are survival traits.
OR...in some cases, because it is survival-neutral...it doesn't do us any good, but OTOH, it doesn't kill off the folk who have it, and doesn't take up space that could be put to better uses].

BTW, H, some good point you raised...especially on existential, cuz it DOES mean different things....just like chaos for ordinary folk and chaos for a scientist are wholly different concepts.

Kevin's Watch

The Black Hole at the Center of Ethics