|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 19, 2009 9:18:06 GMT -5
err, I don't get what you are trying to say here - whether you are agreeing or disagreeing as your response slightly lacked a bit of coherency (sorry)... there was nothing within the question which stated anything about when the decision had to be me made. I know that decision is being made now, but what has this got to do with the question? In this post: "I think this question asserts a fallacy as it implies that misery and happiness (and the knowledge thereof) are not included in the realm of all forms of knowledge, this being propositional knowledge, procedural knowledge or knowledge by acquaintance, however one can not be deemed 'all knowing' without the: - knowledge and understanding of happiness and misery - knowledge and understanding of what causes happiness and misery - knowledge and understanding on how to act to cause happiness and/or misery" I took it as you implying that one could not be all-knowing without knowing these things, so I , assuming that you've already learnt these things, was just saying that it wouldn't be an issue - cuz you should already know them. Also, what I mentioned was that to be all knowing, you would have to know about emotions, what causes it and how to induce it. Thus if one was 'all knowing' they would know how to induce happiness and thus the contradiction lies therein, that one is subjected to misery even though being gifted the knowledge on how to induce happiness. Ergo, an omniscient being wouldn't be stuck in eternal misery. But knowledge isn't everything. You may lack the skills, resources or even the will to take action (i.e. how to do what makes you happy if it's physical and you're paralyzed?). Or, it may be that the misery is some kind of curse that sabotages everything you do trying to counter it. I'm going to take a stab at what you were trying to say, let us play hypothetical (seems like the trend with this question) and assume one (at the beginning of their life) has no knowledge but has been gifted with language. This implies that they have no knowledge of happiness and/or misery. If proposed the exact question, what would be your first response? It would be to explain what knowledge, happiness and misery mean, or in other words to be acquainted with happiness, misery and knowledge. One simply cannot answer the question without knowing these things. Yes, knowledge is practical. It helps us get/understand things - it's a means, not an end in itself. It helps us understand what the question means *so* we can make a choice. But since we already have the basic cognitive ability to differentiate happiness from sadness, what's the extra knowledge for? (It's almost the same as a material thing.)
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 19, 2009 9:53:44 GMT -5
^Yes, knowledge is practical. It helps us get/understand things - it's a means, not an end in itself.
Actually. given the "eternal" in the original question, my main motivation for picking all knowledge is that I really want to know how this little soap opera we call humanity ends - I would suffer tremendous amounts of pain and sadness to bear witness. I imagine seeing the end of humanity (and being unable to prevent it) would be a cause of eternal sadness, but I think I could accept that.
Curiosity is an end in itself, one that has driven much of the progress of science over the centuries (even if some of this knowledge eventually does get translated into technological mastery of nature). In the Star Trek world, where there is no lack of material things thanks to replicators and no lack of simulated mud baths due to holodecks, so that we could all be pigs in the mud eternally, humanity still travels through space to seek out new life and new civilizations, at the cost of great suffering, loss, and sadness. Is this an unrealistic portrayal of humanity?
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 19, 2009 10:04:26 GMT -5
Curiosity is an end in itself I disagree. Curiosity is what drives us to find an answer. It's a temporary state - one that needs to be satisfied. Actually. given the "eternal" in the original question, my main motivation for picking all knowledge is that I really want to know how this little soap opera we call humanity ends Why do you want to find out? So you can be satisfied, right? What happens if you don't find out? It's a middle section, not an end. Nothing could come after an end. With curiosity, it does - it can be satisfied, or not.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 19, 2009 13:02:28 GMT -5
Freestyle doesn't seem to working, so I'll reduce things to simple statements. I'm probably repeating myself, but misery can come from things which cause us pleasure. Yeah... ? I don't recall denying this anywhere... "I said that, in my opinion, humans always act in the interests of their desires (pleasure/happiness), which when accomplished, give satisfaction (not misery)." Also, Everyone always acts in the interest of their happiness implies => 1) Everyone is always happy. or 2) Unhappiness is not the result of personal acts. I didn't say 'should'. I said that, in my opinion, humans always act in the interests of their desires, which when accomplished, give satisfaction. In this case, becoming a pig is merely a means by which we reach our always(/most commonly) desired end: happiness. I don't understand why someone would consciously choose a path leading them away from what they want/toward misery, knowing that there is no hope/possibility of feeling good again. (i.e. no pain then pleasure; only pain forever.) This is very helpful. I going to reduce your statements and present them to you as a series of contradictions. 1) Human beings always choose happiness because they desire it. 2) Some humans don't desire happiness. 3) This is not to say that they should (duty/necessity) choose happiness. *) I don't understand why people don't choose happiness--even if it means they'll no longer be people. 1) People who are in misery still experience pleasure. 2) In eternal misery, there is no pleasure. That, and I don't know in each instance how you're using the terms pleasure/happiness/satisfaction and pain/misery. You might be equating them or there might be a distinction. I've defined them in length, but I don't think you agree with my definitions. Oh, and knowledge is a simple thing. It is a true (justified) belief. That is all. You might be thinking of knowledge as just technology. Technology is knowledge + want + creativity.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 19, 2009 13:45:00 GMT -5
Ok, so satisfying curiosity (rather than curiosity) is an end in itself. I might be a little dense here but I don't see where you were going with that. Are you saying that in satisfying my curiosity I am somehow achieving happiness (or contentment or pleasure or whatever you want to call it) so I can't actually satisfy through having knowledge but eternal sadness? So answer (b) is a trick answer, and behind door number 2 lies door number 1?
My Star Trek analogy is still there, as is my lobotomy/torture analogy from earlier if anyone wants to frame this question in a more interesting way that is not about language games and performative contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by D.A on Jul 19, 2009 19:31:14 GMT -5
But knowledge isn't everything. You may lack the skills, resources or even the will to take action (i.e. how to do what makes you happy if it's physical and you're paralyzed?). Or, it may be that the misery is some kind of curse that sabotages everything you do trying to counter it. You are speculating here. Is it correct for you to justify and assert that one won't have the knowledge to gain those skills, resources and will to take action? What you have brought up is encompassed within power and will, but who is to say power (in a human sense) can't be gained and manipulated through knowledge? 'scientia potentia est'. I myself can not justify either way, but there is substantial evidence throughout history that there exists a relationship between knowledge and power... (the exception being George Bush of course ) As much as I dislike speculation but to run through your example; Say if you are paralyzed, through knowledge you might gain the knowledge through embryonic stem cells to heal your paralysis... again speculation, maybe you might come back here in 50 years time and the knowledge medicine has acquired has debunked your example? Yes, knowledge is practical. It helps us get/understand things - it's a means, not an end in itself. It helps us understand what the question means *so* we can make a choice. But since we already have the basic cognitive ability to differentiate happiness from sadness, what's the extra knowledge for? (It's almost the same as a material thing.) Some people strive for eternal happiness, I myself strive for knowledge. However, that's beside the point of my discussion, which is all about a contradiction within the question. I agree with Betahat also, lets rephrase the question, but with the current question I value knowledge over happiness, and thus I choose knowledge. This is a subjective choice.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 19, 2009 21:35:51 GMT -5
"I'm probably repeating myself, but misery can come from things which cause us pleasure." Yeah... ? I don't recall denying this anywhere... "I said that, in my opinion, humans always act in the interests of their desires (pleasure/happiness), which when accomplished, give satisfaction (not misery)." I don't see how that is denying your statement. At times, reading may cause me pleasure, at others, it may be miserable. (<This is what you say that misery can come from things that cause us pleasure) I am not going to read the book for the sake of misery. If I do have a miserable time reading it, it would be because I want the experience of having read it/the knowledge gained, etc. that will contribute to my overall eventual happiness. (it is the pain in order to achieve the gain. who seeks pain without gain?) Also, Everyone always acts in the interest of their happiness implies => 1) Everyone is always happy. or 2) Unhappiness is not the result of personal acts. False. Just because people act in the interests of their happiness doesn't mean that they'll necessarily succeed. 2) Some humans don't desire happiness. I did not say this. This is probably you interpreting me saying the wrist-slitting thing as people choosing misery. I say that people choose negative experiences because it equates to later happiness. 3) This is not to say that they should (duty/necessity) choose happiness. Yeah, there's no law saying we have to. It's just what people do. *) I don't understand why people don't choose happiness--even if it means they'll no longer be people. At the time of the decision, they are still a person, so they still maintain the desire for happiness. 1) People who are in misery still experience pleasure. 2) In eternal misery, there is no pleasure. People who are in misery are not in eternal/non-stop misery. They may have a crappy life, but they are not cursed to not be able to feel anything else (meaning that bouts of happiness are possible for them - but they are NOT for the person who has chosen eternal misery). Ok, so satisfying curiosity (rather than curiosity) is an end in itself. I might be a little dense here but I don't see where you were going with that. Are you saying that in satisfying my curiosity I am somehow achieving happiness (or contentment or pleasure or whatever you want to call it) so I can't actually satisfy through having knowledge but eternal sadness? So answer (b) is a trick answer, and behind door number 2 lies door number 1? YES. You can't be satisfied by the knowledge in option B because all satisfaction is ruled out by eternal, never-ending misery! You are speculating here. Is it correct for you to justify and assert that one won't have the knowledge to gain those skills, resources and will to take action? Is it wise for you to choose eternal misery under the assumption you can? As much as I dislike speculation but to run through your example; Say if you are paralyzed, through knowledge you might gain the knowledge through embryonic stem cells to heal your paralysis... again speculation, maybe you might come back here in 50 years time and the knowledge medicine has acquired has debunked your example? Say you're a vegetable. Your brain is the only thing that works and you have no means of communicating any of your knowledge/thoughts. How are people to know you're even a resource worth tapping? It's beside the point, though. The option states that you will be eternally miserable. You cannot cannot change this. Some people strive for eternal happiness, I myself strive for knowledge. Yeah, because it makes you HAPPY. >_< Not striving for knowledge, being denied knowledge, being stripped of knowledge... these are all things that would make you miserable. There are only two options: happiness and sadness. Not happiness, knowledge and sadness. DX Serge said it nicely: Red pill. Blue pill. No knowledge pill.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 19, 2009 22:20:16 GMT -5
I like the Matrix analogy. Though I'm not sure that sitting in an office cubicle is preferable to becoming a god-like being being chased by killer robots and computer programs. Maybe if Neo had been living the Hugh Hefner lifestyle - you have to wonder why the Matrix designers made the normal life in the matrix so mundane and like our normal lives instead of super-awesome... just one of many things the Architect never explains.
|
|
|
Post by D.A on Jul 19, 2009 23:07:31 GMT -5
Say you're a vegetable. Your brain is the only thing that works and you have no means of communicating any of your knowledge/thoughts. How are people to know you're even a resource worth tapping? It's beside the point, though. The option states that you will be eternally miserable. You cannot cannot change this. Irrelevant... Yeah, because it makes you HAPPY. >_< Not striving for knowledge, being denied knowledge, being stripped of knowledge... these are all things that would make you miserable. There are only two options: happiness and sadness. Not happiness, knowledge and sadness. DX Who are you to judge that my pursuit for knowledge makes me happy? That is quite an ignorant statement to assert. Furthermore with your following statement, wouldn’t me being ‘as happy as a pig in a perpetual mud bath’ who ‘will no longer strive for knowledge, will be denied of knowledge, and be stripped of all knowledge’ then be miserable and not happy? Contradiction no? Yes there are two options, but they actually are: - all-ignorant and happy - all-knowledgeable and misery
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 20, 2009 1:24:39 GMT -5
Who are you to judge that my pursuit for knowledge makes me happy? If it's not, what's its value to you? Do you want to know everything... just 'because'? Furthermore with your following statement, wouldn’t me being ‘as happy as a pig in a perpetual mud bath’ who ‘will no longer strive for knowledge, will be denied of knowledge, and be stripped of all knowledge’ then be miserable and not happy? Contradiction no? No. Perhaps with your new form, you'd adopt a new set of desires, or if indeed knowledge-related pursuits were still somehow the only/main source of your happiness, you would be an all-knowing pig or something. You wouldn't be dissatisfied, though. You couldn't be because it says you would be eternally happy. I said before that circumstances would change accordingly so that the victim was always miserable. The same goes for happiness. It's a magical spell, dudes. Though the thought of not becoming a pig is not appealing to us now, as humans, if we were to choose it, we would be happy. That's what the rule states.
|
|
|
Post by D.A on Jul 20, 2009 2:12:17 GMT -5
If it's not, what's its value to you? Do you want to know everything... just 'because'? It's value is understanding how things work and why, self-realization, enlightenment. Understanding the effects of human's possible impact to climate change through CO2 doesn't really make me happy does it? But it is pursuing knowledge, and it's something I still avidly read despite how miserable the outlook might be. It's a blue pill or blue pill situation. You cannot claim what's it like to be a pig? I do not know what being, thinking, acting, feeling like a pig would be like, but I'd much rather be an all-knowing sod feeding on bacon, ham and pork for eternity... The contradiction still stands, which is the reason why this question is inconsistent, and which is why I choose knowledge because of this contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 20, 2009 2:44:27 GMT -5
HB, you've been bringing out terms and rewording your positions using new phrases. And you haven't yet explained what the distinctions are when you say pleasure instead of happiness, misery instead of pain, desire instead of aversion. We probably disagree completely on those conditions--and agree to disagree. But there is also trouble with the logic and I'm trying to get you to see the contradictions. False. Just because people act in the interests of their happiness doesn't mean that they'll necessarily succeed. It wasn't a true/false statement. You disagreed with 1) therefore you chose 2). That said, if people succeed in being miserable, how do you know they were aiming for happiness? (From Greek philosophy, if we see an archer miss his target how do we know where he was aiming.) You can't know this unless you believe #2. 2) Unhappiness (and misery) is not result of personal acts. (Malevolent God) But depending on how you constrain "acting in the interest", you might be using circular reasoning. Again, desiring happiness and choosing happiness is not the same thing in my mind. If this misery doesn't yield happiness, in the end it was misery that they chose, regardless of what they wanted. Example: There are two house for sale. Both are not very big. I buy the smaller house to turn into a big house. The smaller house never becomes a big house. In the end, despite what I imagined when looking at the smaller house, it was still a smaller house that I bought. We might have a difference in terminology, but I don't know what the error is since I not sure about your distinction between happiness and desire. It might be a logical misstep or inference of the distinctions you've made. Does desire equal happiness in your mind? Contradiction: 1) People always desire happiness. 2) There is no law or statement saying we should desire happiness. Which together reads like: "This statement is false." Also some people here decided to choose eternal misery. That directly conflicts with your statement that people always choose happiness--whatever the form. Another definition problem. I think you have a conception of eternal misery that is not evident in the language. Forever miserable does not mean extremely miserable. Eternal=/extreme. Time=/quality. I didn't think that you would concede this point. But what if, at that same time, the idea of becoming a pig made you unhappy?
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 20, 2009 3:46:25 GMT -5
That said, if people succeed in being miserable, how do you know they were aiming for happiness? (From Greek philosophy, if we see an archer miss his target how do we know where he was aiming.) You can't know this unless you believe #2. 2) Unhappiness (and misery) is not result of personal acts. (Malevolent God) It can be the result of personal acts. Acts and intentions are different, however. People act in the interests of their happiness, but sometimes their actions do not bring about the results they desired. Again, desiring happiness and choosing happiness is not the same thing in my mind. If this misery doesn't yield happiness, in the end it was misery that they chose, regardless of what they wanted. Example: There are two house for sale. Both are not very big. I buy the smaller house to turn into a big house. The smaller house never becomes a big house. In the end, despite what I imagined when looking at the smaller house, it was still a smaller house that I bought. Whether you chose the large or small house, your intention was to have a large house. Buying the large house is direct (turning into pig), but maybe you thought it was ugly or in a bad location, so you thought you could take another route- you bought the small house instead (chose misery) because you thought you could use the leftover cash (knowledge) to make it larger yourself. It was misery they chose by mistake. We might have a difference in terminology, but I don't know what the error is since I not sure about your distinction between happiness and desire. It might be a logical misstep or inference of the distinctions you've made. Does desire equal happiness in your mind? No. I believe that satisfied desires = happiness, and unsatisfied desires = misery (i.e. "it's not what I wanted "). Contradiction: 1) People always desire happiness. 2) There is no law or statement saying we should desire happiness. Which together reads like: "This statement is false." Also some people here decided to choose eternal misery. That directly conflicts with your statement that people always choose happiness--whatever the form. #1 is an observation. #2 is saying that #1 is an observation, not a rule. Yes, I think some people chose misery because they mistakingly believe that there is benefit to being all-knowing. i.e. the awesomeness of knowing everything, satisfaction of all questions answered, ability to do anything, feeling of superiority, etc. However, since the option states that the person would be eternally miserable, that, to me, suggests that misery is the only thing they would feel, which therefore rules out the positive feelings they thought being all-knowing would bring. So, I believe that, due to the unchangeable misery, all the knowledge in the universe becomes obsolete. Another definition problem. I think you have a conception of eternal misery that is not evident in the language. Forever miserable does not mean extremely miserable. Eternal=/extreme. Time=/quality. I believe that it would be the only thing we'd feel, therefore, it could not be less severe, as for that to happen, we'd have to feel 'better' than we did before, and there are no 'better's in eternal misery (because there is never a positive experience). If it was just to be mildly or occasionally miserable, what's to separate it from real life? If that was the case, of course, the knowledge option would be awesome. However, I assume it's to the extreme when misery is the only thing we ever feel. I didn't think that you would concede this point. But what if, at that same time, the idea of becoming a pig made you unhappy? The idea of school doesn't make me happy, but I know the benefits are worth it. While still in our human form, we have the ability to see ahead and know that we will be happy. We know our thoughts now won't affect us because we will think no longer as humans when we are pigs.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 20, 2009 8:20:34 GMT -5
It's value is understanding how things work and why, self-realization, enlightenment. What's the point of these things on their own, though? I believe they are merely contributions to something greater: happiness. Understanding the effects of human's possible impact to climate change through CO2 doesn't really make me happy does it? But it is pursuing knowledge, and it's something I still avidly read despite how miserable the outlook might be. The knowledge itself may be miserable. The satisfaction comes from knowing. You cannot claim what's it like to be a pig? You're right, but what does it matter? ;D The contradiction still stands, which is the reason why this question is inconsistent, and which is why I choose knowledge because of this contradiction. What's the contradiction exactly? >_>
|
|
|
Post by D.A on Jul 20, 2009 20:04:01 GMT -5
What's the point of these things on their own, though? I believe they are merely contributions to something greater: happiness. Immediately inferring that the acquisition of all forms of knowledge induces happiness is a form of bad cognition and deduction. Knowledge can contribute to misery and happiness. Knowing that your family and friends are going to die soon induces one to feel miserable. Knowing that HIV and AIDs are killing millions in Africa induces one to feel miserable. Knowing that 36% of the world live below the poverty threshold induces on to feel miserable. Knowing about these doesn't bring happiness. They bring understanding on how and why. To conclude that these automatically contribute to happiness is a fallacy. The knowledge itself may be miserable. The satisfaction comes from knowing. Knowledge per se, does not have an emotional property. It is the same notion that events and actions by themselves do not have a right or wrong property. Subjectively you are applying right/wrong, happiness/sadness to these objective things. For example, 'the Earth revolves around the sun' is knowledge statement. By itself it does not have an emotional property assigned to it. You'd be hardpressed to find someone who will subjectively apply an emotional property. Or, the act 'of someone kicking a ball' is an act or event. By itself it has no right or wrong property assigned to it. You'd be hard pressed to also find someone who will subjectively apply a moralistic or ethical view to this. What's the contradiction exactly? >_> Being an omniscient being but without knowledge on: - happiness - cause of happiness - how to induce happiness Lets use logic: 1. There exists knowledge about emotions that can be obtained 2. There exists knowledge about the cause of emotions that can be obtained 3. There exists knowledge about how to induce emotions that can be obtained 4. Happiness is an emotion 5. If absolute knowledge exists, then a being with absolute knowledge will understand about happiness, the cause of happiness, and how to induce happiness 6. Therefore one cannot be eternally miserable and an all knowledgeable being. If 1,2 and 3 are true, then 5 is true. If statement 4 is true then statement 6 is true. I can't assert with certainty that 1,2,3 are true and I'd likely assert that no one can. I can assert that it is highly probable that 1,2,3 are true.
|
|