|
Post by long on Nov 17, 2007 21:36:11 GMT -5
I'm glad you don't disagree. I agree that the position can be summed up succinctly, but elaboration is required when people are in disagreement (plus it's interesting and fun). See all other threads in which I've discussed anything with you for more examples of this theme.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Nov 18, 2007 4:36:39 GMT -5
I disagree. Destiny is determinism and in my opinion it does exclude the possibility of free will because you are 'destined' to make the decisions you do. You could say "I am destined to go to africa, how I get there is up to me." You have several options dictated by fate. Plane, train, automobile etc. After you have gone there by plane I could argue, that you were always destined to go by plane. That you had no free will. The same could be said for any event. That's why I doubt that it's possible to provide a 3 line summary as you tried to do. no offense, but methinks you're nitpicking, as usual.... to take your example, the choice to go to Africa is determined by destiny - availability of money as well as time and means of transportation, amongst numerous other circumstantial considerations.... it would be destiny, i *suppose*, if you overcame some kind of huge obstacle to get to Africa.... for example, i know a French/Belgian girl born in Congo-Brazaville but who grew up in Belgium who can't get an EU passport because she can't provide the birth certificate that is in Congo - if she leaves and goes to the Congo for her birth certificate (the only way she can get her birth certificate), she won't be able to prove she is an EU resident because she can't get an EU passport and risks not being able to get back into the EU.... in which case, her choices (to leave and risk losing EU residency or to stay and not travel at all outside the EU) are dictated by circumstance (or destiny).... hence the rather dismissive initial response - generally the more grave the choices and the circumstance, the more one can see that free will is the prerogative of a privileged minority...the choices are often been bad and worse...e.g. stay and die/starve or leave and become an (illegal) refugee, etc.... as i said, it's a blessing to have choices and the option to exercise "free will".... not everybody has the luxury of having at least one palatable option to choose from...and to them, the concept of free will is...plain cruel, or irrelevant, depending on their POV.... peace
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 18, 2007 5:09:06 GMT -5
^ It's clear you're conflating 'free will', the metaphysical concept, with practical real-world freedom. Zoff's trying to debate the metaphysical concept, feel free not to be interested in it.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Nov 18, 2007 7:21:05 GMT -5
^ It's clear you're conflating 'free will', the metaphysical concept, with practical real-world freedom. Zoff's trying to debate the metaphysical concept, feel free not to be interested in it. you're the one who asked for an opinion and Zoff used a practical, real-world example to make his point.... but carry on boys....i will indulge my freedom not to be interested in debating metaphysical perceptions of free will and determinism.... peace
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 18, 2007 7:28:50 GMT -5
Yes, perhaps he is too.. I'm working on that. Perhaps I will at some point.. sorry, it's not interesting to you.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 21, 2007 15:17:44 GMT -5
To me sentience simply means consciousness and feeling. Even if our lives are completely determined we still have complete capacity to feel and be conscious of everything in the world, these capacities are not diminished in the slightest by denying free will. And again it's worth noting, since you agree it's possible you've lived your whole life without 'free will' (unbeknownst to you of course) I think you can easily see how a determined life can have feeling and the perception of 'meaning'. Which brings us back the question, how does a determined existence actually differ from a 'free will' existence in practice, is the experience any different? No is the only answer I can come up with. If the experience is no different how is it any more or less worth living in practice (outside of philosophical speculation)? Yes, I'll agree with you there. As long is one is ignorant as to whether your existence is determined or not, it would be impossible to distinguish between the two, for if existence is determined, the illusion is completely convincing. Important question that I take to be unanswerable (in the affirmative): Is it possible not to be ignorant in this matter?Nov 17, 2007, 5:43am, long wrote: Love is still a beautiful experience even if I feel like it is outside my control. In fact the one time I've been in love I certainly did feel like it was outside my control, like there was nothing I could do but to love the person, other emotions are this way as well if you investigate them closely. Many people think of fated love as a beautiful notion. I'm not saying that love itself is under control, rather it is the unforced nature of it that makes it what it is. Lets assume there is such a thing as magic and that you have the ability to cast a love spell on anyone. Would you cast in on Josie Maran? ;D Even if she felt her love for you to be completely true, would you still consider her love meaningful after she was forced to love you? My point was love is outside of the control of the one falling in love even in everyday experience.. hence cupid's arrow. Falling in love feels like going crazy. So it doesn't seem unforced really, it seems like you have no choice in the matter (to me at least, and others as well of course). I think deep introspection will lead us to discover that, through emotion, we are often under less 'rational' control of our thoughts than we often give ourselves credit for.
Answers to questions: Quite possibly and Yes, her love would still be meaningful because her experience of it would be exactly the same. My experience of her would be exactly the same. I would be making her happy in the same way... As I've tried to suggest, I believe strongly that it is emotion that makes life meaningful.. this is not where I'm going to convince you of that I'll agree that beauty itself is something worth admiring. However I do not think that intelligence exists in a determined universe. It is once again rather the illusion of intelligence. - It seems this is an important point, it's probably tied to your disagreements with my notions of choice as well. I'm quite certain that I disagree with you about this. Intelligence - the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations; reason. Does learning take place in a determined universe, is knowledge possible, do determined actors deal with unique and new situations in novel ways? Of course! Let's go back again to something very important, you've admitted this world could be fully determined. Can you deny that intelligence exists in this world? That learning takes place? I'll say again, we make choices even if those choices are determined (in the sense that our past environment and our genetic makeup is entirely responsible for shaping us, making us who we are, which guides our thoughts, our thoughts lead us to solve problems/deal with the world in our own personal way. We can handle the novel, but we handle it as we do because of the way the environment has 'made us'). There are computer programs that are able to learn and handle unique problems never seen before - artificial intelligence. You may disagree now, but I think ultimately you'll have to concede this point.
I'm tired of boxes : "So if someone takes drugs to simulate happiness you still consider that true happiness?" Yes, happiness is happiness is happiness, independent of cause. It's not simulation at all. 'True happiness' is simply the emotional experience."Is thought real though or is it just an illusion? It could be argued that we are no more than extremely complicated sims." - Same as emotion here. Thought is thought, regardless of cause. If it is experienced, it is as real as it gets. I'm going to beat this into you: we never can be sure if thought is determined or not, yet it makes no difference, our experience of life is the same."Nov 17, 2007, 5:43am, long wrote: Yes an enormous chain (or an incredibly complex web of chains) would connect all events in cause and effect, but this would change nothing about the cause of the rock moving. Your hand still causes the rock to move. You: But does it really? There would be no way to find out as it was always fated that the rock would move. We can't test whether it would have moved if we hadn't put our hand on it, because we have no choice. It could be possible that we are not moving the rock, but that it is merely moving itself at the same time as we move our hand. Let's say we repeat the experiment, this time not touching the rock and it doesn't move. This does not necessarily indicate that the action of our hand is necessary for the rock to move, rather it may simply be an indication that the rock was not fated to move at this time." - This is just simple physics, I don't think you're denying the laws of physics. The rock will not move unless a force causes it to. That force is supplied by our hand. It could be fate that we move our hand to move the rock, but it can't be fate that the rock moves by itself: physics."Free will does have it's problems, I'll agree with that. I only suggested quantum level events because they would be one source of a possible break the chain of cause and effect. I cannot answer why there would be purpose to seemingly random events. Maybe the purpose occurs on a larger scale than we can currently see and that none of these things are truly random." - 'Not truly random' is code for 'caused by an intelligence'; to believe this you have to believe in a higher power as far as I can see. Unless you accept determinism, you can choose to consider that random or not I think."Yet my consciousness could merely be an illusion." Think long and hard about what you mean by this. Consciousness, same as emotion and thought, are only known to us through experience. If we experience it it's real, in no sense can it be an illusion. If we don't experience it then it no longer exists.."You don't think so? I think that sentience becomes illusory." - Same thing here I really hope that I can convince you that it is impossible to have 'illusions' of things that are simply experiential in nature. Either we experience them or we don't."I believe emotions are more of a hindrance than a help. They cloud our thoughts, cause us to carry out illogical actions and often cause us to suffer. If one were to be emotionless then one would not miss emotions either as they serve no useful purpose. " - I used to think exactly as you do. I thought that the search for truth was the most meaningful thing in life, that our rational thoughts were the tool by which we found this truth, and that emotions could only confuse and mislead us. Now, I find it undeniable that the search for truth is only meaningful if it makes us feel good or if it allows us to accomplish things that make us feel good. It seems impossible for their to be rational pursuits if no thing or condition is any better than any other. Emotion is the basis for all judgments of value. Without it value and life is meaningless. Tell me, how does anything make any difference if we cannot make positive or negative valuations of them (this is the role of emotion)?- The 'hard-rubber' consistency that you mention must have to do with the way that the brain was preserved/dessicated. Living brain is most certainly soft and malleable, as you had expected.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 21, 2007 22:05:04 GMT -5
Important question that I take to be unanswerable (in the affirmative): Is it possible not to be ignorant in this matter? You're quite correct. We can never know. However we can operate under the assumption that one or the other is correct. - We can't tell because the experience of the two are exactly the same, yes?"lol, you sneaky devil. Have you no honour ? " - I'd be doing her a favor. "I'm still not ready concede this As I see it, whether what we perceive as intelligence and learning exists, depends on whether the universe is determined or not. If it is determined then although it may appear to exist, it doesn't. If someone is fated to solve a problem, then he no longer does so by his own ability but because of fate, he is given the answer." - Clearly there is a decision making process going on inside our brains. Chemicals are floating back and forth, potentials are being propagated. This is true whether or not the cause is some endless chain of events that couldn't have resulted in anything else, or if it's caused by a break in that chain, 'free will'. The decision is made literally inside the brain, even in a determined world. No brain, no decision. No brain, no intelligence, no responding in unique ways to novel environments. Just take a step back from your metaphysical mindset and I think you'll see my point. Even if we're determined we're not like rocks. We have decision making ability (choice)."Experience doesn't necessarily indicate 'realness' though. Consider hallucination. It may appear to be completely real to the person experiencing it. Yet does that make it real?" - Important point: the experience is still as 'real' as experience ever gets. Disconnect experience from the outside world. Even if the outside world isn't 'real', the experience cannot be more or less real, it is what it is. So yes, hallucination as far as it is experience is real, as far as it is a reflection of the external it isn't 'real'."That's my point though, it's simple physics because we assume that we can influence events, and therefore conduct repeatable experiments. The basis for science. If everything is controlled by destiny then we can no longer trust our observations to be accurate. I know this is firmly in the realms of the ridiculous but imagine that destiny is in fact an incredibly devious omnipotent demon. He could be controlling the universe in such a way as to fool us into believing in physics through an incredibly complex manipulation of events. Making every event occur in such a way as to make it appear that physics exists. I'm not denying physics just saying that if the universe is determined by something, we could be wrong." - When I'm talking about a determined world, I'm going with the assumption that it would be determined by the immutable laws of physics; so destiny is governed by physics. I don't really see how you go from destiny to us not being able to trust physics, if it's destiny than we can have complete trust in physics. It is the notion of free will that necessitates a break in the laws of physics. Unless the laws of physics can be broken, then an individual is unable to respond to an environment in anything but one defined way. As you've brought up, some would suggest that quantum 'random' physics would allow for 'free will' without breaking the laws. To me this is nonsense, 'random' responses to the environment would in no way constitute an intelligent 'free will', if these quantum fluctuations are only seemingly random then you are suggesting a higher, 'supernatural' intelligence that breaks the laws of physics... that's what a 'free will' is, it's supernatural. "Making every event occur in such a way as to make it appear that physics exists." - If every event occurs as if the laws of physics were true, then the laws of physics are true. This is just like choice, thought, experience, emotion, conscience... if it exists it's real. That's the only way anything is 'real' really."Thought implies an ability to make decisions. If you can't make decisions then you're not thinking. Then again if you can't think, then how can you have sentience and consciousness?" - I am experiencing thoughts at this very moment. You, reading this, are experiencing thoughts. Thoughts are undeniable. Even in a determined world, which you've admitted this world could be, we obviously have thoughts. Whether they're determined or not does not change how they are experienced AT ALL. That's why we can never know if we're determined, it changes nothing. I don't want to sound solipsistic but thoughts, consciousness, emotions, sentience, etc... these are in fact the only thing we can be completely sure of, we experience them directly, they are undeniable; there is no way that they can be illusion because they are defined by being experienced, not by the outside world. The 'reality' of the outside world is taken on faith, you cannot have direct experience of it.. not that I'm denying its reality."I think that we can evaluate things as positive or negative without emotion. Pain is not an emotion yet we can still clearly consider this in a negative light. Hunger is not an emotion, again we can consider this negatively. Just some examples. I think that because we do experience emotion, we cannot imagine life without it very well. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not possible or that it wouldn't find some other kind of meaning." - I knew you were going to say this... I would've said this...Pain, hunger, cold, fatigue, etc.. yes they're sensations which are not specifically emotions. But! They are only viewed as negatives if we have emotions. It is the emotional reaction to these physical sensations that provides positive/negative valuations. Without emotion we would be indifferent to pain, indifferent to everything in fact. Life without emotion is pure apathy. Life without emotion cannot have meaning. Try to develop meaning without emotion, I feel certain that you'll fail. Pain can even be experienced in a positive sense if we are in the correct mindset, the pain of weight lifting is a good example. It is the emotional reaction to pain that gives it salience and meaning, not the mere sensation itself."If I could free myself from the shackles of emotion I would do it right away." - You must just be in a rut as of late When you get back to the good times, you'll realize that this statement was just a reflection of your present psyche. I thought as you are thinking while I was in my 'depressed' period. When you're back in a positive orientation to life, you realize it's silly to think you would prefer life without emotion. Love is the best thing, love is emotion. Emotion is the only good, how we define good, at the heart of all human values, at the heart of morality, the root motivation of all our actions. Seriously, think about it..
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 22, 2007 16:01:15 GMT -5
"That's where our philosophies differ. You look for meaning from within, I look for meaning from without." - All meaning is from within, meaning is subjective, meaning is experienced, and meaning is based on emotion. Show me meaning from without.
"Thinking about this, I just realised that I made a mistake in my previous post. It would be possible to disprove a determined universe. If quantum level events are actually random, then a predetermined universe would be excluded from possibility because random variations would prevent events playing out as the would have without 'interference'. The predictability would be lost. I suggested quantum mechanics purely because they seem to break the chain of cause and effect as you suggested free will does. It could well be that free will is something which we cannot measure or define yet. Could it be that sentience itself breaks the chain in cause and effect? That knowing you are making a decision allows you to alter it?" - I don't think that it's possible to prove that quantum physics is truly random, only that it is random to observers, it can never precisely be pinned down. You are suggesting sentience may break the chain, but it seems like you're basically defining sentience as sentience plus free will. My view of sentience is clearly different from yours, as we have been disagreeing about it.. to me, clearly it's sentience that breaks the chain. But if you truly believe that physics is random by nature, absurd thought to me, then there would be no determined chain at all, no chain to break, no true cause and effect. Cause and effect cannot exist in a random world."Not true, the demon could suddenly decide to stop fooling us and allow the real laws to act." - Here is where I can highlight a fundamental difference that we have about reality. I would call yours heavily influenced by metaphysical notions, mostly Christian it would seem to me. I am trying to focus solely on what is experienced - absolutely undeniable in the moment. If the laws of physics are true in this second, in the present, then they are 'real'. Things cannot be more 'real' than real, there is no metaphysical real.. at least we can't be sure of it, it's just hypothesis. I'm saying there is only one layer of reality. So if emotion, thought, sentience, everything we're discussing is real in this moment in the present, there is absolutely no sense in which it could be more 'real'. Again, these things CANNOT BE ILLUSION, they either exist or they don't. The realness of something is not dependent on it's fixed nature, its future immutability, its past, its cause or effect. I need to convince you that by adding another layer to realness you are most definitely adding some metaphysical, I don't think that's what you aim to do. Are you content to have your definitions of these concepts be metaphysically oriented? If the devil changed the laws, the laws would go from real to no longer real, but there is only one layer of reality."I don't think that's necessarily true. We may be experiencing something, but without the ability to make decisions that which we are experiencing is not thought. It is simply another experience which originates from outside the self, like pain. It's more like watching a film than taking part." - Thought is thought. Emotion is emotion. They do not imply freedom or 'taking part'. They are what they are. They exist or they do not. They are no dependent in their nature on their causes or their effects, their causes and effects are something else entirely. Only 'free will' implies freedom and 'taking part'. To deny 'free will' is not to deny thought. You accept that denying 'free will' is a possibility. Let me say that denying thought is absolutely an impossibility, it is in fact one of the few things we can be sure of."I see your point, and concede that we can only be sure of what we experience. However my opinion differs from yours in that I believe experience in itself to be worthless unless it has a context. It's context gives it meaning and purpose. I think most people would agree with me. If I created a pill that if eaten would produce a state of euphoric happiness in a person. They would experience (in their mind) complete happiness and contentment, nothing else matters to them. Meanwhile in the real world their body would just lay there and die. I'm sure that most people would not take this pill. I realise that this argument doesn't make my opinion more valid, but I thought I'd mention it anyway just to see how you respond. Would you take the pill?" - As you have conceded that our experience is the most real thing to us, then it must follow that this euphoric happiness is the new 'most real' reality. The 'real world' is not more real than our experience, as you have said. I might very well take it if it allowed me to continue the pursuit of making others happy. As I've said positive emotion is the meaningful thing in life. This hypothetical pill is not a thing of fantasy.. Drugs of similar nature certainly do exist."I believe the problem here is that we cannot perceive what life would be like without emotion, because we have only ever experienced it with emotion. It's much like asking someone to think in 5 dimensions when we have only ever experienced 4. It doesn't take emotion to know that you are starving and that you need to eat. It doesn't take emotion to feel pleasure. I disagree that we need emotion to react to pain. The reaction can be purely reflexive. Personally if I experience pain I don't react because it makes me unhappy, I react because it hurts " - I cannot agree with your analogy.. I believe it's quite possible to imagine a world without emotion, actually I believe that we can achieve this state from time to time in experience. Imaging the experience of five dimensions is truly impossible.
It takes emotion to feel that starving is something you'd like to prevent, without emotion you are neutral about everything. As you said about free will, you must always sit down and wait to die, because literally nothing matters. 'Nothing matters' is a pure statement of apathy, lack of emotion. We need emotion to think that pain is worth avoiding. Pain in itself is just a sensation, it is the negative valuation of pain(emotion-based) that causes us to avoid it. If we have no emotional feelings then all things are equally worth experiencing, pain or what would otherwise be pleasure. Something which proves this point I think. It is quite possible to pursue pain as a positive end in the right mindset. Pain is not always bad, it can be thought of as good. Think red rubber ball and patent leather dog collars. You avoid pain because it makes you unhappy."On the balance of things I just really believe emotions have been more of a hindrance to me than a help. I would be much more successful if I were emotionless. I do not believe that good emotions outweigh bad ones. Therefore my decision to abandon emotion would be one of simple practicality." - I'm sorry, and I've felt the same way myself before. It's strange to come out of that phase and realize how much it influences your philosophy. When you've had it both ways it becomes quite apparent how important emotion factors in to what we value, in fact it is the basis for all valuation. Try to think of something you consider valuable that is completely independent of human emotion. Try to define success without relying on positive emotion as the ultimate goal of that success. If you abandon emotion success becomes meaningless, and nothing is worth pursuing. If you disagree you really have your work cut out for you defining 'meaningful existence', try it if you insist.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Nov 22, 2007 19:13:55 GMT -5
Yes, perhaps he is too.. I'm working on that. Perhaps I will at some point.. sorry, it's not interesting to you. no need to apologize - i tend to find discussions about theoretical and metaphysical morality pretty boring because i find morality is formed by life experiences.... and real life is so messy that people can't make sense of it... also, have found, generally, that all the theory and metaphysical niceties go flying out the window when people are confronted with real moral choices.... peace
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 23, 2007 6:15:51 GMT -5
"Maybe that's why I feel life is so pointless"
- As of yet I have tried to convince you, now I will take a break and see if you can convince me. You will need to get beyond the thought above of course if you are going to show me that life can be meaningful without emotion.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 23, 2007 14:24:50 GMT -5
I'll await patiently, I think you have your work cut out for you. ;D I wanted to warn you that if you try to base it on pleasure and pain I'm just going to say that those are meaningful because of emotion. We can continue that argument first if you'd rather
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 27, 2007 12:50:36 GMT -5
I wanted to warn you that if you try to base it on pleasure and pain I'm just going to say that those are meaningful because of emotion. We can continue that argument first if you'd rather Zoff!! I'm disappointed Your main example was the pursuit of discomfort vs comfort. Didn't you expect I was going to say that amounts to the same thing as pain vs pleasure and happiness vs sadness. Humph, I'll post more later.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 27, 2007 12:55:50 GMT -5
I'm fighting a losing battle. That's true.. Since you're here I'll try to write my response sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 27, 2007 13:31:21 GMT -5
Ok having thought this out I'm ready (ish) to answer. What you are saying is that in effect, every decision we make is emotionally based, on whether it makes one happy, sad or angry etc. Every decision? Hmm, I'll just limit myself to the meaningful ones for now.I don't agree with this. We are perfectly capable of making decisions based upon rationality and logical thought. I'm with you here.Simply because we are emotionally indifferent to any given options, doesn't mean that we have to be completely indifferent. Things can be judged as better or worse without the need to resort to emotional reasons. You know I'm disagreeing here. It is emotion that makes things better or worse, that let's us choose between alternatives. No emotion = apathy = indifference = makes no difference one way or another.We can judge the difference between given options based on their actual merits if we have a goal in mind, not just on their emotional impact. My answer as to what would make life living in an absence of emotion is personal values. Values which can be instilled through culture, education, or they can even be arrived at through logical reasoning. I agree! But I think that when you get down to the heart of all our values you find that they are given their legitimacy by the positive emotional outcomes their pursuit engenders. Try to find a value that you think has no linkage to human emotion!A person could make decisions based upon their own code of conduct with a clear goal in mind, such as the decision to minimise discomfort. Things like comfort or discomfort do not have to be emotionally based. Just because discomfort often results in unhappiness, that doesn't mean that without unhappiness we would be indifferent to discomfort, discomfort is by it's very nature undesirable (to most people). Substitute discomfort for pain and then we have to go back to the idea I already had. Pain is almost always a source of suffering (negative emotion) but in the rare cases that it's not (masochism for one) people don't have to avoid it in a knee-jerk way, they can actually pursue it. There are many uncomfortable/painful situations which we seek because we know they'll help us in the future.While you argue that this is because it causes unhappiness in most people. I would argue that discomfort in itself is undesirable. Most organisms have an ability to react to their environmental circumstances without resorting to what we would call emotion. They simply seek to survive, and reproduce. Their ability to reason is very limited. Ours is far more substantial and I would suggest that as a result, we have the ability to set goals beyond simple survival and reproduction and that we can do so without the need of resorting to emotion. I'll agree that we can set goals in life without requiring emotion, but I'll say that if those goals are going to be meaningful they need to be attached to emotion. I believe we can sum up our difference in opinion in that you believe emotion is fundamental to judging the value of an option, whereas I believe it is merely an alternative way in which we can assess an option. Show me some values that you believe to have no emotional connection.I will freely admit that such a life would be bland, but bland has it's merits too. The argument isn't going to be persuasive to someone who's net emotional state, but as you have said, if someone's net emotional state is negative, then even blandness is preferable. SO I depend the argument's persuasiveness depends on the listener. This last part I think is the key to your philosophy. I've been depressed, unable to find happiness in anything, so I know what it's like to think that a purely detached existence may be preferable.. I think that you'll come to the realization that emotion-free existence might as well be nonexistence. I can imagine you then saying: ' But even if I have no emotion I can still do good, I can still live by my values'. My response would be: the only way to judge value or 'good living' is by your effect on other's emotions (whether you bring them happiness or suffering). I think your philosophy about emotions and their potential insignificance is merely a reflection of your emotional state. Ironic yes? - One way or another you didn't even mention free will in your post!
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 27, 2007 16:44:56 GMT -5
How do you then account for animals who make decisions without the use of emotion?- For one, I don't assume this is true (yes, I find it very unlikely that protozoans have emotion). Secondly, as I've already suggested I absolutely believe that we can make choices/decisions without any sort of will, I think computers can 'make decisions'. This is another topic. Doesn't change that I think 'meaningful' decisions are emotion based. I think that to answer this question is impossible because what we understand as values have all been arrived at by people who have emotions. It is therefore easy to dismiss any answer that I provide as either a non value, or emotionally derived. However just because something has arisen out of emotion doesn't mean that it cannot arise without emotion. Take an appreciation of beauty for instance. You would argue that it requires an emotional response, I think that it can be done on purely intellectual level without emotion being involved. Another example would be order. I think it is possible to appreciate order over chaos without emotion being a factor.- Simply because we have emotion doesn't mean we have to assume value arises from emotion... I think this is a bit of a cop out attempt. Anyway, if you admit we're emotional beings let's just operate on that assumption, if human values as we know them are emotional let's admit it. Yes we can appreciate (if we simply mean acknowledge or recognize) order and beauty without having an emotional response, but similarly we can appreciate chaos and ugliness. Once we say something like - "I like order and I like beauty more than chaos and ugliness", "these things are good", " these things are worth pursuing", "these things have value" - yup, appreciation in that sense (to value and admire) is emotional. Just because in our case emotion may lead to a response, doesn't mean that a lack of emotion would result in a lack of response.- Robots and zombies can make responses. "Meaningful' response is emotional I say. This is similar to your free-will basis for meaning, I'm just emphasizing something else. We can certainly act as humans without emotion. Reflexes are a fine example, hit my patella and I'll kick, I just don't think that's particularly meaningful. Meaning comes when our actions are premeditated upon and filtered through emotional judgment. I don't agree. Survival is an instinctive goal that definitely is meaningful to an organism and it doesn't require emotion (although emotion can contribute).- Again with the zombies and robots point. Since you said meaning requires free-will, and clearly survival instinct, doesn't I think you can see where I'm going. Survival is only 'meaningful' if you feel like it is... People are able to choose not to survive, how do they do this? It has something to do with emotion I say (this is the same as my pain and discomfort points). Certainly I'd say this, if life was all negative emotion with no hope of a brighter future survival would not be valued at all, suicide would be the 'rational' choice ('rationality' is emotion-based). lol yes, it is. My own emotional state certainly has an effect upon my philosophy. Which I think is a pity. Despite what you say, I think freeing oneself of emotion would be a liberating and enlightening experience.
- You won't think it's a pity once you realize it can't be any other way. I'll agree that freedom from emotion seems like it would be liberating and give you new perspective, you probably think it will help you tap into 'truth' because you'll free yourself of bias. Here's the rub, when you get to that point, and I really believe you can (as I think that I have for short periods in my life), it becomes quite apparent that without emotion there is no 'rational' reason to prefer living to dieing, there's no 'rational' reason for caring about other humans (especially if you deny the significance of their emotion), really there's no reason to do anything at all (it's all the same, good and bad are without meaning). When you feel like the main reasons to act is survival and reproduction, a machine created by evolution with the purpose of propagating your DNA, you really get a sense for what it is to doubt free-will (I'll remind you that you said life without free-will is meaningless). Freedom from emotion is freedom from value is nihilism. Psychologists would call it a form of major depression, I call it existential despair or crisis, when you get there you're solidly f*cked until you find a way out. This is getting too personal, just trust me on this. Anyway, since I've truly thought exactly as you are thinking now, I feel that I can say my current perspective is a progression and a happier place to be. When I was in your position I think the mind f*ck I had coming was pretty inevitable, if I was going to escape the cynical/self-deprecating/borderline-depressive funk I was in. I think you're pretty much in that state (forgive me my amateur psychoanalyzing but you have made some pretty depressed sounding statements). Anyway, this is interesting, I feel like I relate to you, let's carry on.
|
|