On Saving the World and Other Delusions

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by harigov on Saturday March 28, 2015 @02:23PM (#9282260)

This article resonates with me. I find myself very often in this situation of trying to find meaning in what I do. When you tie this to evolution and what more or less appears to be biological machines trying to eek out some meaning in otherwise meaningless life, nothing seems to make sense any more. What's the point of anything at all? We try so hard to reason and find it hard when we reach the boundaries of reasoning and enter the domain of faith and beliefs, but choose to ignore them because they aren't scientific enough. I believe a much simpler notion is to treat yourself as an artist or an entertainer and look at your work as a means of enriching someone's life - not because of its utility or function or what not but just because its beautiful and brings out joy to people in your world, however small the number might be. We keep thinking about the whole world and forget about our own small world, when in reality, it's our small world that gives us all of our joy and happiness.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by pron on Saturday March 28, 2015 @04:19PM (#9282626)

The existentialists[1] made some of the most thoughtful treatments of the human condition (among them, my favorite sub-group is the absurdists, who regard the human condition as absurd). Existentialism, however, offers a rather naive view of humanity, as possessing an inherent essence (they were essentialists), like reason, or disparate personal essences to which one can and should be "authentic". Nevertheless, their texts serve as the basis for much of modern philosophy (yet they are very entertaining).

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

[2]: More modern philosophers, like Michel Foucault, while accepting the premise of an absurd existence, reject the notion of an inner human essence, and firmly place the human condition within spheres of influence which they called "power", which then served as the basis for the modern definition of politics as the theory (and practice) of power.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by pmoriarty on Saturday March 28, 2015 @10:18PM (#9283623)

Sartre, one of the most renowned of all Existentialists, was famous for holding that, "existence preceeds essence."

This is an anti-essentialist position.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by pron on Monday March 30, 2015 @04:40PM (#9292426)

Sartre also said that existentialism is humanism, which is a load of crap, so what Sartre said of existentialism isn't necessarily what it is. What complicates matters further is that existentialism is many things -- it is basically "the philosophies of those called existentialists". Still, many existentialists emphasize authenticity (to one's nature), which is impossible if there is no essence (authentic to what?).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @04:10PM (#9282599)

Wait. To our best knowledge we don't know whether there is a meaning of life, right? And it would be irrational to act based on a conjectured purpose if there isn't solid evidence for it. So even if we will burn in hell if we don't destroy ourselves, there is no solid evidence for that, so it would be irrational to do so. The best way of proceeding is then to keep our options open as long as possible. Our quasi-purpose is to find out whether there is a purpose in the first place.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by harigov on Saturday March 28, 2015 @05:37PM (#9282847)

Well, we do know about evolution, and you can make some inferences about the utility of life and that of our species based on that. Would it be based on partial information? Maybe. The point is - you can give any meaning that you want to your life, but meaning isn't just something that you choose one day and stick to it. Every reason that you make will essentially be bound to this ultimate purpose that you assign yourself to. It takes years of conscious effort before your "choice" reflects your "life".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @06:22PM (#9282969)

I mean that we are obliged to look for meaning just so that we consider the possibility that there indeed is meaning, so that we can act accordingly to avoid ending up in hell (or a similar place). And by that I don't mean the introspective, philosophical, non-falsifiable kind of meaning, but meaning somewhere encoded in the laws of physics, say, we are in a simulation and our creator will punish us if we destroy our planet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Saturday March 28, 2015 @07:24PM (#9283185)

If there's a heaven and a hell, who goes there? Will you go there? Will I go there?

Who is this 'I'? Is 'I' a collection of thoughts and feelings? Does 'I' include some semblance of physical appearance? Where does this 'I' start and end? If 'I' eat an apple, is it still an apple or is it now 'I'?

I realise these are tricky questions to think about, please try not to worry. If it helps, I can tell you that I've less fear of death after taking time to think about this sort of stuff, I hope in time you'll find a sense of peace too. If you want to explore it some more, I'm here for you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by xaetium on Saturday March 28, 2015 @08:48PM (#9283423)

The core of the apple is rarely consumed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Saturday March 28, 2015 @09:07PM (#9283464)

So only the core of the apple is the true apple?

If you want another example, say a bread roll. If you eat a bread roll, is it still a bread roll or does it become part of 'I'?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by eli_gottlieb on Saturday March 28, 2015 @10:57PM (#9283706)

It's a mass of particles the whole time. It's a bread roll when it plays the causal role, or set of such roles, which we term a bread roll. It's "I" when it plays the causal role we term "I".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Sunday March 29, 2015 @03:48AM (#9284176)

Sure, but then the question becomes... Where does "I" start and end? For example, the air in your lungs, is that part of "I"? If it is, where does it stop being part of "I"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @08:19PM (#9283342)

This reasoning immediately follows from an agnostic, scientific epistemology. A hypothetical theory of 'I' is 'a collection of elementary particles brought forth by evolution due to certain dynamics that are best described by quantum field theory and general relativity'. Who goes to hell depends on the particular situation we find ourselves in. Perhaps environmentalists would be spared.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Saturday March 28, 2015 @09:00PM (#9283448)

I would describe myself as agnostic, but I don't believe science has anything meaningful to say about spiritual/philosophical matters. Science is concerned with what's testable/measurable, we're not talking about anything testable/measurable.

I'll try explaining the whole heaven/hell thing again. What does hell look like to you? Is it millions of former people being tortured for not living a virtuous life? If you go to hell, what part of you goes to hell? Do the former people in hell have bodies and faces? Do the former people keep their memories of their past life? Do the former people still think like the people they once were as humans?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @10:02PM (#9283598)

No, I'm only talking about the testable and the potentially testable. I mentioned hell and God just as an example of a potential reality which imposes meaning on our existence. I'm referring to a literally testable God through some scientific experiment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Saturday March 28, 2015 @10:12PM (#9283617)

Okay, so let's say that we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. Let's also say we've managed to prove heaven and hell exist. The question still remains, what part of you goes to heaven or hell?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by MichaelGG on Saturday March 28, 2015 @09:06PM (#9283460)

This is really poor reasoning and is just making up magical conditions. What if we figure out it's a simulation and our creators get upset because it's no longer fun for them and torture us?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Sunday March 29, 2015 @09:11PM (#9287183)

Yeah right, one can always construct a reality which discourages whatever you plan to do. I was completely wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Saturday March 28, 2015 @05:14PM (#9282786)

A "meaning of life" in the sense you're referring to implies two things...

1. That there was a creator of life that predetermined what our lives should mean.

2. That no other meaning except for the one described in point 1 is valid.

It doesn't work that way, meaning is not singular and is not preset. A "meaning of life" sounds like a rational idea but you can't condense life down to a single meaningful goal without losing its essence. Life is what you make it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @06:31PM (#9282996)

How can you prove, though, that meaning is neither singular, preset and nor condensable to a single goal? What if god does exist? Then it would be rational to act in a way that pleases god and thus it should be our goal to find out whether that is the case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Saturday March 28, 2015 @07:02PM (#9283117)

Let's explore that idea, what if a god exists... A god that designed us for a single purpose...

Why would a god that needed us to fulfil a singular purpose give us the power to choose to not fulfil that purpose? Why would a god choose a purpose and then not clearly communicate that purpose? Why would a god give us the capacity for reflection and awareness, allowing us to derive our own meanings, if none of those meanings were valid?

What would a single meaning of life even look like? Let's take a guess and say that love is the meaning of life. That would mean the only point of life was love. All the other experiences? Meaningless. Says who? Who says they're meaningless?

"A meaning" is like "a sock". There is only one true sock, all other socks are false, only those that have this sock can truly know what a sock is, etc... You're trying to condense a potentially infinite group to a single example.

As for the whole "beneficial to us" thing, in what sense? The whole "life after death" thing? Something else?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @07:58PM (#9283274)

In any sense. Why should we assume that our creator is sane? Perhaps they sell toy universes at the counter in grocery stores and we are in the hands of some cruel teenager in our host universe. Perhaps they run simulations to find a particular outcome of evolution. Maybe we are in some sort of digestive organ of a god which feasts on evolutionary structures which perform complex computations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Saturday March 28, 2015 @08:11PM (#9283311)

If the creator is insane, and is silent, then it seems unlikely anything you could do would reliably appease it.

Also, if you accept that any possibility is potentially the reality in which we inhabit, then it's possible that you are god. Now you could be god, what do you want to do with your life?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @09:54PM (#9283582)

If we could establish a communication channel to the creator we could perhaps negotiate a transfer of all consciousnesses on Earth to the host universe. Maybe the creator isn't even aware of us and would simply shut us down if we wouldn't establish contact.

The possibility of solipsism cannot be excluded, but it also seems to be very difficult to test. I don't want to spend too much time thinking about it, because there are two approaches of broadening our knowledge which appear to have lower hanging fruit: The theory of mind and the theory of everything.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Sunday March 29, 2015 @04:16AM (#9284208)

There's another possibility that the universe doesn't need a creator, it has always existed, going through a cycle between 'big bang' and 'big crunch'. That doesn't exclude the possibility of higher powers within the universe (or multiverse if that idea floats your boat).

A universe without a creator might seem scary to those who have been brought up to believe in a creator, but how would it affect your day to day life? The pleasure and the pain found within existence is just as real as it was before, you can still take time to reflect on the nature of existence as it's a fascinating but unanswerable question, the only real difference is taking advice from different sources about the path you take through life.

Furthermore, if there is a God, and this God designed us, then our natural state is what God intended us to experience. By separating ourselves from the life that surrounds us we can disconnect from these experiences. How can a God judge you for living according to the nature it designed?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Sunday March 29, 2015 @03:20PM (#9286090)

I'm not saying that this is the only possibility but merely that we cannot exclude it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Thursday April 02, 2015 @09:59AM (#9310679)

I agree. That's why I'm agnostic. We're not able to determine whether God exists or not, so I accept the possibility that it does exist as well as the possibility that it doesn't. Instead of looking for answers to impossible questions, seems better to explore the possibilities of the existence we can experience.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by xaetium on Saturday March 28, 2015 @08:49PM (#9283429)

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by ZenoArrow on Saturday March 28, 2015 @09:10PM (#9283485)

Don't worry be happy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by poopsmithe on Saturday March 28, 2015 @04:53PM (#9282716)

Why look for a meaning when you can make your own?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by rokhayakebe on Saturday March 28, 2015 @05:24PM (#9282810)

That is what I think. Everything is free will. From the first particle which decided to Be, to me writing this comment, to Meaning.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by user7923489 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @06:33PM (#9283011)

That's not what I mean. I mean that we need to actively look for intrinsic meaning of our existence, just to have the case covered that there really is a grand purpose and that we will be disadvantaged if we don't act in accordance to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by rithmoflife on Saturday March 28, 2015 @11:55PM (#9283812)

From an evolutionary perspective, meaning is simply a tool that worked well enough to carry the genes that created it into subsequent generations (the same can be said for joy and happiness). Pondering our obsession with meaning and points might be more useful than trying to find them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by eli_gottlieb on Saturday March 28, 2015 @10:48PM (#9283683)

>What's the point of anything at all?

>...

>just because its beautiful and brings out joy to people in your world, however small the number might be

You answered your own question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by harigov on Sunday March 29, 2015 @11:52AM (#9285261)

Yes, I was making a point about how my thoughts always end up in that kind of a question and I was proposing a way to look at life that might avoid such depressing situations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On Saving the World and Other Delusions by eli_gottlieb on Monday March 30, 2015 @09:48AM (#9289439)

What's depressing about beauty and joy?

[ Parent | on HN ]