[Bobboau]

does understanding that in a computer game you are not blowing up machinery and aliens, but rather manipulating a small collection of numbers in a low accuracy simulation which is displayed as a bunch of triangles with a procedural color pastern applied to it rendered onto a 2d bitmap which is used as the source for a lighted grid lessen your enjoyment of blowing up aliens in a video game?


I'm catching up now, BTW.

"The main point, for me at least, is embebbed in the title."

yeah I did that on purpose, and because it seems to have been rewarded with the effect I desired, I will continue to use it in the future.



OK, caught up, I am amazed at how well my post fit into this thread, it's almost like the discussion hadn't moved an inch in two pages.

[Mongoose]

does understanding that in a computer game you are not blowing up machinery and aliens, but rather manipulating a small collection of numbers in a low accuracy simulation which is displayed as a bunch of triangles with a procedural color pastern applied to it rendered onto a 2d bitmap which is used as the source for a lighted grid lessen your enjoyment of blowing up aliens in a video game?

No, but that's because said video game is a relatively-disposable piece of entertainment, not the foundations of the human condition itself.  Like, I'm sorry, Battuta, but if I looked at my own regular daily thoughts and actions through the same filter that you seem to, I'd probably swiftly drive myself insane.  I just couldn't handle it.  More power to you if you can, but I'd rather not go down the road of breaking my thought processes down to binary code.

[Ghostavo]

Mongoose, so understanding say.... physics drives you insane?

After all, it's the foundation of reality in which the human condition rests.

[Shivan Hunter]

I'm sorry, Battuta, but if I looked at my own regular daily thoughts and actions through the same filter that you seem to, I'd probably swiftly drive myself insane.  I just couldn't handle it.  More power to you if you can, but I'd rather not go down the road of breaking my thought processes down to binary code.

Just curious- why is that? After reading the last few pages (late to the party, I know), 'tutta is simply explaining our thoughts (needs and desires) based on biology and environmental conditioning. Our thoughts, and the wants and desires that the last page has been discussing, have a basis in our brain chemistry which is directly molded by our biology. I would much prefer these processes to be understood- and therefore predictable- than unknown and uncertain.

I wish I could have participated in the discussion on the last page but I'm not that knowledgeable on the subjects at hand- the rebuttals are better left to the likes of 'ttuta and MP-Ryan.

[Mongoose]

Mongoose, so understanding say.... physics drives you insane?

After all, it's the foundation of reality in which the human condition rests.

Amusingly enough, the more we've learned about the modern branches of physics, the more we've come to realize that what we call "understanding" can only go so far.  I think Feynman said it best: "Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics." But to answer your question, no, studying basic physical laws doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least, because I consider them much more in the realm of abstractions.  But being in a situation where you're always self-analyzing your every action, thinking to yourself, "Oh hey, I felt like donating money to that charity because behavioral evolution has conditioned me to perform social group altruism"?  Yeah, pretty sure that'd drive me off the deep end.

Just curious- why is that? After reading the last few pages (late to the party, I know), 'tutta is simply explaining our thoughts (needs and desires) based on biology and environmental conditioning. Our thoughts, and the wants and desires that the last page has been discussing, have a basis in our brain chemistry which is directly molded by our biology. I would much prefer these processes to be understood- and therefore predictable- than unknown and uncertain.

Quite simply, it's because, unlike Ryan and Battuta, I'm of the firm belief that we are each more than a simple product of our physical biology.  I believe that there is an intangibility to us, something that can't be explained away by performing a complete neural mapping and analysis of active brain chemistry.  And in that context, for my own satisfaction in what I consider to be the purpose of my own life, I'd rather not delve down those paths myself.

[Ghostavo]

We don't always need to self-analyze our every action, unless you also feel the need to analyze the physics around you.

Or do you go about walking everyday thinking "You know, I don't go about floating because of gravity, also, I can walk because of attrition, etc."? 

[Mongoose]

Honestly, I think there's a little corner of my brain that does.

[Mobius]

Of course we do. Every single time we learn something new, we apply it to daily routine.

For example, now I use to watch floors trying to determine how radioactive they could be. Fear Radon.

[Nemesis6]

Fear Radon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AM0tIenSGk

Don't fear Radon, fear boredom.

[Mobius]

Boredom hardly kills, though.

[zookeeper]

@NGTM-1R and MP-Ryan:

Yes, if he meant evolution in a wide sense (not just biological), then sure, I agree. We can indeed say that pretty much anything evolved, no problem there.

So the simple answer is:  your morality is not determined by individual thought, no matter how much we all like to think so.  As it happens, free will is primarily an illusion as well.

I don't see a contradiction there. I consider myself to have free will yet I'm also a determinist. I know my morality is a result of cause and effect with no magic to it, but that doesn't mean my morality isn't determined by my individual thought. My individual thought determines my morality, and my individual thought is both a result and limited by the physical world, evolution, genetics, whatever. All of those things fit together just fine if you ask me.

[swashmebuckle]

philosophy is utterly immaterial to the discussion of almost everything. it is an exercise in masturbation based on the incorrect belief that humans can derive truths from assumptions using flawed heuristics.

science is the only domain of knowledge that has anything meaningful to say about morality. and what it says is that morality is a treaty: meaningful only because people agree to obey it, derived from evolution and memetic mutation in order to regulate stable societies.

there is no good or evil in the fabric of the universe, only mathematics.

^This would be the prog rock opera to end all prog rock operas.

[Bobboau]

Yes, if he meant evolution in a wide sense (not just biological), then sure, I agree. We can indeed say that pretty much anything evolved, no problem there.

oh, you mean like the evolishinologistical theory of thermodynamics, chemistry and cosmology?

[zookeeper]

Yes, if he meant evolution in a wide sense (not just biological), then sure, I agree. We can indeed say that pretty much anything evolved, no problem there.

oh, you mean like the evolishinologistical theory of thermodynamics, chemistry and cosmology?

A what? I'm guessing the answer would be no, though.

[Rodo]

I'm loving this thread so much, now... I'll go ahead and indulge myself by dropping the bomb:

So conscience basically a product of evolution?

Personally this is what bugs me the most, we can all talk about rights and wrongs for as long as we like, but if we're gonna start taking all that science says as fact (which I believe to be a smart move BTW) then we have to eventually wonder if our right-wrong concepts are based solely on evolution, genetics, or whatever else that might have changed those.
This is what troubles me the most, the fact that we can actually be what we are just because of evolution, and that there's nothing more, nothing at all.
It scares the **** out of me, cause I like to believe that we have conscience for something else rather than just being better survivors.

[General Battuta]

I'm afraid we have a conscience just to be better survivors.

Of course we now have cognitive capabilities and can decide what to do with ourselves. We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness. We can decide that morality is important because we say it's important. So no reason to be scared.

[Sushi]

I'm afraid we have a conscience just to be better survivors.

Of course we now have cognitive capabilities and can decide what to do with ourselves. We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness. We can decide that morality is important because we say it's important. So no reason to be scared.

Does that count as "free will?" Sounds like it to me, if I understand what you're saying here.

[General Battuta]

I'm afraid we have a conscience just to be better survivors.

Of course we now have cognitive capabilities and can decide what to do with ourselves. We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness. We can decide that morality is important because we say it's important. So no reason to be scared.

Does that count as "free will?" Sounds like it to me, if I understand what you're saying here.

What I mean is simply that units of cognitive information disseminated through language are increasingly a part of the networks we use to make decisions.

'Free will' as a nucleus of acausal purely arbitrary decisionmaking ability does not exist. 'Free will' as I think zookeeper might put it, the ability to make a decision based on the sum of our instincts, experience, history, instantaneous environmental factors, biology, and cultural context - with perhaps an element of pseudorandomness introduced by chaotic systems - probably does.

If you define 'free will' as the ability to make a different decision if all factors in a scenario are the same, no, it doesn't exist; but if you define free will as the ability to make the exact same decision every time all factors are the same, including factors which may be specific to you such as your own beliefs and experiences (but which were still derived causally), it's a concept perfectly compatible with the causal, empirical universe.

[Rodo]

We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness.

We are not?

The majority of us still choose the better option to increase our survivability.
Sure, we are choosing, but there's a cloaked hand behind our choices, every day we wake up and we can choose to have a nice breakfast or jump out of the window, and yet (for most of us) we don't even THINK about the second choice, see that, not even crossing my mind for a split second there.

[General Battuta]

We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness.

We are not?

The majority of us still choose the better option to increase our survivability.

looooool

cite (you won't be able to)

it's of course still an influence, we're not going to make arbitrary decisions, but our moral systems are definitely not fitness-optimized because the timescales they operate on are far too short