WOW! OIS Commentary (spoilers for commentary)

POSTED BY: heb
UPDATED: Saturday, July 17, 2004 05:48
VIEWED: 19844
PAGE 5 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

RADHIL

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:26 AM

Quote:
Life, is life, is life. Sentience is irrelevent. You are being destructive, according to our previous discussions,.....Now, personally, I don't think destruction is a negative or a positive.

Yes, I'm being destructive, but my existence makes it unavoidable. As you said, it itself is not negative or positive, and I myself have made this point. Only when it's out of balance does everything get frelled.

And no.... life is life is life.... no. Life is not created equal. It is if you hold life sacred, as an absolute in your morality. Many do. I do not. Tricky to balance, viewing that way and keeping ego in check, but I make do.

Quote:
The most global perspective will tell you that individuals, and indeed humanity as a whole is irrelevent. In a few billion, (or is it million, I keep forgetting) the sun will nova and man kind will be dead and gone.

Yes it does. Takeing that assumption further, you get a choice - life itself, and sentience, becomes either a universal pattern or a happy accident. Purpose or no purpose.

Does it come as any suprise that I hold purpose as an absolute, in much the same slot most people put life?

JCOBB

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

Below

Quote:
Only when it's out of balance does everything get frelled.

What balance? Destruction, while having an inherently negative terminology, doesn't live on a balance with construction. They simply are. There is no, (at least for the sake of argument) overriding purpose for one or the other. Matter is, typically, apathetic.

Quote:
And no.... life is life is life.... no. Life is not created equal. It is if you hold life sacred, as an absolute in your morality. Many do. I do not. Tricky to balance, viewing that way and keeping ego in check, but I make do.

I don't think life is equal, more like I think, (for this philosophy anyways) life is inherently terribly unimportant. What we consider to be life is nothing but the faintest glimmer in the history of the universe. Our lives, no matter how good, or heinous, mean absolutely nothing in the grand scale. No matter what we do we can not make an impact on anything universal. Its, in a way, rather depressing, but at the same time almost a relief.

I find it comic how seriously some people take the present, (granted I take the present seriously, but I am not crazed over current events) when there is such a massive scaling of time both before us and behind us. Humbling is the word I would use to describe it.

Quote:
Does it come as any suprise that I hold purpose as an absolute, in much the same slot most people put life?

Purpose? Care to elaborate?

I don't care, I'm still free.

DARKSKY

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by StarPilotGrainger:
Let's say there is no group morality at all, and each individual decides without thinking, at all, of anyone outside himself. Sure, he could decide it's 'right' to shoot himself in the head. But once he's done that, he's no longer in the arena for making decisions, so his opinions don't matter anymore, and those that decide that shooting yourself in the head is 'wrong' will be the only ones left making the decisions.

True. But also, the one that shot himself won't care about that anymore. If the goal of your morality is to provide the best chances of survival for the group and therefore for the individual, you base it on survival instinct. I find that a questionable approach. For one thing, the good of society and the good of one individual don't always coincide. For another, humans can be (are!) awfully shortsighted when it comes to their own good. Also, it very much depends on who you include into your society, who matters, and who is left out and can therefore be used for the good of your group.

@JCobb: I very much understand your line of thought here. I quite often have the same thoughts. The problem is just, when you think it through, nothing will mean anything and you can indeed just go shoot yourself.

HEB

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 7:28 AM

I was selling books for my book shop at a talk a year ago by the philosopher A.C. Grayling. A lot of it went over my head but he was talking about his book called 'What is Good?' and I thought it might be relevant if anyone wants to check it out.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

MANTICHORUS

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:12 AM

Well, personally, I'm a Christian, but we'll leave that cat away from the pigeons for the time being...
Aspects of philosophy intrigue me, in a similar way that different mythologies do. From a psychological/sociological POV (what I'm actually studying), I would explain morality as something that evoloves in groups to enable the individuals in said group to co-exist harmoniously with one-another, and to ensure the survival of the group and their way of life (a bit long winded, I know, but hey!).
"Everything has a meaning or nothing has." -Roland Barthes.

--------------------------------------------------
MAL: "Well, look at this! Appears them boys at Fox have decided to cancel us. What does that make them?"
ZOE: "Big damn idiots, sir."
MAL: "Ain't they just."
--------------------------------------------------
Writing at: [url] http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=520496 [/url]

STARPILOTGRAINGER

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkSky:
True. But also, the one that shot himself won't care about that anymore. If the goal of your morality is to provide the best chances of survival for the group and therefore for the individual, you base it on survival instinct. I find that a questionable approach. For one thing, the good of society and the good of one individual don't always coincide. For another, humans can be (are!) awfully shortsighted when it comes to their own good. Also, it very much depends on who you include into your society, who matters, and who is left out and can therefore be used for the good of your group.

Oh, you're right, I'm not saying it's based exclusively on 'survival' at all. I'm just saying that's a decent starting point, because it's natural. From there you have to go on, you have to think ahead, decide what aspects of your society are essential and which aren't (if 'freedom' is essential, then individual rights are a lot more important). But it's a starting point. So perhaps it's more fair to describe it in terms of a negative... If some 'moral code' would clearly lead to the total breakdown of a society (like 'Murder is a-ok, kill whoever you want!'), then it's a clear 'wrong' for the society. If you leave out the people who seem to believe 'gay marriage will end society!' or other such things, it makes a decent and IMHO pretty solid foundation. But it's only a foundation, and you must go much farther than that to have a complete workable morality. (And, for that matter, some of it will just arise spontaneously or evolve out of circumstances and events, even if it doesn't necessarily follow from anything else. If a food tends to cause sickness in some people, perhaps it eventually becomes 'immoral' to eat, which might last even after it's discovered how to make it perfectly safe)

(The exact balance of 'individual rights' vs 'society's rights' is almost just as tough a question as finding a moral basis in the first place. Different societys have drawn the line in different places, but I don't think there've been any that haven't drawn it at all)

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:

In a trillion years, (I would estimate VERY liberally) whatever impact man can have made will be gone. Be it by our own hands or something else entirely. My actions, or yours, are of no consequence to the universe, even if morals were relevent.

There it is again. Presumtion.

There is little, if anything, that is inconsequential. Ever hear of the Butterfly Effect? Every action has a reaction, and it's impossible to tell if it is truly irrelevent in the cosmic scale. Your own actions might make the difference between the scenario you posit and one where the galaxy becomes populated by the descendants of the human species.

Sure, it's a longshot, but it is possible. You might one day hit a racoon with your car, killing it. It happens to be carrying a disease, and it would have bitten a neighbor's little boy the next day. Thanks to you, that boy avoids being killed by the infection, and he grows up to invent warp drive. That leads to our exploring the galaxy, and colonizing hundreds of worlds, eventually leading to what I would certainly think of as a significant presence in the galaxy.

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkSky:
Explain to me just how string theory can do that! Frankly, I don't really see the connection.

Perhaps that's where the problem lies. I don't mean to offend, but there are many things I don't understand, yet I don't discount that they might be connected in some way, as perhaps all things are.

Einstein's theories were partly rooted in his search for God. String theory, in some ways, to some scientists, is similar.

For more on String theory and "reading the mind of God", start here: http://www.mkaku.org

DARKSKY

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkSky:
Explain to me just how string theory can do that! Frankly, I don't really see the connection.

Perhaps that's where the problem lies. I don't mean to offend, but there are many things I don't understand, yet I don't discount that they might be connected in some way, as perhaps all things are.

Oh, I would never claim that I understood everything! But if you claim that string theory can proof the existence of God or is somehow linked to it, then you must have at least some idea of what string theory is and how God results from it. And I mean really from the theory, not some interpretation of it.

Quote:

Einstein's theories were partly rooted in his search for God. String theory, in some ways, to some scientists, is similar.

I guess we are all looking for some sort of meaning in what we are doing, whether we call it God or something else. Doesn't mean we always get what we are looking for. Or maybe we find some personal truth/meaning, but that doesn't prove anything to anyone else. And just that Einstein was looking for God and while at it came up with some great results, doesn't mean everyone else has to share his motivation.

Quote:

For more on String theory and "reading the mind of God", start here: http://www.mkaku.org

Just read this article on 'Hyperspace and a Theory of Everything'. Sure, he talks about creation as part of the theory. But the big question that remains is whether creation always needs a creator? Even in a perfect vacuum a particle-antiparticle pair can spontanously be created out of nowhere. Is that some God being bored, or is it just probability? I don't know. But that God would have to be very bored indeed.
(btw, personally, I find the expression 'reading the mind of God' kind of arrogant. That I don't believe in any God doesn't mean I have to insult him/her/it/them by implying I could even come close to comprehending their mind(s).)

JCOBB

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
Below

Quote:
There is little, if anything, that is inconsequential. Ever hear of the Butterfly Effect? Every action has a reaction, and it's impossible to tell if it is truly irrelevent in the cosmic scale. Your own actions might make the difference between the scenario you posit and one where the galaxy becomes populated by the descendants of the human species.

It doesn't matter, long term. In the end, in trillions and trillions and trillions of years the universe will be (well, not exactly) nothing. It will have settled to several degrees above absolute zero and it will be impossible for life, as we know it, to survive.

Again, try reading Manifold Time by... Stephen Baxter IIRC, it goes into what man can do to live, and if it is really worth it. A pretty good read.

I don't care, I'm still free.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE