**Updated: 10/21/2003**
This entry used to be about a new trailer for the third Matrix movie, but somehow it ended up becoming a long and convoluted argument about the existence of God and the idea of absolute morality. Seeing as the comment thread hasn’t had anything to do with the entry in a long, long time I figured I should just scrap the entry to avoid any further confusion. So, if you keep reading into the comments that follow don’t bother sending me email asking me what the hell it has to do with The Matrix because it doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Man, I’ve been rolling this over and over in my head, and I’m really having trouble thinking of something that benefits society, that does not benefit me personally, at least in some way.
Even if society kills me, because I’m infected with some noxious disease, doing so might save my loved ones, or other people that I care about.
On the other hand, if I didn’t have any loved ones, or people that I cared about. If I was completely unsocialized and isolated, I don’t think I WOULD care what was good for society. So I guess, at least for me, I DO only do things that benefit me in some way indirectly. Everything I do, I guess, can be seen as in some way self-serving.
Holy crap! I’m not an Atheist, I’m a SATANIST!
(Damn you Hires, look what you have wrought!)
Brandi, nowiser, Les,
Hires,
The multiplication table IS a human invention. The whole concept of numbers is a human invention, and the multiplication table is based on those numbers.
Ever been to England or Australia? There it is very wise to keep to the left.
I missed this on the first reading. You have to be fucking kidding. As I said above, the whole concept of numbers is a human invention.
Ooo! Touch a nerve did I?
Valhalla,
Two and two equals four (2 + 2 = 4). Absolutely, no doubt. The fact that we chose certain symbols or words to represent this, does not change the fact that it is true. Your are right when you say that numbers is a human invention: you are describing mere conventions as I was trying to explain before (the idea of driving on the right or left side of the road). Mathematics is simply the study of quantity, form, arrangement, and magnitude (i.e. the methods and processes for disclosing the properties and relations of quantities and magnitudes) The idea that the symbol
I don’t think anyone is arguing that physical reality is relative. Yes there is a “gap” between what IS, and how humans represent it. I think this probably falls in the “duh” category. So let’s not waste TOO much time going around and around on it.
I’ve been looking at your posts, Hires, trying to discern what your point is. I’m afraid you’re being a little too Socratic in your approach, because much of what you’re saying seems to be very broad generalities, or unsupported assertions about the “nature” of humanity. The beautiful thing about Socrates, though, was that he always got around to a concrete example at some point, in order to prove/demonstrate the validity of his general assertions.
Can we have the example now?
If I understand correctly, you are asserting that there is a Natural Law that causes humans to
a) behave a certain way, against what their instincts would lead them to do, and aside from what socialization might lead them to do.
The fact that you choose the Math example is also interesting, as it points toward Platonic conceptions of the “ideal” the corrupt materiality of this world, the limitations of human perception vis a vis the shadow on the cave wall, etc. etc. That’s fine, if that’s where you’re heading, but lets get there already, so we can move on to the discussion of the validity of Platonic ideals, their influence on the Bible, their appearance in the Corpus Hermeticum, or whatever ELSE it is that you want to discuss.
If you wanted to approach it in Platonic terms, the fact that all known societies at least have a concept of good and evil would indicate that despite cultural differences of opinion on what exact behaviors might constitute “good” or “evil” behaviors, the mere existence of the concept “proves” that they exist in the ideal realm—that there is an ideal “good” and an ideal “evil” and that human conceptions of the same are merely corrupt variations.
The problem, of course, is that the idea of an ideal of which all material is merely a corrupt reflection is, after all, an idea
just an idea
not two cans, nor three, nor the asphalt from which we bounce upon hurling ourselves from the fifteenth story window,
just an idea.
(I figure if you can rant on and on without getting anywhere, why can’t I?)
Now I’m off to watch the “In Laws” so if I don’t respond to any responses anytime soon, don’t assume I’ve withdrawn from the field of discourse
I’m just having my lance polished.
Cheers.
My testicles are my only personal gate to immortality. By spreading my DNA around as much as possible, I improve my chances of drinking from the cold, crisp waters of the Fountain of Youth. In order to ejaculate into healthy females, I need to act as if I am the alpha male. Therefore, I proclaim that I own this room and I am ruler here. My word is indisputable. What is printed in this room under my monicker shall be taken as fact and truth.
With the above disclaimer, I can now say this-I hate Kent Hovind and I will remove and eat his gonads so that his spawn can no longer infect this earth. I have now declared him my Mortal Enemy. Bring it, Hovind bitch. Let’s hear from the twiggy little bastard—-i know he reads these posts. In fact, I think DB is Hovind in disguise. Bring it bitch. I’ll cut you.
Not necessarily. It all depends on what rules of Mathematics you’re using at the time. Issues such as scale come into play as there are four types of measurement scales—nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. Of those, in only the last two scales does 2+2=4. There’s also an issue of context. Depending on WHAT two things you’re adding together the answer may not be “four” at all. Consider, for example, water droplets. If you take two water droplets and add two more water droplets to them you’ll end up with one puddle of water. In that case, 2+2=1 and that’s an absolute truth. Then there’s consideration of the base numbering system in use. While it is true that in most systems 2+2=4, that’s not true in the Base 3 and Base 4 counting systems. Then we can always move into some of the more esoteric stuff like Modulo Arithmetic where 2+2=3 or 7 or 82 or whatever number you like.
In short, trying to lay claim to the idea that 2+2=4 is an “absolute” truth is entirely relative to what scale, context, base system and method of arithmetic you’re using at the time. In some situations that statement is correct and in others it is incorrect. Regardless, all of mathematics are a human construct and any absolute truths it holds are dependent upon the rules used to establish the system of math in use and said truths are only true in as far as the system in use is concerned. Change the system and the absolute truths change with it.
Fuck it. I’m just going to hang up the lance and gracefully retire. I thought going with the Platonic ideal, and then pointing out that mathematics was merely an expression of an idea of the ideal was just
pretty
fucking
clever.
But, ya know, the Hempel thing just totally screwed my pooch. . .
over and out.
Actually Hires 10+10 = 4 in the binary number system, or more correctly 10+10=100, which is decimal 4. Several posts back, I recommend that you just state your point and not use abstract examples
Nice rebuttals Les and nowiser. I presume that we can now consume Hires flavored Jell-o (except for Jesse VB, and he’s volunteered to eat Hovind’s really big balls)
BTW Les, does Hires put you in mind of David at all? I think they might at least attend the same church or the same circle jerk or something.
…and nice one, Mild Bill. Your response was being birthed as I was posting and I’m not allowed in the operating room. Only thing I might critique is your penchant to dance all the time. You’re not gay are you? (Not that you think there’s anything wrong with that)
Hell, I must be gay, what with all the male cheerleading I’m doing. Oh well, thuper work guyth. Keep it UP! I’m so wicked! I thaid “it up” ~snicker~
Hey jesse vb,
Why do you HATE Hovind so much? He doesn’t hate anyone, or is it just that he shines too much light on the many flaws of evolution? awwww is that it then? Poor jesse….did Hovind make you angry? there there…
Too bad I wasn’t Hovind in disguise, then I round you all up and debate the hell out of you. (literally)
Les,
Allow me to explain this question yet again, because you still seem to not understand. Here is the question in a different format:
Wow, I don’t know about anyone else, but you’ve totally misrepresented what I said at least.
I never said I should be decent in order to benefit society. I said I should be decent in order to benefit society, because to do so benefits me. You’ve basically removed the last half of my assertion in order to render my statement a tautology. Nice trick. I wonder how you would feel if I returned the favor.
I also asserted that if there was no perceivable benefit to me, that I would probably NOT act in that fashion. There’s the answer to your question “What reason, other than selfishness, should you care about the good of society?” The answer is NONE. Fortunately for the world, I see a great deal of what I do for society coming back to me. Which is why I am not an axe-murdering rapist. If, however, my entire family were to be slaughtered, and my dog got run over, and the government seized all my bank accounts, do not for a moment delude yourself that I would not become, quite quickly, a very dangerous man. Dangerous even to “good” people like the ones who populate this board.
I believe what Brandi and Les have said basically amounts to the same thing, but if I misrepresent them, my apologies. I’m sorry if my response doesn’t make you feel warm and cozy, but sometimes cold and true is preferable to happy and false.
Brandi made an interesting point by indicating that children who have not been socialized to show care and empathy for others don’t show care and empathy for others. They don’t have any reason to do so. It’s not “natural” for them to do so. It’s only “natural” for people to do this in a social environment, where there is a direct benefit to them in adopting these behaviors. You posit that the behavior comes from somewhere “above,” outside of society. The visible results of a lack of socialization, however, in people (as well as in dogs) demonstrates a much more feasable explanation: animals and people act “correctly” because they are socialized to do so. “Right” does not come from “above,” it is socially determined.
I could for example apply electricity to the legs of a frog, watch them twitch, then remove the electrical stimuli, watch them grow still, and say “see—the electricity makes the legs twitch.”
“Ah,” you respond, “the Law of Nature makes the legs twitch. The fact that it only does so when you’re holding an electrode to the frogleg is, well, coincidence.”
Hmmm. Right. I’ll have to mull that one over for a while.
On another note, people aren’t the only animals that engage in what we would consider “good” or “noble” behavior. There are plenty of animals that do things that will kill them, in order to perpetuate their species or protect their flock, herd, or pack. Other animals don’t give a damn what happens to the rest of their kind, as long as they can keep eating. You could point to the “Law of Nature” and say “see, Wolves are noble, good animals. . . but sharks kind’a suck.” Or you could look at the the biological and chemical reasons why these animals act the way they do. It is not a matter of “good” or “evil.” Why is it so hard to accept that human acts of “goodness” might be rooted in similar reasons?
I think you assume an intangible cause for an observable phenomena, despite tangible explanations that could serve quite as well. That, of course is your choice. But it is, ultimately a matter of faith. You can’t prove it, or show it to anyone, or even demonstrate it convincingly while more palpable and demonstrable causes for the same phenomena are available. You point to the “something behind,” and I say to you, “show me how it bends light, or affects the gravitational field of the planet. Show me how it affects anything. Show me how it makes us “good.” Once again, I have a choice—God
or biology.
What do you think I’m going with?
I once saw an empty pop fall off my kitchen counter. I can percieve at least two explanations for this occuring. It is possible that a leprechaun had entered my kitchen and was being mischievous, and it could also have been the “wind” blowing through the open window. Since everyone knows that leprechauns are real, we have to admit that the leprechaun did it, pop cans don’t just fall over because of the “wind”.
Now for the question boys and girls. Is that statement an example of logic? (or maybe the reasoning of a true believer, in this case in leprechauns, trying to see evidence for their belief?)
Crank the wayback machine to the top of the page and you will find that this post was about a movie trailer. Reading the rest of it just left me feeling like I wished I could have taken the green pill.
Hires, why don’t you give us an example of an unselfish action that benefits society, but would not benefit the individual.
Do you even realize that your question is moot if said selfish individual is a part of the benefiting society? Which leaves the unselfish action having to benefit a society that the individual does not belong to. I fail to see how an unselfish action would not benefit the individual in some form, even if it is only the appreciation of the recipient.
BCS- Starting these threads is like setting the cruise control and climbing in the back seat to argue.
Sometimes Les hits the brakes and kicks everyone out – see “Virgin Mary Fence Post” thread.
Ragman,
I think I could probably come up with an “unselfish” action that would benefit society without benefiting the individual. I’d have to think about it, but I think I could probably come up with one.
That doesn’t mean I’d personally commit that action. And if I did, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that I “chose” to do it. Biological and chemical forces might “convince” me to act to preserve the species, but the fact that they did so could merely be additional evidence that evolution favors “unselfish” behavior in certain species.
Or it could be God moving me to “goodness.” Of course, if we don’t understand exactly how it works, it’s probably God. Until we figure it out at least.
Leprechaun or wind? Even if Hires comes up with a completely unselfish act, I don’t see it as “proof” of divine guidance.
OK, I’m bowing out of this discussion now, because I have to get back to my Life. The faithful have a much higher motivation for engaging in this kind of debate, as far as I’m concerned. After all, they’re bringing salvation to the unenlightened.
I on the other hand, have no salvation to offer, don’t expect to really change anyone’s mind, and am motivated by a sort of “logical outrage” mental reflex that is more like scratching a particularly annoying itch, rather than anything else.
ie: If you don’t enjoy scratching, don’t roll in the poison ivy.
So I’m out.
Ragman,
I should think that the question should be fairly obvious to you. Things like being content with ten dollars when you might have gotten one hundred dollars, doing school work honestly when it would be easy to cheat, leaving a girl alone when you would like to make love to her, staying in dangerous places when you would like to go somewhere safer, keeping promises you would rather not keep, and telling the truth even when it makes you look a fool, are all valid answers to your question.
I already said, after all, society only means
Uh, eating your heart out over the past does not serve your personal best interests. Being “content” in this situation is the best thing that you can do FOR YOURSELF—it minimizes pain, and maximizes pleasure
If I NEED to cheat, then I am gaining nothing from the school work, and the purpose of the education is subverted, which damages ME. Ultimately, relying on cheating instead of actually learning damages ME. Therefore, NOT cheating is in MY best interests.
Does she have a large, heavily armed and jealous
father/Brother/Husband? Is she drunk, asking me to pay her, or unwilling to sleep with me? The first subset endangers my physical well being, the second is an assault on my personal sense of my own value—I am “good” enough to get sex without
having to rape or pay for it. Barring those scenarios, however, we’re gonna get busy.
Why the hell would I do that? I’m leaving that area as fast as I can, unless of course something that is of value to me can be preserved by my continuing to risk myself. Of course, that’s not
selfless, that’s selfish.
I have a personal sense of honor. I CHOOSE to abide by it because it gives me a sense of self-worth. Masturbatory, I know, but it makes ME happy and most people are willing to let me to continue in that vein, especially since it also involves protecting the weak, showing mercy to my enemies and all that other “good” stuff.
I would rather be a fool than a liar. But this, like keeping promises I would rather not keep, is a matter of my personal preference—I despise people that make the opposite choice, and I do not wish to be like them. It therefore serves MY EGO to do what you would consider “right.”
.
And can also clearly be chalked up to factors other than “The Force.” Psychological drives inculcated through social pressure, or biologically determined behaviors that evolved for the perpetuation of the species.
My personal sense of “honor” for example, is a figment. I KNOW it is a product of social pressures, and yet I choose to adhere to it, even when it is personally harmful to me, because it
provides one absolutely excellent benefit—it allows me to love and respect myself. To live, but lose that sense of self, artificial as it may be, would be worse than dying. So apparently “good” behavior on my part is ACTUALLY rooted in my love of myself.
I gave an example too, and I gave no evidence either, but I don’t think anyone is afraid.
Hires
You and others in this forum are conducting a dialog that I have noticed because of its ever-increasing length. I have not made any posts because I didn’t feel that I had any thing to add. (My interests tend to be the hard sciences, a bit of engineering, and what little of the underlying mathematics that I can understand.) However, something in your 21 October post caught my eye and I would like to make a comment.
nowiser,
I believe that you seem to have missed the example of dying for your children. Please re-read that section of my last post and tell me what you think.
And although you said that you were ‘out’ earlier. But something tells me you be back ‘in’ this time.
Vern R,
Thanks for your post. I will definately look into Dawkins.
No, I didn’t “miss” that example, I just thought it was pretty obvious in association with all the other examples.
Sustaining harm to oneself in order to protect one’s personal sense of self is not necessarily “selfless.” Of course there is a “gain” to me if I save my children, but die in the process. I benefit, because my children live. My own death is inevitable—I cannot escape it. A little more time might be NICE, but it is not the most important thing in my life. See my remarks about how there are offenses to one’s sense of self, or psyche, that are “worse” than death, or would make life unbearable. If I could live with the knowledge that I let my children die, rather than sacrificing myself, I might very well do so. My rational self would certainly do so.
The other possibility of course is that while my “rational” self might say, “burn all the kids you want, I’ll make more,” people often operate on the basis of emotion or instinct. This is not speculation, this is fact. You could, of course, point to that and say “See! It’s irrational, it must be caused by the “Force. The Natural Law is moving you to do ‘good’ despite your inherent human selfishness”
However, your “Natural Law” is not the sole possible explanation for the phenomena that you describe. Even if an act does not benefit me AT ALL on a personal level, it is still quite possible that I might engage in it because of the social conditioning that I have been subjected to. People embrace self destructive religious tenets all the time. Or I might engage in a self destructive behavior because of genetically determined levels of empathy that serve not ME as an individual, but the species as a whole.
But this is already CLEAR, and you could have easily arrived at these conclusions from my previous posts, if you had bothered to seriously subject your own assertions to the framework that I had laid out.
I will not continue to refute every little example that you provide. It’s pointless. If you can’t see that your invisible “Natural Law” is only one POSSIBLE explanation for the described phenomena (and an explanation on the level of the Leprechaun, since it is untestable and unfalsifiable) then that is a personal issue that you have with the very principles upon which logical and scientific discourse are based.
As for additional evidence that there might be genetic/biological/evolutionary forces that combine to create love, empathy, goodness, etc.
DO A FREAKIN GOOGLE SEARCH!
http://www.altruisticlove.org/docs/hurlbut.html
(Don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting the program of these guys, they sound like freakin Nazis to me. But the question for them isn’t WHETHER there’s a biological basis for these characteristics, it’s whether or not we should start trying to “guide” this biology for the “betterment” of mankind through various medical technologies.)
The point is, given the possibility of biological explanations for behavior, or an invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable “force,” I’ll go with the biological.
Not the Leprechaun, the wind.
P.S. Before you suggest that I “missed” something and that I need to “re-read” your stunningly brilliant arguments, do me the courtesy of at least entertaining the possibilities I have laid out. SHOW me the LEPRECHAUN!
Actually, to bring this entertaining thread full circle, fundamentalist belief does have a lot to do with the Matrix.
First, the viewpoint from the outside: to believe in the movie at all requires a suspension of disbelief (a leap of faith). The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is violated here: raising animals consumes energy, it doesn’t give you energy. The machines would have had to feed the humans more than they would get back. Fundamentalists are fond of brandishing this law as a proof of the impossibility of the evolution of order from disorder, whereas all that it shows is that for order to develop, it must extract energy from the environment.
Second, now from inside the film: living in the Matrix is like being a fundamentalist: thinking that what you perceive and believe in is the real world, and not wanting to hear or see otherwise. Being an atheist is like being unplugged from the Matrix, although I must say the food is often better here.
Third, the world of the Matrix, and the world of belief, are defended and furthered by a complex interaction of evolved structures (the memeplex for faith, the Machine world) and the humans who believe (in God or the Matrix).
Of course, we all live in our own self-made matrices, atheists no less than believers, but (at least I like to think, not wanting to burn in hell any more than the next guy) atheists at least dimly perceive the walls of their preconceptions. And we have more fun.
Sorry for impishly resucitating a dead thread. The Leprechauns made me do it…