Rules of Existence

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Discovery fatigue...

I empathize...

Does this come from watching too much cable TV?

(groan...)

Michael

[Xray]

What I mean is that we want objective goals; we want to know that we are doing the right thing. We like to play games because there are clear rules, and objective goals.

But how can we find out if our goals are "the right thing"?

[Dglgmut]

That's what I mean... When we realize that it's our responsibility to maintain our lives we accept a set of objective goals--those necessary to take care of ourselves as best as we can.

I'm not saying that this is all we need to properly pursue happiness, and this is actually part of the bigger problem: self-identification.

Most people are dualists... right there they've eliminated any objective goals. They can have goals that involve reality, but the expected result may be something mystical that they'll never experience.

And the toll is psychological: people often don't know what they're doing (autopilot).

[Dglgmut]

Discovery fatigue...

I empathize...

Does this come from watching too much cable TV?

(groan...)

Michael

Just clarifying: I was dubbing what Michael was talking about "discovery fatigue", as in: tired of learning, and therefore done with questioning.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Noooooo!

Not "discovery fatigue."

"Discovery fatigue," like in the Discovery channel. Capital "D."

Dayaamm!

Can't a dude even make a groaner without having to explain it?

Michael

[Dglgmut]

Explaining it makes it groanerier. You should be happy.

[Dglgmut]

Necessity = Dependency...

Even when we're independent we're still dependent. We rely on our bodies' automatic functions, our environment for food, water, and heat, and other people for a level of life quality only achievable through specialization and trade... For these things we owe blind luck...

We have control over some aspects of our lives, but it's important never to feel ungrateful for what we've gotten for free. I believe this is the "benevolent universe" that Rand's heroes saw... Their independence revolved around maintaining that which they received for free; treating their minds and bodies as gifts.

Rationality is normative proportionality: not over or under-reacting to any situation in proper relation to other situations. Rationality is a consequence of being honestly.

To deny how dependent we actually are is to deny how lucky we actually are. Wanting to be independent is moral, but that does not entail pretending to be independent in areas that we are not.

[Mikee]

Necessity = Dependency...

Even when we're independent we're still dependent. We rely on our bodies' automatic functions, our environment for food, water, and heat, and other people for a level of life quality only achievable through specialization and trade... For these things we owe blind luck...

We have control over some aspects of our lives, but it's important never to feel ungrateful for what we've gotten for free. I believe this is the "benevolent universe" that Rand's heroes saw... Their independence revolved around maintaining that which they received for free; treating their minds and bodies as gifts.

Rationality is normative proportionality: not over or under-reacting to any situation in proper relation to other situations. Rationality is a consequence of being honestly.

To deny how dependent we actually are is to deny how lucky we actually are. Wanting to be independent is moral, but that does not entail pretending to be independent in areas that we are not.

Much of what you say resonates with me. My understanding of "benevolent universe" differs. To me it means the universe is not arbitrary. It's complicated, hard to know the rules, but they are consistent. The universe is not "out to get you", if you know the rules and act rationally you can thrive. I am grateful for the complexity and beauty of nature, I am filled with wonder and awe and curiosity. I am grateful for our ancestors for their constant search for knowledge and passing it down the generations which made our civilization possible. Our language, our technology, our scientific knowledge, our culture, these are gifts from those generations that came before. We take most of it for granted, as trivial. I was amazed at an article I read recently about the history of the bow. It took two million years for man to develop the technical skill to make a bow. 2nd article.

[BaalChatzaf]

. Our language, our technology, our scientific knowledge, our culture, these are gifts from those generations that came before. We take most of it for granted, as trivial. I was amazed at an article I read recently about the history of the bow. It took two million years for man to develop the technical skill to make a bow. 2nd article.

Our kind of human, homo sapien has been around for only 250,000 years. Our predecessors (with the possible exception of Neanderthal) were not as bright as we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

The point of this topic was that we want rules.

Everything one wants has its roots in a need. So what could be the need that lies at the root of wanting rules? Imo it is the need for security.

Morality is our way of saying, "Okay, I'll play."

But if our personal morality diverges from the morality of the system we happen to live in, we don't say "Okay, I'll play"; for example, we may protest against the reigning moral code, openly defying it.

The (often quite dramatic) change of moral values in the course of history usually started because people did not accept them anymore.

Imo "Do moral absolutes exist?" is one of the toughest questions in ethics.

[Dglgmut]

Everything one wants has its roots in a need.

I guess this is generally true. Good point.

But if our personal morality diverges from the morality of the system we happen to live in, we don't say "Okay, I'll play"; for example, we may protest against the reigning moral code, openly defying it.

The (often quite dramatic) change of moral values in the course of history usually started because people did not accept them anymore.

Imo "Do moral absolutes exist?" is one of the toughest questions in ethics.

I think you're giving a different meaning to morality. Moral absolutes have to exist, or else there is no such thing as morality. Is there any course of action that is right for human beings? Of course there is.

"Okay, I'll play," is not a response to society's moral code (or lack thereof), it is an agreement to participate in the game of life by the rules of existence. It's accepting that, "I'm a human being, and there are certain things I should or shouldn't do." Many people don't accept this; they don't identify themselves because they think it's impossible to do so, or because they don't want to. There is not "should" or "shouldn't" for them.

[anthony]

There won't be a common moral system as long as different people have diverging views

of reality.

[Mikee]

Reality ultimately enforces it's own rules. You can only live well to best of your own understanding.

[anthony]

Reality ultimately enforces it's own rules. You can only live well to best of your own understanding.

Yes, one does. However, I'm not so sure everyone does, or assumes the self-responsibility and personal authority to do so: and isn't that what this is about? Entire generations have 'survived' by semi-attachment to reality, and the efforts of those who commit themselves to reality.

Either Religion or Statism, each comes with a 'support structure' of sorts which rewards and encourages avoidance of reality.

[Peter]

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

Our predecessors (with the possible exception of Neanderthal) were not as bright as we are.

end quote

Neanderthals were always more primitive compared to humans, but they were not brutish. Several skulls have been found that had been bashed in by another Neanderthal. Simply by studying causes of death and injury we know their brutality was a fraction of what we see with homo sapiens. I read about a Neanderthal boy with spina bifeda who was cared for by his family, until he died. Stories like that abound.

There was no change in Neanderthal’s tool making ability for 250,000 years. Only after they copied “our” innovations did they learn anything new. A study of their vocal cords suggests their speech may have been musical to our ears. They produced music, art, and told stories. Yet if they survived until today, they would always be living in “lesser” conditions. Always, because it would be their nature.

Were they stupid? Every study has estimated a 60 median IQ, which means there were some with a 40 and some with an 80, but genius level IQ may have been next to zero. Close proximity to “our” civilization could have produced a “Flynn Affect.” That is when a lower IQ group is in close proximity to a group with a higher IQ and eventually their intelligence levels are raised over one generation or so, sort of like the gentile in New York City who is born surrounded by more intelligent European Jews. But Neanderthals were not anywhere near homo sapiens, even after we met up with them.

In our art we humans have a constant craving for a "higher orders" of humans. Heroes. Superheroes. Alphas. Computer enhanced humans. Perhaps we were like superheroes to Neanderthals. Eventually, inevitably we will change, if we don't kill off our species.

Peter

[Mikee]

Reality ultimately enforces it's own rules. You can only live well to best of your own understanding.

Yes, one does. However, I'm not so sure everyone does, or assumes the self-responsibility and personal authority to do so: and isn't that what this is about? Entire generations have 'survived' by semi-attachment to reality, and the efforts of those who commit themselves to reality.

Either Religion or Statism, each comes with a 'support structure' of sorts which rewards and encourages avoidance of reality.

The are millions of species, each with it's own "skill set" and strategy for survival. Most animals lack self awareness, happiness = survival. Man is self aware (in varying degrees) and future aware and therefor has the capacity for worrying. For man, happiness = survival and peace of mind. I think "knowing too much" is a condition many people avoid because it might cause them to worry excessively and remove any possibility of peace of mind or happiness. Thus, willful ignorance.

[jts]

Our kind of human, homo sapien has been around for only 250,000 years. Our predecessors (with the possible exception of Neanderthal) were not as bright as we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Cro Magnons seemed to be fully human and probably more intelligent than the Neanderthals. Bigger brain case, better tools. Were Neanderthals human ancestors? Perhaps humans are Cro Magnons. When I see pictures of Cro Magnons , they look fully human to me.

[BaalChatzaf]

Our kind of human, homo sapien has been around for only 250,000 years. Our predecessors (with the possible exception of Neanderthal) were not as bright as we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Cro Magnons seemed to be fully human and probably more intelligent than the Neanderthals. Bigger brain case, better tools. Were Neanderthals human ancestors? Perhaps humans are Cro Magnons. When I see pictures of Cro Magnons , they look fully human to me.

We are the Cro-Mags perhaps with a few more mutations added.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[blackhorse]

I think that early man was a much more physically able being ( better resistance to disease, more muscular, more acute vision, etc) , and here's why I think that; what happens when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy........well, it's never as good as the original, in other words, you get modern man. If only his mind could have been on par with his physical prowess!

[Mikee]

I think that early man was a much more physically able being ( better resistance to disease, more muscular, more acute vision, etc) , and here's why I think that; what happens when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy........well, it's never as good as the original, in other words, you get modern man. If only his mind could have been on par with his physical prowess!

That's an odd view of evolution.