[Scott Bakker]

I had originally asked Gary if he would host this thread because I was worried that having this debate here might produce a 'deference effect' - but then I glanced down at my black and blue balls and realized I likely had nothing to worry about!

I'm in the midst of tying off loose ends with The Thousandfold Thought and dusting off my draft manuscript Neuropath, which I like to describe as a 'near future psychothriller.' The M.O. for this book is the same as that for PoN: to explore the form of the genre by embracing it. The idea is to write a tale that's as philosophically troubling as it is psychologically terrifying.

My problem (as many of you might have already guessed) is that I've been institutionalized. After years of studying philosophy I pretty much have no idea how noninstitutionalized folk will respond to the arguments and concepts I will be presenting in this book. So I was hoping I could solicit responses - of any variety - as a way of maximizing their impact. The most I can offer in return is infuriating stubborness, relentless condescension, mockery, and gushing thanks in the book's acknowledgements. :D

We have two general ways of understanding phenomena: by reference to their causes, by learning 'what makes them tick,' or by reference to their reasons, by learning their point or purpose. Nowadays we generally draw a divide between these two explanatory modes: thanks to science, we understand the world in terms of causes, whereas we typically understand one another by reference to reasons. But it wasn't always such. Not so long ago, we understood the world in terms of reasons and purposes as well. For centuries science has been substituting our traditional intentional (reason-based) understanding of the world for it's functional (cause-based) understanding, and to good effect, as this computer mediated message attests.

The problem with functional understandings is that they seem out and out antagonistic to intentional understandings. There's no purpose to evolution or plate tectonics or the hydrological cycle or combustion. These are simply causal processes. Things happen in the natural world not because they conform to the desires or wishes of any unseen agency, but because of what caused them to happen. (This is why science is central to the possibility of fantasy: what makes magic 'fantastic' is its impossibility given science's fucntional worldview).

As a result of science's successes, intentionality became subjectified: meaning, purpose, and morality, it was thought, where phenomena belonging to that special corner of the natural world we call humanity. We became the meaning makers, and so long as we remained too complex for science to functionally unravel, there existed a truce of sorts. The world may be bereft of purpose, but we humans were not. All of us have seen this truce played out in innumerable ways in innumerable narratives: the protagonist struggling to find meaning in an apparently meaningless world (and typically finding that meaning in some sentimentalized notion of romantic love).

That truce has been broken.

With modern neuroscience we are finally unravelling the human functional puzzle, and surprise-surprise, intentional phenomena like meaning, purpose, and morality are starting to seem as ephemeral in us as they were in the rest of the natural world. We are in the process of being 'disenchanted.'

It seems that we don't exist.

[saintjon]

Even if all I am is a bunch of switches and reflexes it sure as hell feels to me that I have intentions and morals and choices, so even if someone told me with absolute authority and irrefutable proof that my free will doesn't really exist I don't think I'd let it get to me very much. That only goes so far as no one trying to control me with it though, which is part of why I don't like Kellhus, I'm terrified of ever meeting anyone who could play me like that.

It seems to me that something that exists as a delusion like self-cleaning ovens or early retirement still exists, if only in the minds of the deluded. I'd like to learn more about that memes thing you talk about I think.

[Dawnstorm]

With modern neuroscience we are finally unravelling the human functional puzzle, and surprise-surprise, intentional phenomena like meaning, purpose, and morality are starting to seem as ephemeral in us as they were in the rest of the natural world. We are in the process of being 'disenchanted.'

I still fail to be shocked or frightened by this. We're part of this world, aren't we? I never thught of humanity as "a special corner in the natural world". But, then, as a teenager, I based my philosophy on Pacman...

[saintjon]

Pac-man's like the ultimate consumer isn't he? consume all you can while fleeing the monsters until you consume something that will allow you to CONSUME THEM AS WELL!!! :eek:

Say hello to Uncle Pac-Sam :D

[Scott Bakker]

Even if all I am is a bunch of switches and reflexes it sure as hell feels to me that I have intentions and morals and choices, so even if someone told me with absolute authority and irrefutable proof that my free will doesn't really exist I don't think I'd let it get to me very much. That only goes so far as no one trying to control me with it though, which is part of why I don't like Kellhus, I'm terrified of ever meeting anyone who could play me like that.

If human choice is an illusion, and that possibility doesn't bother you, then why should the prospect of 'being controlled' terrify you? If choice is an illusion, then everything you do is 'controlled' anyways, isn't it?

I still fail to be shocked or frightened by this. We're part of this world, aren't we? I never thught of humanity as "a special corner in the natural world". But, then, as a teenager, I based my philosophy on Pacman...

Let me pose the question to you this way: Do you think genocide is wrong period, neither right nor wrong, or simply right or wrong depending on your POV?

[Radone]

It is very possible that many of the aspects of what we feel, such as love, compassion, hate, near-death experiences can certainly be induced or mimicked by controlled external processes. However, the underlying biology of what we're actually doing is far beyond us. We may know that certain parts of the brain are responsible for emotional content, or certain tracts connect auditory/visual cues with previous emotional content. How memory is laid down is being understood in a crude way - we know where certain types of memory are processed. We certainly should be able to configure more potent drug delivery systems, such as agents carried on dedrimer that could be far more specific to the neurotransmitters we wish to activate or block. Nanotechnology will fundamentally change how medicine is practiced as individual tissue specific drugs will become inevitable. This is impressive, but it does not get to the heart of the matter.
Also, my expectations for 'understanding of the functionality' may be a bit different than others. It is not enough for me to know that certain neurotransmitters fired or blocked will cause a certain emotion. I want to know how the body itself regulates those same neurotransmitters. How does the body remodel neuronal connections, not at the gross level, but at the microscopic level? How are neurons reconfigured for love for instance? It can conceivably be possible to induce love with a drug that affects certain neurotransmitters and hormones. But I want more. I want to know what is actually happening at the DNA level, and what proteins are now being produced/not produced. I want to know how the transcription process is affected and what interneuronal connections are made. The enormity of understanding such a process in a way that truly explains it, boggles my mind.
Also, it seems to me that science is poorly equiped to answer the bigger questions. Science has proven unmatched in evaluating and explaining function, but not the reason. So, I will admit that eventually even the process of emotion may be completely understood (not in my lifetime probably), but the 'why' is still going to be a mystery. For me, that is ultimately more important.
But perhaps I am wrong, and science will answer the bigger questions also, in a way that proves that we are all just complex biological machines. All our cherished beliefs will be done for, and I suppose the idea of 'alive' will also be meaningless. What to do then?

[JRMurdock]

If human choice is an illusion, and that possibility doesn't bother you, then why should the prospect of 'being controlled' terrify you? If choice is an illusion, then everything you do is 'controlled' anyways, isn't it?

Do you feel there is no difference between pre-destined and free will?

Pre-destined to me just means there's a grand plan and all the 'choices' I make will fit within the grand schema be it work 40 hours a week for 40 years or being a genociding dictator. That's pre-destined.

'controlled' means I'm a puppet. There is no 'free will' to get to the end by my own means. Everything, every choice, has be made for me.

[Dawnstorm]

If human choice is an illusion, and that possibility doesn't bother you, then why should the prospect of 'being controlled' terrify you? If choice is an illusion, then everything you do is 'controlled' anyways, isn't it?

While that wasn't me saying it, I think we should be precise. It's not 'being controlled' that's terrifying but the illusions associated with being controlled.

Let me pose the question to you this way: Do you think genocide is wrong period, neither right nor wrong, or simply right or wrong depending on your POV?

Actually, I think that without an acute context for reference this is a non-question. It simply doesn't matter if genocide is right or wrong. I'd say, it's "neither wrong nor right" in the sense that the question is irrelevant to me.

Pac-man's like the ultimate consumer isn't he? consume all you can while fleeing the monsters until you consume something that will allow you to CONSUME THEM AS WELL!!!

Say hello to Uncle Pac-Sam

What can I say, I wasn't a very happy kid, and I barely made it through my teenage years... :rolleyes:

You put it quite well (only left out that they're AFTER YOU!!!). :cool:

You'll have to explain Uncle Pac-Sam, though. :confused:

[Hereford Eye]

With modern neuroscience we are finally unravelling the human functional puzzle, and surprise-surprise, intentional phenomena like meaning, purpose, and morality are starting to seem as ephemeral in us as they were in the rest of the natural world. We are in the process of being 'disenchanted.
Can you help me out here, please? Is it your position that identifying the elements of the brain, the neurons, the synapses, the chemicals that excite and/or inhibit brain processes somehow describes the cause of our intentional behavior? Am I understanding you correctly that it is possible to say that if this given synapse closes I will act in a moral way and if it doesn't. I won't? If this is not what you mean, if I am mis-understanding your statement, then what am I missing, please?
It seems that we don't exist.
(a) It is quite possible to take a religious view of this and reply "of course we exist in the mind of God."
(b) We can take DesCartes maxim that "I think, therefore I am." Which is similar to the argument saintjon presented earlier. If I can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?
(c)Until we can demonstrate how we think - which I understand your argument to be: that we now know from neurology how we think - how can we complain about our existence or lack thereof?
If your position turns out to be correct, I still wonder if saintjon's question applies yet again: what difference does it make to us? We will still proceed as if we do exist; we do not seem capable of any other response.
But, as far as I can tell, to answer the question of whether we exist or not, the best we seem to be able to do from a functional POV is to generate is a hypothesis, not even a good theory, just a hypothesis.
Let me pose the question to you this way: Do you think genocide is wrong period, neither right nor wrong, or simply right or wrong depending on your POV?
When asked by a philosopher, this question must carry some particular inference to it that we plebeians may miss. Is there a correct answer or does that depend upon my philosophical school?
The question asks for a moral judgement to be made on a specific action. Moral judgments are made by individuals. So, whatever response is given is judged moral, right, and good by the person responding. Others may not agree with that individual's moral judgments based on their own judgments of the act; but the individual made it.
Unless, of course, the individual did not make it; it was an excess of dopamine and a shortage of epinephrine that caused an inappropriate synapse to fire. Who makes that determination?

[kater]

Can you help me out here, please? Is it your position that identifying the elements of the brain, the neurons, the synapses, the chemicals that excite and/or inhibit brain processes somehow describes the cause of our intentional behavior? Am I understanding you correctly that it is possible to say that if this given synapse closes I will act in a moral way and if it doesn't. I won't? If this is not what you mean, if I am mis-understanding your statement, then what am I missing, please?


On this point, just because you have all the parts laid out in front of you that make up a car, doesn't mean you know how they fit together or the intricacies of how it all works. I think it's dangerous to assume that just because we are beginning to understand, as Radone suggested, all the mechanical processes of human biology doesn't mean we have grasped humanity in our entirety. More than that I would suggest science has only just begun to scratch the surface of what we believe we know, factually, about ourselves.
Also I'm a little lost as to the link between your final statement - 'we don't exist' and the title of the thread 'Your life is meaningless.' I don't really see how the two fit. I exist, maybe the rest of the world is one big blue pill/red pill nightmare, but at the same time my life is meaningless, further I believe all life is meaningless yet this doesn't lead to the position of 'we don't exist'. We do exist we just don't know what we exist for.