Best viewed with Apple Safari or Mozilla Firefox
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Talk |
To do |
Interests |
Research |
Contribs |
I,Robot | |
|
| ||||||
|
Feel free to leave me a message | ||||||
The Enlightenment page edit
This is my Enlightenment page, and I think it requires a bit of explanation. Three years or so ago, when I joined Wikipedia, I was a die-hard Christian and had some serious and (admittedly) pointed questions about the essence of life. Of course I thought the very nature of the questions 'proved' the existence of the supernatural. Since then, I have come to realize that there is essentially no reason to believe in a god, and that my questions from before were flawed. My exchanges with Go for it! are self explanatory, as are his answers. I now feel I have moved to deeper, more meaningful questions about the nature of things. Most of my newer questions will probably involve lingustics, semiotics, and poststructuralism.
Feel free to add your thoughts to the top.
Randomness from Pro Grape - Winter 2006 edit
PG: Who besides me drinks Gerolsteiner water?
EA: I'm confused.
Enlightenment from Viva La Vie Boheme! - Spring 2006 edit
What is the meaning of life? And what does that question mean?
VLVB: 42, it is a code for -42 + 84.
Where is the line between life and non-life?
VLVB: The line is compromised of a mucus that blocks your lungs.
Where does choice come from?
VLVB: The choice factory.
Why is life proactive, as opposed to nonlife, which simply obeys the laws of physics, without using energy to—say—defy gravity?
VLVB: 14 bananas.
Can emotion be programmed?
VLVB: Of course, God programmed us.
Where do we feel?
VLVB: Wherever we aren't numb.
Why does art move us?
VLVB: It's magic. ;)
What makes us want to be better, to have purpose?
VLVB: Failure.
Enlightenment from Go for it! - Fall 2005 edit
What is the meaning of life? And what does that question mean?
GFI: I've answered both questions in the article.
Where is the line between life and non-life?
GFI: Between prions and non-living proteins.
Where does choice come from?
GFI: Choice, as a situational factor, comes from the existence of alternatives. The power to choose comes from emotional drives. The capacity to choose comes from intelligence. Eligibility to choose comes from preparedness (intelligence applied over time).
Why is life proactive, as opposed to nonlife, which simply obeys the laws of physics, without using energy to—say—defy gravity?
GFI: Because it has to be, to fit the definition of life. What makes life proactive? Protein programs. That is, DNA. What keeps life proactive? Natural selection. Generally, those life forms that cease to be proactive, cease to be life forms.
EA: How does DNA bring about the causation of events? Isn't it just a static compound that sometimes condenses to be moved around? Maybe I'm trying to ask: How does the nucleus function as the 'brain' of the cell? If it is only in response to external chemical and electrical stimuli, then why aren't our actions predictable? And where, then, is choice? I'm genuinely curious.
GFI: DNA is structured in such a way that it causes amino acids which collide into it to fall into place and restructure, before they escape again.
And human behavior is predictable, relatively speaking. Though predictability depends as much upon the would-be predicter's ability to predict. Our ability to predict breaks down at the sub-atomic (quantum) level, because we can't readily detect particles (let alone the events between them) of that size. It also breaks down at the macro level, for we cannot track the enormous quantity of atoms in the air, for instance. So, the butterfly effect eludes us. We can't even predict the outcome of rolling dice, so why should we expect to be able to predict human actions with 100% accuracy?
Choice is an act of intelligence (though not necessarily an intelligent act - hehe). And intelligence is relatively easy to locate: inside the skull. Science has not yet even worked out what consciousness is let alone intelligence, nor do we know precisely where it resides within the brain's tissues. But that it resides in the brain's tissues we can be fairly certain (see prefrontal lobotomy).
EA: What I'm saying is, why can't we predict, say, where a single-celled microbe will go when external stimuli in both directions are the same? In one theoretical universe, he could go "left", and in another, he could go "right". Of course there are other possibilities. Where is it that he "chooses" to go in one direction when the stimuli are the same?
EA: And as to the idea that natural selection keeps life proactive: You're saying the abstract idea of 'proactivity' is inherited/selected for?
GFI: Proactivity has a number of effects which improve chances of survival. For single-celled microbes, proactivity would most likely come in the form of movement. Movement could bring the organism to new food supplies, and thus improve its chances of survival (and selection). Higher-order organisms which are proactive may build tools, store resources, exercise, etc. Proactivity exposes a person to new situations which provide learning opportunities and increase experience, a definite survival factor. The Transhumanist (aka Go for it!) 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
EA: I'm actually in microbiology now, and my views have changed significantly since the last time I responded to you. You're absolutely correct on this point.
Can emotion be programmed?
GFI: Emotion is a program. All life is. (See above).
Can emotion be purposely programmed? Emotional control can be learned, which is a form of programming. The instant you purposely emote, you've created and implemented an emotional program. But if the program doesn't stick, then (relative to that program) you aren't programmed. Emoting can be practiced, and when rehearsed enough times becomes habit, and habits are programs. So the answer to your question is "yes".
EA: How does the fact that we can control our emotion prove it's programmable? I'm speaking of true emotion, that which may not be expressed but is definitely felt. I wouldn't say that 'purposefully emoting' is true emotion, would you? Doesn't that defeat the definition of emotion as opposed to knowledge and action? Where does emotion come from? How can it be purely natural and programmable?
GFI: In answer to question #1: I wasn't trying to prove anything, just making an observation. Answer #2: it's like "the acquired taste". If you eat enough of a food you hate, you eventually get used to it. Eat enough of it, and you may even begin to like it. It's similar with forced emotions. How long can you purposely smile without feeling good? Is not emotion evoked by your own smile true emotion? If smiling makes you feel good, and you can program smiling (by making it a habit), then by extension you've programmed yourself to feel good. Answer #3: But what is the definition of emotion? What is its nature? It comes preprogrammed (called instinct). Yet, due to the complexity of our brains, we can override that programming. That doesn't defeat the definition, but merely refines it. Answer #4: emotion is generated by both the brain and body. See the feedback loop issue, below. #5: being natural doesn't preclude programmability. In fact, children are highly suseptible to programming because copying others (especially their parents) is an instinct. This is a learning mechanism and survival trait. So let me bounce a question back at you: can you learn anything without acquiring a program, assuming you remember what you've learned?
EA: I wouldn't say smiling makes you feel good, at least not in my experience. It goes the other way around. As to your question, I still disagree emotions are 'learned'. (Surely you've experienced raw, unplanned emotion?) Hormones are involved in emotions, no?, and those are certainly genetic and not learned. (That said, I think there's something more in us, something beyond just hormones, that actually 'feels'.)
Where do we feel?
GFI: We feel within a feedback loop between (and including both) brain and body. The feedback loop resides in the CNS.
EA: And how do we come to know that?
GFI: I used to think feeling was entirely in the brain. But then you notice an angry growling dog rushing towards you. Quite startled, your adrenal gland starts pumping, and escalates your "start" to full-blown fear or anger (the fight-flight response). A bona-fide example of a feedback loop. Your perception triggered your adrenal gland, and your adrenal gland in turn triggered more emotion.
Why does art move us?
GFI: Associative and accidental neuronal stimulation, either conscious or subconscious.
EA: To me, this seems like an extremely pessimistic view on life. That's not my proof that it's wrong—this is only an exploration of what people think, and not a forum for debate—but it just seems a shame to me.
GFI: What's pessimistic about it? Cake moves us because it's sweet. We can thank evolution for our wonderful tastebuds, without which we couldn't truly enjoy cake. But I missed something in my answer above: to the extent that the artist intends to invoke a particular emotional response from his audience (and can repeatedly do so), he exhibits skill. Therefore, the impact of his art isn't accidental, it's the instrument being played (the audience) which is the accident.
EA: I wouldn't say cake moves us like art does—and I'm not even talking degree, but in terms of modes. I've never been able to 'truly enjoy' anything tasted. As to the artist analogy, one observation: The artist's "skill" does not necessarily correspond to the amount by which the audience is moved. Many a time has the audience learned more about life/become enlightened from an artist's work by analyzing beyond what he wanted to convey to them. So I would say the impact of his art is accidental, at times. And what exactly is this "impact"? I'm not sure I understand that in terms of your naturalistic worldview.
GFI: That depends on the cake, and the cook who made it. Cooking is every bit as much an art as any other art. If you haven't truly enjoyed a meal, that is, reached culinary ecstacy, then you need to get out more.
EA: I've actually come to agree with a lot of what you have to say, at least in part. And I am definitely a proponent of food as a form of art, something that I never would have agreed to a couple of years ago.
What makes us want to be better, to have purpose?
GFI: Not everyone wants that. Is being a couch potato having purpose? Again, natural selection and the proactivity of life. If we didn't have purpose, we wouldn't survive. Because complex organisms like humans require a great deal to survive, the provision of which can only be acquired through purpose. It's an intrinsic drive.
EA: I think those who think most about existence, reality, etc., want a purpose. I have never met a person that didn't want to achieve a single thing. Even the most unmotivated of people wants something, senses a need for something greater. I think it would be interesting to speak with someone who truly shunned any purpose, meaning, or proactive views.
GFI: Not that interesting. Sufferers of chronic apathy syndrome fit that discription fairly closely. They're downright depressing.
EA: As to your idea that 'if we didn't have purpose, we wouldn't survive': This seems to be circular reasoning.
GFI: It's a cause-effect relationship: evolution → purpose → increased chance of survival. No circular reasoning there. Just an educated guess.
EA: How does purpose increase the chance of survival? And how do animals 'know' their purpose? And if they don't know, what difference would 'purpose' make, because isn't it just one's idea of purpose that would change his chance of survival? Further, do you really think purpose an inherited trait?
GFI: Purpose underlies proactivity, which I covered above. Purpose gets things done. To the extent that those things done improve chances of survival, purpose gets credit for it. In a species, the more varied the purposes of the individuals, the greater the chances of some of them surviving. Animals know their purposes because their bodies tell them. Hunger, a form of pain, drives them to eat, for instance.