(by Dlanorrenrag*)
MORAL ZOMBIES:
For Best Movie Clip, see “here,” at:
http://www.extremewisdom.com/archives/2005/08/best_movie_clip.php
Of Moral Zombies and Moral Potential:
Intuitively, in respect of moral potential of will, Beingness is already availed of Becomingness, and “Is” is already availed of “Ought.”
An empiricist inclined to disregard “will” may prefer that behavior be guided under a non-morally judgmental-conception that will is merely an illusory derivative of physics, as if “stuff just happens.”
However, one may just as well intuit that physics is inferior and merely derivative of an interconnected system of various perspectives of a Will-To-Math.
In either case, one may rationalize a sort of morality (either as a sort of non-moral or secular morality or as a spiritual will to morality).
For the first conception, believing that stuff just happens, one’s sense of moral purpose tends to weigh as a “noble lie.” Indeed, having no choice but to make choices, a secularist who would rationalize why it is reasonable that one choice should be favored over others must defer to (or construct) a noble lie (whose constant companion is cynical deceit, facilitating conceptions of Moral Zombies or Borg). (Sensing a danger of intellectual dishonesty in such a position, it depressed or troubled both John Stuart Mill and Charles Darwin.)
For the second conception, believing that stuff happens in respect of a system of holographically interacting perspectives of Will, one’s sense of moral purpose may less likely be deflated. For it, purpose and meaning may better be appreciated in respect of an empathetically connecting essence of Will-To-Math.
For intuitors of the first conception, “being just is.” For intuitors of the second conception, being carries potential to be good. Regardless, each class of intuitors blesses (and values) others in respect of its own world view. An Objectivist may wish to inquire which world view tends most to devalue life.
2 comments:
From http://www.community.us.mensa.org/forums/p/6040/136861.aspx#136861 :
"God" may be Source of Will, of which each of us is a Perspective, perhaps analogous to layered levels of interacting algorithms, sort of like an ambiguously singular-plural "Elohim." If so, God can detail various tasks to subordinates and autopiloting mathematical operations (aka "nature").
Whether any particularly recorded or sensed event is product of natural chance, choice, or coercion may best be considered in relation to context. Apart from purpose of perspective, I doubt any "event in itself" should be categorized as "really" having been randomly chanced, willfully chosen, or coerced (determined).
It seems counterintuitive that God should be troubled (enslaved?) at all times both to know and to control each and every quantum, nit, bit, and thought. Who could want such a job?
Instead, maybe Will (as in Will-To-Math) is God, of which each of us is a perspective.
If physics is subordinate to math, then our "natural limits" may be only as necessary to sustain our anthropocentric perspectives. :)
Brain-Machine Interface Technology:
See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/science/29brain.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=monkey&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin:
“the monkeys’ brains seem to have adopted the mechanical appendage as their own”
Suppose a human experimenter and assistants design a machine for helping a monkey with no arms feed himself marshmallows with a machine which the monkey controls with his mind, through signals sent through connecting electrodes.
As the monkey is stimulated by seeing the experimenter put a marshmallow in the machine, is the monkey’s choice to send a mental signal to feed himself using the machine random (based on cycles of hunger), chosen (based on wishing to experiment with new powers), determined (based on S-R conditioning imposed by the experimenter), or (in respect of parameters affected by a reporter’s purposes and context) some combination thereof?
May the extent of combining of context meaningful stimulate, effect, and avail a different interpretation of reality in respect of each reporter’s purpose and point of view? Is a different holography of “reality” (with regard to quality of chance, choice, or coercion) presented to each conceptualizing observer?
Post a Comment