>From owner-virus@lucifer.com Sun Jun 28 15:04:38
1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA19084
> for virus-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:00:36
-0600
>X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com:
majordom set sender to owner-virus@lucifer.com using
-f
>Message-Id:
<3.0.3.32.19980628144320.007dcbd0@CS347838-A.gvcl1.b
c.wave.home.com>
>X-Sender: Dan Plante
<danp@CS347838-A.gvcl1.bc.wave.home.com>
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3
(32)
>Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 14:43:20 -0700
>To: virus@lucifer.com
>From: Dan Plante
<danp@CS347838-A.gvcl1.bc.wave.home.com>
>Subject: Re: virus: Spirituality?
>In-Reply-To: <35958DFE.C8A4917@qlink.queensu.ca>
>References:
<Pine.SUN.3.96.980625203550.4321B-100000@eve.speakea
sy.org>
>
<3.0.3.32.19980626133918.00877c20@CS347838-A.gvcl1.b
c.wave.home.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>
>
>At 08:27 PM 6/27/98 -0400, Eric Boyd wrote:
>>
>>Dan Plante
<danp@CS347838-A.gvcl1.bc.wave.home.com> asks:
>>> Does the existence of the universe matter? Why?
>>> What if there were no humans (or /any/
self-aware entities) in it.
>>> Would it still matter? Why?
>>
>>The existence of the universe matters TO ME.
>
> This sentence both misses my point, and
underscores it at
>the same time. The questions I posted above were
rhetorical, of
>course. I made the point earlier in the post that I
had covered
>this philosophical ground many times before, and
the quotation
>"Man is the measure of all things" was intended
both to indicate
>my opinion on the subject, and to attempt to draw
criticism to
>that assertion. I was expecting to make this point
by drawing
>attention to the conceptual inconsistencies in the
refutations.
>
>>I suspect it matters to you
>>as well. As to whether or not it would matter if
no one was around for it
>>to matter to... doesn't the question unask itself?
>
> Does it? (a leading question this time, not a
rhetorical one).
>I know /I/ understand that to be so, and I know
/you/ do, but does
>the GUM (Great Unwashed Masses) see it that way?
For the most part,
>no, they don't. Using an extreme example to clarify
a point: there
>are some radical environmentalist groups made up of
zealots that
>characterize humanity as an infection and an
abomination; a blight
>on nature that should be eradicated to save nature.
The wellspring
>of this ideology is the (probably rather vague)
notion on their
>part that nature (i.e. all things in the universe
/except/ humanity)
>is imbued with its own /intrinsic/ import,
independent of, and
>transcendent over, the reflections of humanity.
>
> Granted, this is an extreme case, but if you
descend the ideological
>food chain from anti-humanist martyr, through
tree-hugging humanist,
>to the average Joe who would profess no
predilection to religion /or/
>environmentalism, and ask him if he thought the
existence of the
>universe would matter if there were no people
around, more often
>than not, the knee-jerk answer would be: "Well, of
course!".
>
> Why should this "feeling" be so widespread, and
cross such disparate
>ideological boundaries? The answer was given
before, I believe, but
>it bears repeating: this fuzzy kind of spiritual
interpretation of
>"all that is", is the result of a vague emotional
response to the
>realization that they don't know /why/ the universe
exists.
>
> Curiosity, as a common expressed behavior of our
species, exists
>because it affords a significant survival benefit.
I would further
>qualify this by saying that it has evolved to
manifest more strongly
>when the subject of curiosity is acknowledged to
have a significant
>perceived probability of affecting the minutiae of
our every day
>lives, again, for obvious evolutionary reasons.
>
> Before I go on (and I will be making a point
eventually, please
>bear with me), I should make something clear about
curiosity and
>the basic interrogatives "who, what, when, where,
how and why". It
>is my contention (after much observation of human
behavior,
>including my own, but especially that of children,
as well as a
>broad cross-disciplinary survey of the
peer-reviewed literature)
>that the ultimate "goal" of curiosity is not
ultimately to answer the
>first five interrogatives, but the last one: "why".
The dynamics
>of the /process/ of human understanding consists of
being able
>to gather enough information (using who, what,
when, where and how)
>to be _able_to_frame_ the congealing, underlying
question: "why?".
>For the most part, the first five interrogators
(who, what, when, where
>and how) are a necessary first step, and builds
/knowledge/ about the
>subject of interest in preparation for
understanding "why".
>
> Then, only after the question of "why" has been
answered, is
>/understanding/ achieved. The mind's intelligence
component
>(i.e. cortex) recognizes understanding has taken
place by
>being able to use its existing knowledge and sets
of associations
>to further synthesize an /internally consistent set
of associations/
>that /model/ the subject of the mind's curiosity.
This doesn't happen
>until enough facts are gathered (who, what, when,
where and how),
>the facts are put in context (why), and
inconsistencies in that
>resulting framework are resolved (answering the
question "why?").
>You probably know this phenomenon better as
"everything falls into
>place", and the feeling of relief and satisfaction
(sometimes even
>euphoria) that follows it. This is the mind's
emotion component
>(i.e. limbic system) rewarding the mind for
signaling understanding
>by giving it endorphins and stopping the release of
stressors.
>
> And there's the rub. The stressors. Remember when
you were
>trying to learn something, but you just couldn't
seem to "get
>your head around it", so to speak? First you were
annoyed. Then
>you became irritated. After a while, frustration
sets in. You
>want to pull your hair out. That's the stressors
(and the lack
>of endorphins). It's your limbic system saying to
the cortex:
>"I detect there's something you don't understand. I
don't know
>what it is, but it /could/ be detrimental to my
survival.
>So, you're going to think about it until you /do/
understand.
>And just to make sure you /do/ think about it, I'm
going to
>take away your fix of dopamine, and pump you full
of stress
>inducing chemicals. The longer you take to figure
it out, the
>greater the cumulative negative effect, so you
might as well
>do it now."
>
> The "so you might as well do it now" part
represents the
>point of dynamic equilibrium in the natural tension
between
>intelligence and emotion that evolution decided
upon. This
>meta-stable set-point manifests itself as the
expressed
>behavior called "curiosity".
>
> Answers to the first five interrogators provides
knowledge that
>allows one to understand the dynamics of a
/particular/ event,
>but until the question of /why/ is answered, there
is no
>/understanding/. Understanding is necessary in
order to
>/predict/ the dynamic of similar events, and
therefore to
>synthesize a new set of behaviours that will
maximize
>survival. That is the environmental dynamic that
selected out
>the mutation(s) that ultimately manifested the
interplay
>between emotion and intelligence from which
"curiosity" arose.
>
> As soon as the cortex signals understanding (i.e.
the question
>"why" has been answered satisfactorily), new
questions arise
>through the new "world-view" hosted by the
intelligence component
>of the mind, as well as new data gathered through
experience.
>This, obviously, is a steady-state process. There
is no conclusion
>(except for death). You are either in a mind state
where
>unanswered questions are bugging you, or you're
answering them
>and formulating new ones.
>
> The point is (finally), you will always get to a
stage where
>you can't get answers to your questions. They will
continue
>to gnaw at you, holding back dope and releasing
stressors.
>This is not a good thing, in terms of survival.
Stress can
>lower the body's immune system to the point where
simple
>infections can kill. It can even kill the host
outright.
>
> Fortunately, evolution has evolved a way out of
this
>potentially damaging state of stress by making it
possible
>for the cortex to manufacture "knowledge" that
makes
>everything fit, releasing endorphins and curtailing
the
>flow of stress-inducing chemicals. The manufacture
of
>knowledge is called "faith". It's a built-in
survival
>mechanism for those individuals (i.e. most people)
whose
>genetic, congenital and environmentally-modified
balance
>of intelligence, emotional disposition, etc,
produces
>low "knowledge-synthesis" ability, high stress
reaction,
>or both.
>
> So in essence, individuals who tend to experience
>higher levels of anxiety over unanswered questions,
and also
>have a lower pattern-recognition and associative
ability
>(allowing "flawed" or "incomplete" answers to
scrape by as
>"understanding") will be inherently more stable
emotionally,
>and will exhibit greater affinity to articles of
faith and
>spirituality.
>
> As the explanatory ability of religion has waned
due to
>the culturally pervasive onslaught of both the
ontology
>and results of science, more and more people have
been
>denied the easy-out of manufactured knowledge.
Refutations
>are constantly being shoved in these peoples'
faces. So
>the vague, idling undercurrent of "dissatisfaction"
>(increase in stressors, decrease in endorphins)
bothers them.
>But the "manufactured knowledge" of established
religions
>won't work well for them any more. To be at peace,
they
>have to manufacture a new set of "knowledge", one
that
>is compatible with (is not as easily refuted by)
the
>current scientific paradigm.
>
> In today's culture, this drive has manifested
itself
>as a "projection of transcendent meaning" on the
natural
>world itself (i.e. the universe /excluding/ the
source
>of ontological science: humanity). As you can guess
by
>the vague, subtle and highly abstract nature of
this meme-
>complex, most people are unaware that they have
been
>infected by it, subtly changing the color of all
they
>perceive. It is from this subtle but profound shift
in
>world-view that cultural constructs such as the
animal-
>rights lobby, and environmental sub-culture springs
>from.
>
> Therefore, because evolution developed curiosity
to
>keep us from going "from the frying pan into the
fire"
>in our immediate environment, most people end up
>needing a "God" to quell the "nagging issues" in
their
>heads, and feel at peace (i.e. to stop the bad
drugs
>and get the good drugs).
>
>>Meaning is the attitude that we *bring* to the
event or object. An
>>interesting question for your consideration: what
can we include in the
>>"we" of the previous sentence? Does a rabbit
bring meaning to the objects
>>around it? Does a computer program bring meaning
to the hardware it runs
>>on? Does a selfish gene bring meaning to the DNA
substrate it resides
>>upon? Does a meme bring meaning to a collection
of replicating ideas?
>
> Unless an entity has the three necessary
prerequisites to form a
>self-aware mind, even the term "meaning" won't have
any meaning.
>
>>Whether the universe in general "matters" is a
question which can only be
>>answered after one decides what objects should be
granted *intentionality*.
>
> Whether or not objects should even be granted
intentionality /at all/,
>is decided by your own inherent intellectual,
emotional, and memetic
>makeup. I acknowledge that you and I can't do that,
but most people can.
>
>>As an interesting note, once one has postulated an
intentional god
>>overseeing the universe, then "God's Plan" --
whereby god charges every
>>event in the universe with a divine meaning -- is
a direct consequence.
>
> People can inscribe meaning to any and every
object in the universe,
>but they don't need any specific mechanism (a God)
to do it. If they
>really, really /need/ to do it, they'll find a way
(or pull their hair
>out trying to avoid it).
>
>From one hair-puller to another,
>
>Dan
>
>
B. Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
Bio: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
See who's chatting about this topic:
http://www.talkcity.com/chat.cgi?room=MindRec
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com