In an age of exponential technological growth, where technology is nearly boundless in its application, should there be any limits?
So far as I think the answer is, in short, a complicated no. In order to expand our upon our theories we must exercise our scientific capacities so that certain goals can be established and met within a reasonable framework. However, I think that the harm principal is truly the only restriction upon which to base our collective endeavors. There are those among us who seek the purity of nature in many areas, those who believe that technology holds us captive; that when we destroy the earth from which we are wrought to build and consume that we lose a bit of our humanity. Some may compare reprogeneticism to some project associated with Hitler's attempt to steer the human race to genetic perfection by wiping out people he saw as unfit when diversity seems threatened. I suggest that as long as there is no direct violation of the harm principle that human beings should be allowed to progress within their scientific means into every avenue and application that science may lead us unto.
I'm not here to say that genetic diversity is a bad thing. I'm also not here to say that genetic diversity is an inherently good thing either. Diversity is a the fundamental success of evolution. It represents a natural form of the old proverb that one ought not to put all their eggs in one basket. Without diversity, life would not exist, as changing environments and lack of adaptive ability would have killed off any life long ago. Some level of consistency is necessary, however.
Diversity doesn't spell success in itself though. Diversity has often lead to failure. Probability instructs us to hold values toward diversification such that if enough hands are played then at least one will turn out to be a winner. Diversity is simply a methodological process that eeks out enough successes to manage a continuation of a system. We all are aware of diversity's successes as we now sit here and contemplate our own existence, but we often neglect or completely look over diversity's many failures.
Genetic diversity gave us the great "lizards" that were the dinosaurs, but nearly ALL of them were wiped out because they lacked the ability to adapt to certain cataclysmic global events. In such an instance much genetic diversity was wiped out when a giant rock slammed into the Earth, many millions of years ago, and destroyed much of the diversity of life on land. Many water based creatures did survive however, so life eeked by simply because life held a diverse hand.
The problem with diversity is that it has no conscience. Evolution cares not for its consequences. It exists despite death but has no limit on suffering. Evolution isn't an entity, it is an explanation of the process in which life continues - in which life persists. Evolution's diversifying ways have left many failed entities in agony staggering along the line dividing life from death. It doesn't even matter that all lifeforms as we know them are mortal. It only matters that they survive long enough and hold the ability to reproduce. Evolution never produced life forms that were perfect it simply produced life forms that were sufficient for the environments they inhabited.
Life progressed and eventually spawned creatures with sufficient reason, that is creatures with the capacity to break down the great complexity of reality into significant portions that could then be manipulated with for focused and excellerated consequences. For the cause of our continued existence we have been hard at work manipulating our environments for our benefit. We have developed methods such as science and logic that have afforded us the opportunity to assess literally everything under the sun and beyond. As selfish creatures we have realized that the more we understand about the universe the more opportunity we have to benefit. Technology abounds from spears to the internet.
With our continued pursuits we continually alter and update our technologies that allow us to transform our reality. Since evolution was never granted us a guarantee in success, as a species we ended up with a lot of dysfuntionalities. Some are benign and others are detrimental. We exhibit diseases ranging from cancer to AIDS and everything in between that serve to remind us of our fragile biological states. Anyone can look at a rock and know that it does not think and that it is not aware. It is a matter of scientific understanding that a rock has no conscience. A rock may last many thousands or millions of years, however, human beings individually have a relatively short rate of existence.
Our limitations are something we are very aware of and because we want to continue to live we find ways to work around our limitations. We have developed "cures" for many diseases and we continue to find ways to remedy the many dysfunctions that lay our mortal lives to rest so that we can continue our collective existence. We all look not only to extend our lives but to reach a greater satisfaction in our lifetimes.
Future technologies will likely provide us the opportunity to manipulate the very processes of our existence. We will be able to understand with greater certainty the processes that shape us and thereby have the ability to manipulate them to our benefit. We've been manipulating our bodies for years as technology affords us the opportunities to do so. We shall continue on this path as technology affords us even greater opportunities to extend and augment our bodily existences and it is reasonable to assume that in those pursuits that, so long as we do not intentionally violate the harm principle, they are acceptable. After all, it is the harm principle in which we base our most basic fundamental rights upon as individuals from which we can as a collective endeavor to pursue greater goals.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Phenomenon of Isolation
In politics when someone speaks of "isolationism" they are usually referring to a country's political order which seeks to maintain or establish itself as an independent entity. The consequences of isolationism for countries often leads to failed economies, impoverished citizens, poor educational systems, and a heap of other woeful social occurrences. Isolation in practice has a fundamental root as a natural component of human conceptualization.
I think isolated thought processes are part of a system of experiences through which a thinking entity can orient itself in reality. The development of such a system is a condition brought about by the environment we have evolved in. Since we human beings are not born with an innate understanding of the world we live and are at the same time limited in our mental capacities we use certain conceptual tools to explore the curiosities we find in reality. We are entities that rely on isolated conceptual systems to cut reality in to understandable chunks for our brains to be able to process. Simply put, the amount of matter bumping about the universe is of a such a gigantic magnitude that our meager amount of synapses and very limited brain functions cannot even begin to describe the most simplistic of interactions with complete detail. For this reason our brains have evolved certain conceptual tools for organizing reality into manageable portions simplistic enough for our minds to digest, yet some how equitable to the reality from which they are derived.
There is an inherent flaw or limitation in our conceptual methods though. This flaw or limitation also has no solution. For the reason that it would take exactly the same amount of energy/matter or more to create a symmetrical mental reflection of the exact state of the universe we will never be able to have a complete understanding of the state of reality. Using our mental abilities we break the information we gather from our senses down into manageable bits and organize and group those bits into a sort of mental framework. Since we cannot step back and view the grand picture all at once to verify our understandings we are left with isolated theories and ideas about how we think reality may actually be.
People tend to trust their conceptual systems as true representations of the systems of reality. This trust that we have for our conceptual systems developed in isolation leads to problems. We fail to take into account the things that escape our understanding, the things that we have missed in the development of our conceptual systems. Nicholas Taleb Nassim refers to the product of our lack of understanding about a system with the manifestation of some major event or occurrence as a "black swan". The black swan is simply a reference to the reality that continues to intrude upon our conceptual frameworks like some natural disaster destroying them and causing us to rebuild them. The black swan is also a reminder that our knowledge is limited and that we should utilize skepticism where sufficient scientific scrutiny is lacking.
There will never be complete certainty for any theory, though highly scrutinized it still lingers in a realm that is nearly detached from reality, which is why isolationist thinking leads to such problems. All thought actually belongs to some long chain of often very complex circular reasoning. All of the knowledge that we have has been developed in a system that is self reliant. As a consequence of our isolated conceptual understanding of reality we have no other option than to take a true thing and turn it into a symbol for something else. It is precisely because we do not know what that true thing that we can call it something entirely made up. Once we have determined what we want to call it then to our understandings of that thing it is that thing, regardless of its actual self as true to reality. We do this with all things and attempt to construct an artificial reality that allow us to understand reality through our perspectives as thinking entities.
Our isolated conceptual systems are not completely isolated from reality, in fact they are apart of reality. We manage to fool ourselves, however, thinking that we see the whole picture, when, in reality, we can never truly see "the whole picture". We forget about the things that we don't see, because, after all, we don't see them. You can't stress or worry over what you don't know or even suspect. That's why the old proverb often feels accurate "ignorance is bliss".
It is so easy to get sucked into believability in movies and stories because the story lines always have a predetermined set of circumstances so that the hero never accidentally trips and falls over that pot hole on the street allowing the villain a narrow get away. The cliche wedding crashing scene found in romantic comedies always succeeds because the wedding crasher, in just pursuit of everlasting love never gets diarrhea at the last moment thereby missing the opportunity to proclaim love and win over their partner. Economies that are micromanaged by bureaucrats who attempt to steer every aspect of social life with complex plans and formulas never succeed because these bureaucrats are always sucked into a belief that their isolated conceptual systems some how capture the big picture. For this reason I would say that luck favors the skeptics, who remain forever cautioned by the occurrence of a black swan event.
Nassim's "black swan" wasn't the first caution of our trust in isolated conceptual systems. A particular fallacy known as the "argument from ignorance fallacy" has been known to many logicians for many years. The fallacy states that simply because there is no evidence to prove a theory wrong it does not mean that the theory cannot be wrong or that a lack of evidence to refute the theory some how strengthens the argument. Though, one cannot simply go around placing trusting in no theories. Theories do gain strength through scrutiny and through evidence that concurs with their consequences. It should always be the method of practice to accept theories only as provisionally true or accurate because one can never be certain of the sudden nonoccurence of the black swan.
I think isolated thought processes are part of a system of experiences through which a thinking entity can orient itself in reality. The development of such a system is a condition brought about by the environment we have evolved in. Since we human beings are not born with an innate understanding of the world we live and are at the same time limited in our mental capacities we use certain conceptual tools to explore the curiosities we find in reality. We are entities that rely on isolated conceptual systems to cut reality in to understandable chunks for our brains to be able to process. Simply put, the amount of matter bumping about the universe is of a such a gigantic magnitude that our meager amount of synapses and very limited brain functions cannot even begin to describe the most simplistic of interactions with complete detail. For this reason our brains have evolved certain conceptual tools for organizing reality into manageable portions simplistic enough for our minds to digest, yet some how equitable to the reality from which they are derived.
There is an inherent flaw or limitation in our conceptual methods though. This flaw or limitation also has no solution. For the reason that it would take exactly the same amount of energy/matter or more to create a symmetrical mental reflection of the exact state of the universe we will never be able to have a complete understanding of the state of reality. Using our mental abilities we break the information we gather from our senses down into manageable bits and organize and group those bits into a sort of mental framework. Since we cannot step back and view the grand picture all at once to verify our understandings we are left with isolated theories and ideas about how we think reality may actually be.
People tend to trust their conceptual systems as true representations of the systems of reality. This trust that we have for our conceptual systems developed in isolation leads to problems. We fail to take into account the things that escape our understanding, the things that we have missed in the development of our conceptual systems. Nicholas Taleb Nassim refers to the product of our lack of understanding about a system with the manifestation of some major event or occurrence as a "black swan". The black swan is simply a reference to the reality that continues to intrude upon our conceptual frameworks like some natural disaster destroying them and causing us to rebuild them. The black swan is also a reminder that our knowledge is limited and that we should utilize skepticism where sufficient scientific scrutiny is lacking.
There will never be complete certainty for any theory, though highly scrutinized it still lingers in a realm that is nearly detached from reality, which is why isolationist thinking leads to such problems. All thought actually belongs to some long chain of often very complex circular reasoning. All of the knowledge that we have has been developed in a system that is self reliant. As a consequence of our isolated conceptual understanding of reality we have no other option than to take a true thing and turn it into a symbol for something else. It is precisely because we do not know what that true thing that we can call it something entirely made up. Once we have determined what we want to call it then to our understandings of that thing it is that thing, regardless of its actual self as true to reality. We do this with all things and attempt to construct an artificial reality that allow us to understand reality through our perspectives as thinking entities.
Our isolated conceptual systems are not completely isolated from reality, in fact they are apart of reality. We manage to fool ourselves, however, thinking that we see the whole picture, when, in reality, we can never truly see "the whole picture". We forget about the things that we don't see, because, after all, we don't see them. You can't stress or worry over what you don't know or even suspect. That's why the old proverb often feels accurate "ignorance is bliss".
It is so easy to get sucked into believability in movies and stories because the story lines always have a predetermined set of circumstances so that the hero never accidentally trips and falls over that pot hole on the street allowing the villain a narrow get away. The cliche wedding crashing scene found in romantic comedies always succeeds because the wedding crasher, in just pursuit of everlasting love never gets diarrhea at the last moment thereby missing the opportunity to proclaim love and win over their partner. Economies that are micromanaged by bureaucrats who attempt to steer every aspect of social life with complex plans and formulas never succeed because these bureaucrats are always sucked into a belief that their isolated conceptual systems some how capture the big picture. For this reason I would say that luck favors the skeptics, who remain forever cautioned by the occurrence of a black swan event.
Nassim's "black swan" wasn't the first caution of our trust in isolated conceptual systems. A particular fallacy known as the "argument from ignorance fallacy" has been known to many logicians for many years. The fallacy states that simply because there is no evidence to prove a theory wrong it does not mean that the theory cannot be wrong or that a lack of evidence to refute the theory some how strengthens the argument. Though, one cannot simply go around placing trusting in no theories. Theories do gain strength through scrutiny and through evidence that concurs with their consequences. It should always be the method of practice to accept theories only as provisionally true or accurate because one can never be certain of the sudden nonoccurence of the black swan.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Paradox of Language
Language is a conceptual tool like math. Neither of these systems can remain useful to the user if they remain closed off for the reason that it is necessary to make amendments and additions upon new discoveries and revelations. Just as math has its paradoxes, so too does language. For what seem like solid systems for structuring our concepts if one searches deep enough the frayed edges and fragile principles are revealed. Fanciful as it may seem, this is old news to many thinkers, however it may be to those who dabble very little in such obscure profundities. It is only through authority and tradition that we have become so confident in the use of language. After all, the exception of communication is debate and discussion of semantics because it is often seen as a trivial pursuit. When language is put under the microscope and examined the most toxic intellectual problem is then revealed, that there is no guarantee on language's validity.
It is a mistake to presuppose the soundness of the language system and all its consequences. Human language is a system of communication that was developed by ignorant entities. It is used to try and describe what we think we may know, yet not only do we make mistakes in using the tool, we don't have all the information to really understand how it all fits together.
Language is, at its fundamental level, a system that takes at least one thing, but usually a group of things, and gives it a sensory acceptable identifier. In this manner we are "saying" in symbol, sign, gesture, etc. that one thing is, in "fact", another thing. This is a contradiction. Regardless of what we say or think a thing is, it is absolutely itself and only itself in reality. We can’t ever truly know the reality of the thing because we are born ignorant and isolated from reality, so we learned to develop systems of thought that we felt accurately described that reality based on our experiences and the evidence we have suggesting that those approximations are probably true. Language is in essence taking something that is meaningless to us as it is and attributing qualities to it such that it becomes associated with complex concepts. In this way noise becomes speech, marks become symbols, movements become signs, etc. and so then we can communicate.
It is a mistake to presuppose the soundness of the language system and all its consequences. Human language is a system of communication that was developed by ignorant entities. It is used to try and describe what we think we may know, yet not only do we make mistakes in using the tool, we don't have all the information to really understand how it all fits together.
Language is, at its fundamental level, a system that takes at least one thing, but usually a group of things, and gives it a sensory acceptable identifier. In this manner we are "saying" in symbol, sign, gesture, etc. that one thing is, in "fact", another thing. This is a contradiction. Regardless of what we say or think a thing is, it is absolutely itself and only itself in reality. We can’t ever truly know the reality of the thing because we are born ignorant and isolated from reality, so we learned to develop systems of thought that we felt accurately described that reality based on our experiences and the evidence we have suggesting that those approximations are probably true. Language is in essence taking something that is meaningless to us as it is and attributing qualities to it such that it becomes associated with complex concepts. In this way noise becomes speech, marks become symbols, movements become signs, etc. and so then we can communicate.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Playing Nice
Most families in the U.S. are familiar owning a pet. Having pets is also common in many other countries as well and it can be an indication of prosperity. Caring for another entity shows that you possess the means of not only taking care of yourself but others as well. Children are often raised along side animal companions and the typical family will develop such a strong connection with the pet that it is often considered "a part of the family". People actually cry and mourn their pets just as they do their human companions. It's no revelation to pet owners that the bond they develop with their animals counterparts are shared in the emotional capacities of the pets they care for. Though non-human animals cannot tell their human companions that they love and appreciate them in a manner that we can fully comprehend they do show it in their own way. We do manage to understand to some degree what their behaviors mean such that we do understand them in some ways.
Humans and some other animals can pick up on body language signs and verbal ques that transgress specie boundary lines; for example it is easy to tell when a dog is growling or that when a cat is hissing that they are in a potentially aggressive emotional state. Specie boundary lines are merely arbitrary lines assigned by humans in order to organize our world in a way that we understand; a way that is useful to us. Tracing back our evolutionary lineages we can see that we have common ancestors and share noticeable similarities in these respects. It is within this biological paradigm that we can explore similarities we share which are commensurable.
Since there are so many different varieties of animals, with varying degrees of complexities, the emotional capacities for them are dependent upon the species as well as the individual animal itself. Each animal goes through its own set of experiences in life and has its own brain which can be wired in a variety of ways depending upon its development and its inherited genetic structure. Goldfish may be hard to develop a bond with because they lack complex brains that would allow for complex emotional feelings. Dogs and cats, however, have larger, more complex brains and are capable of a greater number of "higher order" brain functions. In this case the phrase "higher order" means similar in complexity and capacity. Studies have shown that typical house pets like dogs can experience different a variety of different emotional states. They can be traumatized, feel depressed, anxious, experience happiness, et cetera, but again this is rather obvious to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time observing or interacting with such animals.
According to the complexity and capacity of an animal or species of animal it may or may not have the ability or capacity to experience certain states of emotion when compared to others. As a consequence some animals like bugs may lack the capacity for many of the emotional states humans and other larger animals experience. They may feel pain which causes their bodies to take specific uncontrolled and un-understandable reaction in order to avoid the pain. Their behavior may be more driven by something like "instinct" which is simply a rudimentary collection of impulses that directs bodily their actions.
Certainly, beetles don't philosophize or worry about the issue of global warming. This isn't to say that these little robot like critters aren't worth considering, it simply means that it is more likely for a bond to be struck between two entities that share more similar capacities. So, someone's value of them may only extend to the degree that they recognize it is wrong to cause pain to any living thing. It may not be the case that each human agrees to this principle however. As stated before we share similarities in many respects and in many varying degrees but it is also a possibility for an human being to completely lack a certain emotional capacity or to have it over ruled by some other function. Psychopathic persons may be an example of this.
Human beings develop relationships based on similarities, not on differences as the old proverbial statement suggests that "opposites attract". Studies show that it is more likely for people to bond with others in which they share similar interests. The idea is that the more interest are shared the deeper the emotional connection can go. The fact that humans can bond with other species of animals is a profound emotional dilemma.
Human beings have been hunting animals for thousands of years. Sometime along the line we were able to ditch our running shoes and spears and put animals into cages. In every country all over the world and in nearly every culture it is a way of life to kill animals and consume animals. Most people in America and in the rest of the world eat meat on a regular basis. Human beings aren't the only animals that eat other animals either, there are many other animals that are meat eaters as well. Consuming the meat of other animals is an evolutionary adaptation which has allowed some species that feed exclusively on meat to flourish, such as the lion or shark.
Since human beings are typically moral creatures we are placed into this dilemma according to our evolutionary development and our overall disposition toward meat eating. Evolution isn't a guarantee of a flawless operational system for any organism. Evolution is simply a process that describes the way organisms will change and adapt to their local environments in a manner that is "good enough" for their survival. Those that are better at adapting to their environments than others typically do better, but the point is this: there is no guarantee that contradictions and disorder won't arise within the evolutionary system. Though contradictions and disorder are present within the system when their level of occurrence is outweighed by the sum of successes within the system species thrive. An easy way to understand this concept is to think about all the different types of genetic deformities we are familiar with such as the development of persons with missing or extra limbs, clef pallets, blindness, allergies, Down's Syndrome, autism, dwarfism, misshapen or asymmetrical formation of body parts, et cetera. There are many types of mutations to consider and while some can be harmful there are some which are neither detrimental nor beneficial. They are simply benign or harmless. For the organism to survive its environment it must possess more beneficial traits than detrimental traits
So, if human beings enjoy eating meat but are also morally driven creatures then where in lies the justification from a moral standpoint to inflict harm upon other animals that share a degree of their emotional capacities? If we consider just the human species for a moment we can understand from what method we might seek to operate morally at a practical level. Simply because we bond with certain individuals in the human race doesn't mean that we should be able to harm or destroy the individuals we have not yet bonded with or never will. We understand that we each have differences but we also understand that we at least share the capacity to experience complex emotional states to a very a degree and within that understanding there lies the potential for an emotional bond. We may not feel as upset if some tragedy has befallen a person or a community of people with whom we are unfamiliar or unconnected with but that doesn't mean we don't sympathize or pity them in their circumstances to a degree. People all over the world are willing to donate their money, time, and other resources to helping out strangers on the other side of the planet who have been subjected to some level of suffering.
It is hard for most humans to stare at a picture of a starving child, no matter how far removed that child is from their social sphere without feeling some kind empathy toward their suffering. This is possible because we are not only built similarly but because we also experience occurrences in our lives that are similar. It is the misery of an innocent child that strikes a cord in many a philanthropist's heart. Evolutionarily speaking it is easy to understand how the adaptation of social bonding could serve a beneficial role in the success of species. How is it possible that this adaption could have extended beyond the boundary line of species? Why is it that a dog is willing to nurse the offspring of a separate specie of animal and how is it that humans can develop an emotional attachment to their pets if it seems to serve no obvious beneficial purpose for the good Samaritan? It is likely that the adaptation from which animals developed the ability to bond socially, that is to develop an emotional connection with others, was a general mutation that was never restrictive enough to keep the bond from happening outside the realm of genetic compatiblism.
Though we humans do not develop to the exact same degree emotionally we develop to a degree that is similar enough that relationships can form and bonds can occur. To this degree we can also include animals that are outside our own specie. It is also the case that when the degree is highest we find more ability to bond. It is like having more hands to reach out to others with. From this understanding our morality can conflict with our evolutionary appetites. We can both love animals as companions and love the taste of their organic products. The ultimate question is where does this place us? To what degree should we recognize our moral values and to what degree should we limit our actions?
I am not the type that likes to see any amount of suffering. To cause harm to other people and to other things is a constraint I am able to recognize and bare from a moral standpoint. I should say that "if I cannot stand the suffering of a human being then why should I condone the unnecessary suffering of a non-human organism under the same circumstance that suffers at any level". It is well within my ability to live without causing the degree of harm to animals that is present in the meat and dairy industries which provide animal products for humans to consume. So, as to live a life that is conducive to my moral values I elect not to consume animal products in as reasonable a manner as is possible. Until I can reason that there is justification in consuming animal products then I may still enjoy the taste of animal products yet live without satisfying my pallet in that manner.
UPDATE: The day after the initial post of this blog I came across this news article in my daily casual browsing of the news.
Bugs Can Solve Big Problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33974286/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Humans and some other animals can pick up on body language signs and verbal ques that transgress specie boundary lines; for example it is easy to tell when a dog is growling or that when a cat is hissing that they are in a potentially aggressive emotional state. Specie boundary lines are merely arbitrary lines assigned by humans in order to organize our world in a way that we understand; a way that is useful to us. Tracing back our evolutionary lineages we can see that we have common ancestors and share noticeable similarities in these respects. It is within this biological paradigm that we can explore similarities we share which are commensurable.
Since there are so many different varieties of animals, with varying degrees of complexities, the emotional capacities for them are dependent upon the species as well as the individual animal itself. Each animal goes through its own set of experiences in life and has its own brain which can be wired in a variety of ways depending upon its development and its inherited genetic structure. Goldfish may be hard to develop a bond with because they lack complex brains that would allow for complex emotional feelings. Dogs and cats, however, have larger, more complex brains and are capable of a greater number of "higher order" brain functions. In this case the phrase "higher order" means similar in complexity and capacity. Studies have shown that typical house pets like dogs can experience different a variety of different emotional states. They can be traumatized, feel depressed, anxious, experience happiness, et cetera, but again this is rather obvious to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time observing or interacting with such animals.
According to the complexity and capacity of an animal or species of animal it may or may not have the ability or capacity to experience certain states of emotion when compared to others. As a consequence some animals like bugs may lack the capacity for many of the emotional states humans and other larger animals experience. They may feel pain which causes their bodies to take specific uncontrolled and un-understandable reaction in order to avoid the pain. Their behavior may be more driven by something like "instinct" which is simply a rudimentary collection of impulses that directs bodily their actions.
Certainly, beetles don't philosophize or worry about the issue of global warming. This isn't to say that these little robot like critters aren't worth considering, it simply means that it is more likely for a bond to be struck between two entities that share more similar capacities. So, someone's value of them may only extend to the degree that they recognize it is wrong to cause pain to any living thing. It may not be the case that each human agrees to this principle however. As stated before we share similarities in many respects and in many varying degrees but it is also a possibility for an human being to completely lack a certain emotional capacity or to have it over ruled by some other function. Psychopathic persons may be an example of this.
Human beings develop relationships based on similarities, not on differences as the old proverbial statement suggests that "opposites attract". Studies show that it is more likely for people to bond with others in which they share similar interests. The idea is that the more interest are shared the deeper the emotional connection can go. The fact that humans can bond with other species of animals is a profound emotional dilemma.
Human beings have been hunting animals for thousands of years. Sometime along the line we were able to ditch our running shoes and spears and put animals into cages. In every country all over the world and in nearly every culture it is a way of life to kill animals and consume animals. Most people in America and in the rest of the world eat meat on a regular basis. Human beings aren't the only animals that eat other animals either, there are many other animals that are meat eaters as well. Consuming the meat of other animals is an evolutionary adaptation which has allowed some species that feed exclusively on meat to flourish, such as the lion or shark.
Since human beings are typically moral creatures we are placed into this dilemma according to our evolutionary development and our overall disposition toward meat eating. Evolution isn't a guarantee of a flawless operational system for any organism. Evolution is simply a process that describes the way organisms will change and adapt to their local environments in a manner that is "good enough" for their survival. Those that are better at adapting to their environments than others typically do better, but the point is this: there is no guarantee that contradictions and disorder won't arise within the evolutionary system. Though contradictions and disorder are present within the system when their level of occurrence is outweighed by the sum of successes within the system species thrive. An easy way to understand this concept is to think about all the different types of genetic deformities we are familiar with such as the development of persons with missing or extra limbs, clef pallets, blindness, allergies, Down's Syndrome, autism, dwarfism, misshapen or asymmetrical formation of body parts, et cetera. There are many types of mutations to consider and while some can be harmful there are some which are neither detrimental nor beneficial. They are simply benign or harmless. For the organism to survive its environment it must possess more beneficial traits than detrimental traits
So, if human beings enjoy eating meat but are also morally driven creatures then where in lies the justification from a moral standpoint to inflict harm upon other animals that share a degree of their emotional capacities? If we consider just the human species for a moment we can understand from what method we might seek to operate morally at a practical level. Simply because we bond with certain individuals in the human race doesn't mean that we should be able to harm or destroy the individuals we have not yet bonded with or never will. We understand that we each have differences but we also understand that we at least share the capacity to experience complex emotional states to a very a degree and within that understanding there lies the potential for an emotional bond. We may not feel as upset if some tragedy has befallen a person or a community of people with whom we are unfamiliar or unconnected with but that doesn't mean we don't sympathize or pity them in their circumstances to a degree. People all over the world are willing to donate their money, time, and other resources to helping out strangers on the other side of the planet who have been subjected to some level of suffering.
It is hard for most humans to stare at a picture of a starving child, no matter how far removed that child is from their social sphere without feeling some kind empathy toward their suffering. This is possible because we are not only built similarly but because we also experience occurrences in our lives that are similar. It is the misery of an innocent child that strikes a cord in many a philanthropist's heart. Evolutionarily speaking it is easy to understand how the adaptation of social bonding could serve a beneficial role in the success of species. How is it possible that this adaption could have extended beyond the boundary line of species? Why is it that a dog is willing to nurse the offspring of a separate specie of animal and how is it that humans can develop an emotional attachment to their pets if it seems to serve no obvious beneficial purpose for the good Samaritan? It is likely that the adaptation from which animals developed the ability to bond socially, that is to develop an emotional connection with others, was a general mutation that was never restrictive enough to keep the bond from happening outside the realm of genetic compatiblism.
Though we humans do not develop to the exact same degree emotionally we develop to a degree that is similar enough that relationships can form and bonds can occur. To this degree we can also include animals that are outside our own specie. It is also the case that when the degree is highest we find more ability to bond. It is like having more hands to reach out to others with. From this understanding our morality can conflict with our evolutionary appetites. We can both love animals as companions and love the taste of their organic products. The ultimate question is where does this place us? To what degree should we recognize our moral values and to what degree should we limit our actions?
I am not the type that likes to see any amount of suffering. To cause harm to other people and to other things is a constraint I am able to recognize and bare from a moral standpoint. I should say that "if I cannot stand the suffering of a human being then why should I condone the unnecessary suffering of a non-human organism under the same circumstance that suffers at any level". It is well within my ability to live without causing the degree of harm to animals that is present in the meat and dairy industries which provide animal products for humans to consume. So, as to live a life that is conducive to my moral values I elect not to consume animal products in as reasonable a manner as is possible. Until I can reason that there is justification in consuming animal products then I may still enjoy the taste of animal products yet live without satisfying my pallet in that manner.
UPDATE: The day after the initial post of this blog I came across this news article in my daily casual browsing of the news.
Bugs Can Solve Big Problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33974286/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Study: Monkey moms act like human ones
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33227051/ns/technology_and_science-science/
UPDATE: Further study detailing the emotional capacities of animals.What chimps can teach us
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/12/2096519.aspxWednesday, September 30, 2009
Movement Negates Solidity
*Though the theory described below can be arrived at independently by any person, as was the case for me, through logical rumination portions of this post reflect ideas and specific wording borrowed by me from a book by Charles Seife's in Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea.
It seems there are only 3 possibilities in which a universe could exist (2 if you deny the universe which is made up of nothing as a possibility). Either a universe is completely solid, that is it is filled completely with matter such that there are no gaps, a universe is completely empty of all matter, or a universe is a combination of matter and empty space. It may seem logical to conclude that a universe that has nothing is nothing, a stance I would be in support of. It should be rather obvious that a universe in which there is only matter could not be the universe as we know it, if only for the reason that we know that there is motion. It is quite simple to understand that for there to be movement there needs to be empty space. Therefore, we must live in a universe that has matter but at the same time also lacks matter.
This scenario once again leads to the paradox of nothingness. How can it be that nothing exists as it is an outright contradiction of itself? It may be that such an understanding is a misrepresentation of the reality of the universe. Try not to think of empty space as nothingness but as a void instead. Voids can exist between objects, but nothingness, it seems, is too powerful as it negates any objects in existence. Nothingness is the contradiction and it is the universe that cannot exist. The paradox seems to have disappeared with this clarification of ideas. It is not the case that a void is the same as "nothingness," in fact this idea of nothingness itself is a logical mistake. In reality the void or infinity can be looked at as a state of neutrality and not a antithesis of matter/energy, which would be nothingness.
It seems there are only 3 possibilities in which a universe could exist (2 if you deny the universe which is made up of nothing as a possibility). Either a universe is completely solid, that is it is filled completely with matter such that there are no gaps, a universe is completely empty of all matter, or a universe is a combination of matter and empty space. It may seem logical to conclude that a universe that has nothing is nothing, a stance I would be in support of. It should be rather obvious that a universe in which there is only matter could not be the universe as we know it, if only for the reason that we know that there is motion. It is quite simple to understand that for there to be movement there needs to be empty space. Therefore, we must live in a universe that has matter but at the same time also lacks matter.
This scenario once again leads to the paradox of nothingness. How can it be that nothing exists as it is an outright contradiction of itself? It may be that such an understanding is a misrepresentation of the reality of the universe. Try not to think of empty space as nothingness but as a void instead. Voids can exist between objects, but nothingness, it seems, is too powerful as it negates any objects in existence. Nothingness is the contradiction and it is the universe that cannot exist. The paradox seems to have disappeared with this clarification of ideas. It is not the case that a void is the same as "nothingness," in fact this idea of nothingness itself is a logical mistake. In reality the void or infinity can be looked at as a state of neutrality and not a antithesis of matter/energy, which would be nothingness.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Pessimism and Paradox of Meaning
Suppose for a moment that you are not religious, that is you do not believe in god or a higher power. Suppose you view the occurrence of life and consciousness as a gradual process shaped by a series of necessary and eventual processes that are apart of a rational and logical universe. Being a conscious item yourself you recognize that you are apart of this logical universe so you understand that you cannot do what is impossible and can only do what is possible. You further recognize that you are driven by the circumstances of your nature, that is by your genetic make up, your environment, etc.
You know that you will die one day but that simple fact does not burden you so much that you do not pursue goals and enjoy achievements, that you give up on having fun, that you do not proceed through avenues that allow you to explore your curiosities, that you do not love and value other people, things, and certain ideals. It is the fact that all humans, religious or non-religious, do all of the aforementioned behaviors and in so doing are able to find meaning in our lives. Being the logical character you are you know that death is imminent. Though the universe has produced you, it will also take you away. The universe is not stagnant, it is always moving and all matter in it is moving which simply means it is ever changing. Even the rock will turn to dust over time. Most people today are familiar with a specific law in physics concerning energy that states energy can never be lost, it simply changes in form.
The universe is moving this very minute. It is in a state of increasing expansion which means that all matter is spreading out in all directions building up the distance between each particle of matter. If this rate keeps up, and according to the latest scientific evidence there seems to be no reason to suggest it may be slowing down, then eventually gravity will lose its grip and all particles will separate to their most fundamental states leaving them isolated and cold. Very very cold. The great expansion of our universe means that all life will at some time be unable to exist. Life will have become an impossibility.
Perhaps the universe stops expanding and starts a process of receding back in on itself. This idea is known as the great collapse or the great crunch. In this scenario the universe and all matter will be squeezed into an ever continuing closer and closer space. The space will become so compact that energies will melt together into a great burning mass of very solid and very dense matter. Under these circumstances it will also be impossible for life to exist.
These models of the universe are not inspiring to most people and with good reason. As living beings we are naturally inclined to favor being alive over being dead, or not existing. In fact both models of the universe are rather pessimistic conclusions to have to consider. If we will all die eventually then what is the purpose of existence at all or is there even a purpose? Maybe life is just a phenomenon and purpose is a natural human misunderstanding about the true nature of reality. I would argue that life is simply a logical phenomenon of the universe and it is not special. I would further argue that though the outlook for the universe looks pessimistic when considered from this angle we must understand that there was never any rule or law that necessitated that the universe be conducive to an optimistic human understanding of reality. It seems that life is simply a consequence of a pessimistic reality.
One might argue that religion saves us from this awful place. That indeed the way we understand reality is a pessimistic notion and that god will save us from our doom. To arguments with religious premises I maintain that so long as they remain outside logical and rational models of framework that can be scientifically tested there is no reason to consider their conclusions as valid or probable outcomes. Another argument to consider is one that accepts that all life will one day die, that all humans will one day die however, that in the moment or time frames of our conscious lives we can still value, appreciate, love, etc. right now then for that reason there is meaning in life and that in this way there is continued purpose in our endeavors and we should continue to pursue our goals and live our lives.
Further still we may pass on meaning in our lives after our deaths to those after us. In this way an exchange of meaning continues to flow from person to person, from generation to generation, and so on. There is a paradox that still remains under these arguments of purpose and meaning. Though the meaning can be real at a moment and can survive through transference upon one's death through a seemingly endless chain the fact still remains that the chain will one day be broken. The universe will destroy the life it owns and all meaning will be destroyed with the last breath of our final successor.
You know that you will die one day but that simple fact does not burden you so much that you do not pursue goals and enjoy achievements, that you give up on having fun, that you do not proceed through avenues that allow you to explore your curiosities, that you do not love and value other people, things, and certain ideals. It is the fact that all humans, religious or non-religious, do all of the aforementioned behaviors and in so doing are able to find meaning in our lives. Being the logical character you are you know that death is imminent. Though the universe has produced you, it will also take you away. The universe is not stagnant, it is always moving and all matter in it is moving which simply means it is ever changing. Even the rock will turn to dust over time. Most people today are familiar with a specific law in physics concerning energy that states energy can never be lost, it simply changes in form.
The universe is moving this very minute. It is in a state of increasing expansion which means that all matter is spreading out in all directions building up the distance between each particle of matter. If this rate keeps up, and according to the latest scientific evidence there seems to be no reason to suggest it may be slowing down, then eventually gravity will lose its grip and all particles will separate to their most fundamental states leaving them isolated and cold. Very very cold. The great expansion of our universe means that all life will at some time be unable to exist. Life will have become an impossibility.
Perhaps the universe stops expanding and starts a process of receding back in on itself. This idea is known as the great collapse or the great crunch. In this scenario the universe and all matter will be squeezed into an ever continuing closer and closer space. The space will become so compact that energies will melt together into a great burning mass of very solid and very dense matter. Under these circumstances it will also be impossible for life to exist.
These models of the universe are not inspiring to most people and with good reason. As living beings we are naturally inclined to favor being alive over being dead, or not existing. In fact both models of the universe are rather pessimistic conclusions to have to consider. If we will all die eventually then what is the purpose of existence at all or is there even a purpose? Maybe life is just a phenomenon and purpose is a natural human misunderstanding about the true nature of reality. I would argue that life is simply a logical phenomenon of the universe and it is not special. I would further argue that though the outlook for the universe looks pessimistic when considered from this angle we must understand that there was never any rule or law that necessitated that the universe be conducive to an optimistic human understanding of reality. It seems that life is simply a consequence of a pessimistic reality.
One might argue that religion saves us from this awful place. That indeed the way we understand reality is a pessimistic notion and that god will save us from our doom. To arguments with religious premises I maintain that so long as they remain outside logical and rational models of framework that can be scientifically tested there is no reason to consider their conclusions as valid or probable outcomes. Another argument to consider is one that accepts that all life will one day die, that all humans will one day die however, that in the moment or time frames of our conscious lives we can still value, appreciate, love, etc. right now then for that reason there is meaning in life and that in this way there is continued purpose in our endeavors and we should continue to pursue our goals and live our lives.
Further still we may pass on meaning in our lives after our deaths to those after us. In this way an exchange of meaning continues to flow from person to person, from generation to generation, and so on. There is a paradox that still remains under these arguments of purpose and meaning. Though the meaning can be real at a moment and can survive through transference upon one's death through a seemingly endless chain the fact still remains that the chain will one day be broken. The universe will destroy the life it owns and all meaning will be destroyed with the last breath of our final successor.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thoughts about Nothing
I find my mind reaches to many areas of thought thinking and analyzing about many things but one particular area arises a particular interest. It is a paradox, not that there are paradoxes which I do not recognize so far, yet this one seems special. It is a paradox that I feel represents the most fundamental abilities of human understanding, yet gets overlooked in some manner. The paradox I am describing is the conceptualization of "nothing". Nothing by definition should not exist, therefore why give it a name? For example we could say that: here in this basket we have some fruit and in this basket we have nothing. Some may argue it is more appropriate to say we have "no fruit" or "fruit is lacking in this basket". On the surface it sounds like a resolution, that we should simply change our words in order to reflect an absence of "something" rather than to recognize that particular lack of something as something itself, that is by giving "it" a name.
However, there is the problem of acknowledging nothing as something, which is a rather trick in resolving. It is true that we can say that things exist. Whatever they are they are made up of matter which does exist. However, these things - they exist, yet they move around as well. The immediate question is "what do they move into?" They could be said to move into nothingness but then again, you arrive at the problem of naming or recognizing something that isn't. It is a contradiction of logical thought. One might think to resolve this by imagining that there is no "nothing" and that everything that exists is connected to something such that there is no empty space. Everything in this way would be like a sheet stretched to infinity in all directions and any bleep, movement, or bump would be a action. Still I wonder if this idea of a "sheet" is possible.
The idea that a sheet could represent all matter in reality lacks significantly. It lacks because a sheet is stretchable to certain distances that are usually thought of as linear. What about the space above and below, perhaps in between wrapped in other dimensions? As I understand it the only way for their to be a universe without that "nothing" that empty space it would have to be a solid universe so tightly compact that there is no possibility of movement. This actually makes sense to me for the reason that many leading scientists speculate the universe expanded from a supremely tightly point of matter or energy. Expanded into what though?
So nothingness has to exist? If there is to be any movement at all, if the universe is said to expand surely it has to expand into empty space. There is a difference I think. Nothing represents the impossible and empty space represents that which has yet to happen. Empty space is that which is lacking in movement, in motion, in time, and in space. It is not "nothing" but rather a lack of "something". In this way it isn't the negative we might associate it with but a neutral platform from which we form our concepts about reality.
However, there is the problem of acknowledging nothing as something, which is a rather trick in resolving. It is true that we can say that things exist. Whatever they are they are made up of matter which does exist. However, these things - they exist, yet they move around as well. The immediate question is "what do they move into?" They could be said to move into nothingness but then again, you arrive at the problem of naming or recognizing something that isn't. It is a contradiction of logical thought. One might think to resolve this by imagining that there is no "nothing" and that everything that exists is connected to something such that there is no empty space. Everything in this way would be like a sheet stretched to infinity in all directions and any bleep, movement, or bump would be a action. Still I wonder if this idea of a "sheet" is possible.
The idea that a sheet could represent all matter in reality lacks significantly. It lacks because a sheet is stretchable to certain distances that are usually thought of as linear. What about the space above and below, perhaps in between wrapped in other dimensions? As I understand it the only way for their to be a universe without that "nothing" that empty space it would have to be a solid universe so tightly compact that there is no possibility of movement. This actually makes sense to me for the reason that many leading scientists speculate the universe expanded from a supremely tightly point of matter or energy. Expanded into what though?
So nothingness has to exist? If there is to be any movement at all, if the universe is said to expand surely it has to expand into empty space. There is a difference I think. Nothing represents the impossible and empty space represents that which has yet to happen. Empty space is that which is lacking in movement, in motion, in time, and in space. It is not "nothing" but rather a lack of "something". In this way it isn't the negative we might associate it with but a neutral platform from which we form our concepts about reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
