Idealism or Materialism? Gods or Sufficiently Advanced Aliens?

All poly's arent the same. The Greeks and Romans certainly worshiped their Gods.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I actually tend towards a form of scientific materialism which is also radically Platonist in that I think the universe is made of math.

Personally by my calling Sufficiently Advanced Aliens gods I didn't mean to suggest they should be worshiped. On the contrary assuming they can intervene on our behalf and have not done so I think they are evil.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

I wouldn't think of them as evil. Uncaring and lacking in empathy maybe. Even asura, if they are real, I wouldn't consider evil. They just have a tendency to be proud assholes with temper issues.

But then I can't think of things I would describe as evil. I rather dislike the concept.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I like to think of everybody being equal, but the idea of worship seeing contradictory to that.

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.

Personally, I do feel very strongly that harm by actions is just as wrong as harm by inaction. And I do feel strongly that some things are wrong. But by calling things evil I don't mean to suggest that I blame them at all. I am just naturally angry at the vast sufferings of the world. If they could be easily prevented by someone but they did not do so for no good reason I would be very angry.

edited 9th Jun '11 1:27:54 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

I don't believe everyone is created equal, but believe that they should be treated with a completely unattached objective level of love and aid. It may seem that the aid and love is unequally distributed at times because some people are worse off than others, but the love itself is spread equally. There are no favorites. There is merely helping and love for everything even if the person or animal or whatever is a massmurdering rapist.

Sadly metta doesn't seem to fly too well...And how would it work anyway?

^I am very biased against the use of the word since I've come to associate it with "This person is beyond redemption" and other related things. That and I do not know if there is an objective morality. If there is we don't know it so all I have to go on is my subjective beliefs. I am not as biased against the good because I don't have the same nasty "YOU ARE BEYOND REDEMPTION AND COMPASSION" thing I get with evil.

edited 9th Jun '11 1:30:57 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

It's like my favorite concept. I hope it catches on somehow. [1] Like this maybe. I really want everyone to be gods.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Idealism or materialism? I don't see how one chooses. I adhere to physicalism in a methodological sense, since that makes for the most reliable epistemology for comprehending the world I live in, but I'm a strong agnostic with regards to the fundamental nature of reality. It seems to me that metaphysics is just speculation.

That's also how I understand the meaning of the term. For this reason, I find the concept of worship incredibly disturbing and cannot conceive of the possibility of an entity being worthy of worship. I can imagine all sorts of Sufficiently Advanced Aliens or reality warping entities, and consider categorizing such things as "gods", but the idea of regarding any entity as rightfully having absolute sovereignty over me, thus regarding myself as some sort of property, is something I find unbearably degrading regardless of whether the entity is of the monotheistic or polytheistic sort.

How about in the case that the entity is so unthinkably intelligent that it can pull off Xanatos Speed Chess on humans without even thinking?

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Sure, but that's not what makes Him worthy of worship, at least in my opinion.

Well, I tend to see this as a consequence of He having created me: clearly only a being of absolute good and perfection could have done that .

But seriously, I think that you have a point. From my point of view, it's difficult to extricate these notions, and it seems to me that they imply each other in strange ways*

but in any case, I agree that God being good (or, to be more precise, He being the absolute Good) is one of the main reasons why He is deserving of worship.

edited 9th Jun '11 1:41:42 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I don't think an entity being "absolutely Good" makes sense, since the only objective way to define what would be recognizable as morality would be in relation to game theory, which is obviously independent to reality.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

LH: Maybe, possibly, it's a test. You can't simply go around liberating primitive life that hasn't gained the capability to function peacefully in a civilization where the weapons can destroy solar systems.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

^^ Care to explain that? I'm not seeing how that follows at all.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Well, I tend to lean towards physicalism/materialism. I know it's not proof, but I feel that many of the things some people consider solely spiritual or otherwordly or "of the soul" have actually been proven to result from physical processes. For example, thought. We can't tell you precisely what happens to every neuron in your brain when you think, "I like ice cream", but we can show through brain scans and the like that certain areas of your brain display activity when you think certain thoughts, and we can prove that what goes on in an angry brain is physically different from a drunk brain, or a lustful brain, or a happy brain. Most scientific research indicates that there is no brain/mind dichotomy.

I feel that materialism is the simplest philosophy to adopt, and that it's worked well so far for me to understand and interact with the world I live in. But I can't definitively prove that we're not, say, just a dream playing out in some super-intelligent being's head, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me. If this world is a simulation, well, I can't prove it and I can't do anything about it, so I may as well live my life as if nothing's changed - because nothing has changed.

edited 9th Jun '11 1:56:06 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

@Bobby G, what we call "good" appears to be the solution to super-rational social interaction. That is, "Assuming that everyone else arrives at the same conclusion I do, how should I behave to maximize my own gain?" That solution is, AFAIK, "socialize and cooperate", since although you lose some benefit being altruistic, you gain from your friends being altruistic towards you.

However, since this idea is derived from mathematical logic, it's technically independent from reality. The logic assumes certain premises, (most noticeably, "Everyone arrives at the same answer I do") and then produces a solution, without taking into account how correct the premises are. This is "objective", because everyone working from the same premises will arrive at the same answer, but this also means that the answer is independent from any actually-existing thing or idea. Therefore, any actually-existing object cannot be "absolutely good," in the sense of being the source of good. (Though it can behave in accordance with good in 100% of circumstances.)

edited 9th Jun '11 2:02:57 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Kill all math nerds

Matter's a form of categorical thinking, isn't it? One potential definition of matter is, "Massive particles are matter. Anything built of matter is also matter."

edited 9th Jun '11 2:07:04 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

If this is directed at me...

The attributes of the entity are not the issue. It's not a matter of me regarding the prospective target of worship as unworthy. It's a matter of me regarding worship itself as abhorrent.

Game theory is a tool of analysis, not a measure of goodness. Hell, it produces demonstrably suboptimal results for all involved in some cases.

I'm not sure how to rationally distinguish between "good" and "playing this particular game optimally." For instance, as I said, I'm fairly sure that altruism is the optimal solution to the "game" of social interaction.

edited 9th Jun '11 4:01:37 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Is the existence of a "god" dependent on the existence of an absolute morality?

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.

Depends on how you define god. If we go by Buddhism's definition, which is essentially ALIENS!!!, then no.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

@ Yej: Thank you for that link. It was extremely interesting.

However, that's not what I call good, though I'll admit it probably overlaps considerably in practice. That's just one possible definition of the word, one which doesn't allow for the existence of "Absolutely Good".

Regarding matter, it's not as though it's particularly well-defined. The distinctions between fermions and bosons are hardly uncontroversial or exact.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I'm not quite sure what "Good" really is, but I find the prospect that it's connected to a metaphysical entity to be rather uncomforting.

Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.

I guess one way to put it is that I don't believe there is anything in this universe that is inherently uncomprehensible. We may not be able to understand the inner workings of X, to quantify aspects of it, to figure out what makes it tick, but that doesn't mean no-one can. If not a human, then a supercomputer, or an alien. I guess you could say there's no such thing as "ineffable" in my philosophy.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."