Where do you get the suggestion that the idea is metaphorical in the article? — Agustino

I see now I was misreading that part of the article. The idea of an actual computer projecting the world as some simulation is even more inane.

That is the nub of the reductionist argument. Whenever discussion turns to such things as 'purpose', unless in the strictly functional sense of material and efficient causes, then you're no longer in scientific territory. The aim of the scientific account is to find material and efficient causes which can be related to, or reveal, general principles or scientific laws. Whatever you consider 'purpose' to be, is circumscribed by those considerations. — Wayfarer

Right, I understand that. This to me is why physicalist arguments don't work.

Or maybe it exposes the essential incoherence of that familiar notion of a creating God? — apokrisis

If by familiar notion you mean:

It seems nuts that anyone would want to create our flawed world as some kind of "interesting experiment" — apokrisis

Then that's not a notion of God that's familiar to me. It sounds more like the kind of god the new atheists enjoy using as a strawman.

>Understands that the nature of the discussion is descriptive ethics
>Discusses metaethics — Emptyheady

Your first quote is a misquote of what I said. Do you realize I'm critiquing descriptive ethics because I disagree with it?

Feel free to engage in real discussion about this topic, but if your next response is more snark, then I have no reason to keep attempting to discuss the topic.

Your reply did not give the impression you do. — Emptyheady

Really? I said

How does the fact that moral views differ lead to the conclusion that moral relativism is the most accurate position to hold about morality? — Noble Dust

In simpler terms: morally relative views do not equal relativistic morality. They aren't incompatible. I don't think it follows that because there's a wide swath of moral views, therefore there is no underlying metaphysical moral reality. An example: Many politically conservative people in America have racist views towards the black community; many politically liberal people in US are trying to combat racism. How does it follow that because there are two views which are morally relative to one another, therefore neither is correct? Moral relativism looks good in the university, but not on the streets. Try telling Trayvon Martin that morals are relative and there is no metaphysical moral telos.

Because it's not sufficient for something to be powerful to be God. Goodness for example is more important than power in what we call God. If there existed an all powerful being who was evil, you wouldn't call that God - you wouldn't want to worship it. — Agustino

I like this Eastern Orthodox way of viewing God; it reminds me I need to explore that more. That concept of God is fairly foreign to me, but it's attractive.

I don't see that as parallel at all. In one case you're dealing with an empirical fact - a physical computer working away. In another case, you're dealing with a transcendental spirit, of spiritual origin, becoming instantiated in the world. — Agustino

But surely that hypothesis about the computer is just some sort of vague metaphor, right, like I already suggested? If it's not a metaphor, then, like I've already said, that's some really shitty antrhopomorphization to imagine some actual massive computer brain creating the world we know. So, taking it as metaphor, a metaphorical super computer projecting a "hologram" which is the world has parallel's to the idea of God creating the world through a process of spirit becoming objectified. In other words, if you're talking about a metaphorical supercomputer creating the world, you're basically talking about God. It's just a crappy metaphor.

maybe your not wrong in thinking of the physical world as an objectified form of spirit; its close to what objective idealism would affirm ... though I've come to see myself more of a neutral monist. — javra

Yeah, true. I'm not really a formal idealist of any kind, though. I tend to loath binary distinctions like dualism vs. monism or idealism vs. realism. I'm sort of a monist in the sense that I think of spiritual reality, mental reality and physical reality as being generative of one another, although not necessarily in a specific series. They're not exactly aspects of one reality; modes, maybe. I'm still working out my own conception as well.

No, it's more like that state exists as a future potential that nevertheless predates all being as telos. — javra

I'm intrigued but confused by this. I'm also struggling to understand the ensuing paragraph.

Like I said, its a long spiel. And in summative form it can well be less than cogent. (Still working on it by the way.) — javra

Seems worth expanding into a longer from, though.

I'm listening to that high pitched sound in your head when it's almost completely silent around you. What is that shit, your nervous system or something?

Just so it’s said, I wasn’t intending to be ironical-ish in any way. — javra

Well, my response may have been a little over-zealous. I was maybe reading a pet peeve of mine into your post. Apologies.

Still, the gist of this better argument would be that objectivity is not physical reality but the metaphysical Real/Truth … to which we are all subjects of. — javra

I think I agree with this concept if I'm reading it right, I just use the word objective in a different sense. I think of the physical world as an objectified form of spirit. Which is ironically sort of an opposite use of the term, so maybe not.

With the presumption of such telos, physical reality would indeed be objective, but objectivity itself would be equivalent to an existent state of being that could be expresses as perfect selflessness and, thereby, a perfect equality of being. Fairness, impartiality, and an unbiased opened mind/heart all then could be expressed as facets of being closer to this metaphysical state of objectivity—which could also be expressed as perfect innocence. — javra

So what would bring about that state, evolution? Is that what you meant in your original post? If so, I don't understand the connection between evolution and ethical things like selflessness. It sounds like a big leap.

But, via induction, I suppose that evolution might hold the telos of “adaptation and acclimation to that which is objective”. And this can be translated into being in accordance to that which is regardless of biases. — javra

What's so sacred about overcoming biases at the altar of Lord Science? I've never understood that. If the entire world shed it's biases and accepted an analytic, rational, scientistic belief system, how would this serve some sort of evolutionary telos? What exactly would be accomplished for mankind? What would mankind accomplish by doing this? I'm not interested in living in a world full of philosophy forum members. :P

I know what descriptive ethics are; explaining the definition of descriptive ethics by posting a wiki article doesn't answer the question I asked you.

Empirical evidence, moral views differs by location, time, religions, cultures, countries, etcetera -- to the point that moral relativism is the most accurate position to hold. — Emptyheady

How does the fact that moral views differ lead to the conclusion that moral relativism is the most accurate position to hold about morality? Sportscasters may all disagree on who will win the super bowl, but someone will ultimately win. Relativism is useful in distinguishing all of the differing views on who will win, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that no one will win.

It is not surprising that scientists personal views of life may diverge from scientific journal acceptable ideas. The v two fulfill different purposes and do not have to coincide. — Rich

I disagree, I think this essentially elevates science to a religion; the highest form of knowledge whose feet at which all other forms of knowledge must be laid in sacrifice...and for what aim, exactly? What's the telos?...and if there is none, why would this distinction between personal and scientific views for scientists be important, or even have any meaning?

Moral descriptively, I think relativism is true. I do not believe in a universal moral telos. — Emptyheady

What are your reasons?

Thanks for the info.

But the simulation isn't a God hypothesis at all... the simulation is a physical event - it's an empirical matter, in a way that God is not. To say that simulation hypotheses suggest that "theology has enter secular discourse" is a tragic source of misinformation. — Agustino

I admit I haven't studied that hypothesis enough to know if or why they wouldn't be similar. I just imagine a "computer projecting a hologram which is the physical world" as a crappy metaphor for the physical world as spirit objectified. They seem like parallel concepts to me. Although I guess the physical world as spirit objectified isn't really classical theology.

Or the idea that some very powerful being is equivalent to the notion of God... really?? — Agustino

Why is this inaccurate?

But what kind of answer are you looking for? How do you expect to recognise it when you find it? — Agustino

A satisfying one! I'm primarily interested in ethics, the history of thought, the history of language... I'm interested in how and, more importantly and more confusingly, why various strands of thought and ways of thinking about the world came to be. I'm interested in a theory of language that's consistent with how language is actually philologically constructed (dead metaphors). I'm interested in the spiritual implications of that. I'm interested in a theory of ethics that recognizes the spiritual bondage of The Other, and it's role in perpetuating oppression. I'm interested in the history of all of the different strands of thought that are practically entirely different languages today, and not even members of the same "language family" of thought. I'm interested in the inability of these "families" to even communicate (as evidenced on forums like these). The history of thought and language to me is something that isn't being properly studied. I'm a layman, but I spend what time I can trying to address these sorts of problems with my own studies. I think that a proper study of these things could help lead to a philosophical view that's current that would require a telos. In combination with a cooperative consideration of religion and the idea of a spiritual practice. This is all just theory and speculation because I'm not well read enough to put out a serious claim. So I just buzz by here every now again like an annoying fly in y'alls ear. :P

sources for "popularisation" aimed really at the idiotification of the masses — Agustino

Do you literally think articles like this are "aimed" at that goal? I just mean literally in the sense that they are very purposively aimed at the goal of idiotification, presumably with malicious intent. Is that what you mean?

Yeah, those 4 myths, and Hamilton's ridiculous idea of aliens creating us as an experiment aren't even really worth addressing. I posted the article more because it's a general topic of interest to me. I'm interested in the the fact that this idea is seeing some facetime in mainstream media, because it's an idea I've felt intuitively for awhile. I mean the idea that theories like the "hologram" theory (or whatever it's properly called) are coming full circle to classical theology, in a way. They're not really saying much of anything different. I figured some reactions here might be worthwhile. I was more interested in this bit later:

"That said, one interesting feature of current discourse is a growing openness among some scientifically minded people to the possibility that our world has a purpose that was imparted by an intelligent being. I’m referring to “simulation” scenarios, which hold that our seemingly tangible world is actually a kind of projection emanating from some sort of mind-blowingly powerful computer; and the history of our universe, including evolution on this planet, is the unfolding of a computer algorithm whose author must be pretty bright...You may scoff, but in 2003 the philosopher Nick Bostrom of Oxford University published a paper laying out reasons to think that we are pretty likely to be living in a simulation...If you walked up to the same people who gave Bostrom a respectful hearing and told them there is a transcendent God, many would dismiss the idea out of hand. Yet the simulation hypothesis is a God hypothesis: An intelligence of awe-inspiring power created our universe for reasons we can speculate about but can’t entirely fathom. And, assuming this intelligence still exists, it is in some sense outside of our reality — beyond the reach of our senses — and yet, presumably, it has the power to intervene in our world. Theology has entered “secular” discourse under another name."

If you have a good family, good health and source of wisdom and knowledge around what more do you need? — Agustino

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a sucker for teleology. What more do I need? I need to know the secret to the whole thing; I need to know where this thing is going. That preoccupies my philosophical interests more than anything else.

Metaphors reappear in new guises as fashion and technology change. A sceptic like me is unlikely to be won over but won't ever be seduced by the New Atheists either. — mcdoodle

Yeah, I totally get that. I just think it's kind of amusing that this scientistic culture is slowly coming around full circle to a conception of the universe ("cosmos") that isn't actually in disagreement with classical theology, at least from what I can see. But the concept of God or a spiritual force being behind it will remain taboo for a good while. Or maybe not.

Just finished -
The Silmarillion - J.R.R. Tolkien

Currently -

Rebellious Prophet - Donald Lowrie
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu

For it is the beginning of a Civilization that it remoulds all the forms of the Culture that went before, understands them otherwise, practises them in a different way. It begets no more, but only reinterprets, and herein lies the negativeness common to all periods of this character. — Spengler

This is true of the American popular music scene. Maybe even of the art ("high") music scene. Certainly true of jazz, and probably classical too, for the most part. There is no new "culture", in the sense of new music that is breaking new ground. There's only pastiche and homage, and these forms of "art" are praised by the gatekeepers, precisely because of their nostalgic attraction, under the guise of something mysteriously "new", yet familiar. Yet, confusingly, only familiar to people of one generation past...

I just started reading the Tao Te Ching today for the first time, and had a humorous and enlightening experience, so I thought I'd share.

The first few lines of Chapter 1 are:

The way you can go
isn't the real way.
The name you can say
isn't the real name.

I was on the train heading home from work while reading this. The 2nd set of lines made some sense to me, probably because of my Western viewpoint. "A name for something isn't the real thing". But the first 2 lines were confusing. As I was riding the train, I realized the station map and the (automatic) announcer on the train were going backwards; it was set to a different part o the city. We were going over a particularly long stretch between stations, and periodically the automatic announcer would say "this is 30th Ave", and then the train crew would cut it off because it was wrong. Of course, we were headed in the "right" direction the whole time. So, "the way you can go/isn't the real way", indeed.

I guess it's pretty tangengial, but what about movements like gnosticism and theosophy?

>:O

So the question is, are philosophy forum members equally as entrenched as the common rabble? ;)

As with other books of his it resonates with my thoughts, and I often feel like it is giving voice to my own half-formed intuitions. — John

Right?? That's how I feel reading him as well.

I was about to order that, so after you get into it properly, let me know how good it is on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is indispensable :P — Agustino

I give it a solid 9, for what it's worth.

By the way John, you really need to read Berdyaev's The Meaning of the Creative Act! Very apropos.

I think the latter is what you mean by 'creative act' and that is what I would refer to as 'authentic creative act'. — John

Aha, that brings clarity. I think we're essentially on the same page here.

I was using "creative act" in a broader sense than you, it seems, to include any act of 'art-making'; whether it be writing a poem, painting, drawing, composing music, and so on. — John

Well, I'm also using it to at least include those things. lol. I'm a little bit confused.

So, that I would say the creative act is authentic is perhaps equivalent to your saying it is a creative act at all. — John

Maybe? I see the act as an inner, generative, spiritual process that isn't a conscious process; it's not a process that is derived from or controlled by the intellect. So yes, I'm talking about a very specific, pure act or process.

But I don't draw a necessary distinction between religious art and secular art. They are both equally spiritual, when authentic, in my view, just in different ways. I'm not sure if you draw that distinction yourself. — John

No I don't draw that distinction; I agree with you here. My concern isn't about religious or secular art at all. As a "spiritual" (if not quite religious) believer, a lot if not most of my favorite artists happen to be atheists. Ravel for instance. It's of no concern to me because I believe that the things they expressed have a spiritual significance in the world. This is a key aspect to how I view the creative act: that divine process occurs regardless of any belief system of the artist, precisely because, as I said, the creative process isn't directly connected to the intellect in any substantial way.

I don't mean "can be", I mean there is a purity in the creative act. I guess the creative act is maybe a bit of a nebulous concept. I consider it a purely spiritual phenomenon: Kairos entering Chronos. I consider it a divine phenomenon that occurs through the medium of a person. That's why I consider it to always be a pure act. But, maybe a distinction needs to be made. There is a lot of work that goes into trying to create something, and a lot of the work isn't the creative act itself. Maybe there are degrees of creativity, and the highest degree is a pure, divine phenomenon. I'm not totally sure.

Can you elaborate on your concern about inauthentic creative acts? What's an example? Are you bringing in a moral element to the creative act?

I 'have access to' the works of Shakespeare, Picasso and J S Bach. These were not works by me, they are all by a far greater mind than mine. For me humility begets anti-solipsism. Were you Cindy Sherman taking pictures of herself? George Eliot creating the fictional world of Middlemarch? Joni Mitchell writing songs in her prime? Your mother when she first contradicted you? — mcdoodle

This is a strong argument.

If it is inauthentically driven by ambition, money, the desire for fame, then it will be tainted by mediocrity, and lessened by submitting itself to a market. — John

Hmmm, I have to disagree. Show me an artist with completely pure motives and I'll believe it. Motives are a spectrum, not a binary "this or that".

I do think, though, that there is a purity in the creative act itself. It's like sex, you're not thinking about anything other than the act while you're doing it. It consumes the mind during the process. There's a purity of intension in creation itself. Artists with varying degrees of pure and not so pure motives are capable of entering into that pure creative act.

All experience has the characteristic of being an experience — Terrapin Station

This seems meaningless. What's the point of noting that "all carrots have the characteristic of being a carrot?" There's no reason to bother saying this.

So yes, I've studied a lot of art. — Terrapin Station

Good stuff, I was only asking because it seems that we're coming at it from different angles. It made me wonder whether you were involved with the arts; I am as well.

I think the important element missing in the annoying, age-old debate about solipsism is "belief". I know it's dirty word on philosophy forums. Maybe intuition is a better word. Basically, in the simplest terms, everything is experience. In this sense, everything is subjective. This is where the road to solipsism begins. However, we usually either begin going down that road at this point, or we argue back that everything is not, in fact, subjective. The problem is, for instance, when m-theory says

Things can be objectively true irrespective of subjective beliefs.
That is to say the truth of objective states is not contingent upon any particular subjective belief about that state. — m-theory

he's stating a belief here. Is it a reasonable belief? Yeah, it's fairly reasonable. But it's a subjective statement about the concept we call "objectivity".

The dichotomy in the West between subject and object is misguided. The subject is the center of experience. I am the center of experience. I am the center of the world. This is a healthy form of anthropomorphism that the West can't accept yet. Subjective experience is the very waters of the five senses and my own illusive consciousness that I'm swimming in right now as I type this, drink my coffee, and try to fight off my hangover. I'm subjectively experiencing the world; I'm the center. Objective reality is an abstraction away from this experience. Subject is primary, Object is a secondary abstraction away from Subject.

My subjective experiences, my senses, tell me things about the world, and through "belief" (maybe intuition is word all y'all philosophers will take more seriously), I build my understanding of the world around me. Objective concepts of truth are abstractions that derive from my subjective experience. I apprehend those concepts not through the sense, but through the intellect. But the intellect is still an aspect of my subjective experience, my "me-world-center". There's no reason to assume that this negates those objective concepts or robs them of value or content. Indeed, the development of my own consciousness from being a new born until now is an ample description of the linear development from subject to object. We can only accurately view these concepts through that lens of consciousness development, and we can also apply it to the development of human consciousness in general. What I'm trying to say is, it's possible to acknowledge that everything is subjective, while also not holding to solipsism and also accepting the concept of objective truth. This is admittedly a pretty scatter-brained post, I may come back and edit or post something slightly different.

My apologies — Bitter Crank

None necessary! I appreciate the discussion.

there are more people producing than in previous times, and with less elite control over what gets done. — Bitter Crank

Yes, this is a contentious topic to me. On the one hand, I appreciate that the gatekeepers are in a sense gone, but I think, as the bell curve of technological innovation quickens, we're already leaving that golden age of internet freedom where anyone can become a youtube star (was that even a good thing anyway?). I would venture to say that the elite control over art today is the Market itself. The Market is the gatekeeper on creativity because all creative fields are subject now to The Market (except the fine arts, which are now just isolated self-referentially academic disciplines - see articles on the creative writing MFA, etc). The most creative fields today are in technology, which is just another slave to The Market (everyone has to have the new iphone). It's billed as technological evolution for the good of Mankind (a sort of optimistic humanism), but in reality it just feeds the ever-bloating Market. Creativity is enslaved to Mammon in our age. It seems to me that there are epochs in history in which a pure artistic expression makes its voice heard in culture, and then afterwards comes a period of cultural decay...

But this is most certainly not all from the perspective of the audience. For the perspective of the creator of art, this makes sense — Agustino

Well, I guess I'm speaking as both an artist and audience member. But I was talking from the perspective of an audience member there - as I said, as the audience, we participate IN the art itself, in the best works of art, anyway. What I'm saying is that the process of creation continues in the experience of the audience. The more profound experiences you have as an audience member are instances where you participate more deeply in the creative act; you feel closer to the artist or the work, or a feeling for divinity or infinity, or something along those lines. Think about it; where exactly does art "exist"? In the artist's mind? No, because the idea is never quite communicated in the way the artist first envisioned it. Art primarily exists in the experience of the audience.

What effect does art have on the soul? They aren't creating new being. So what enthralls them about art? — Agustino

Personally I think it's that taste of participating in the creative process by experiencing.

Why did cave men paint, and other cave men regard and care for their paintings? — Agustino

There's always a spiritual quality in art; Historically, art and religion are inseparably linked. If you want to develop some understanding of art, the creative urge, and aesthetics, you have to have a developed understanding of religion, myth...a balanced understanding that doesn't just dismiss them as something that was once evolutionarily beneficial and now is not. This is where Terrapin Station is going wrong; he's not approaching it from a spiritual angle.

The question for me, which I don't have an answer to at the moment, is this: why would aesthetic reactions to phenomena arise (evolutionarily)? — Terrapin Station

That's just it, beginning with the assumption that it needs an evolutionary reason to arise is a fallacy.

Beginning with that fallacy always leads to wild conjectures like this:

Maybe it is rooted somehow in perceptual recognition of safe versus dangerous environments, although aesthetic reactions don't map to that very well. So I don't know. — Terrapin Station

The Berdyaev stuff you were talking about in the earlier post is an example of the fallacy of trying to squeeze widespread behavior into a unified interpretive template. — Terrapin Station

Have you studied much art?

Yes, I think we do. Now, whether somebody else LIKES IT is another matter, and quite often people who don't like something are unwilling to call it "art". — Bitter Crank

No, it's not this simple. So often, the artist isn't aware of how the audience will interpret the art. Dylan was confounded by how deeply his audience interpreted his lyrics. Now, who's "right" here? Dylan, or the audience? No one is "right".

Art is whatever you think art is. — Bitter Crank

Agreed in that I don't think a definition of art has much importance, but Duchamp was just as much concerned with his concept of the "4th dimension", which is analogous to Berdyaev's comments about art being an attempt at creating new being that I mentioned earlier, which no one has addressed yet. The important thing about Duchamp isn't the concept that "art is whatever you think it is". This was Duchamp's concept, but the art world is lugubriously slow-witted to understand how concepts affect culture. What happened with Duchamp is that he killed the establishment of the art world as it existed and ushered in an age of soulless art that has no referent. Countless artists surely followed suite, but the important thing about Duchamp isn't that Warhol now could make art; Warhol wasn't making art in the same sense that Monet was. The result of Duchamp is that the creative urge in humanity moved away from art, and turned to technology. The result is that the art world turned into a meaningless elite cash cow, because, since anything was art, anything could cop a premium price, as long as the buyer was sufficiently duped (along with the rest of society). Duchamp was great exactly because he disrupted the art world as it stood; now adays, the art world is utterly irrelevant because no one has challenged Duchamp at his game. This is because the art world doesn't possess the same cultural power it possessed in 1912, and so there's nothing much to challenge. The fundamental problem today with the traditionally held view on post-modern art is that Duchamp's work (although he's actually under-appreciated academically) is viewed as still canonical in a way, whereas what's needed is a new challenger. Consequently, Duchamp's legacy lives on in technology, not art, and, necessarily, if in technology, then also in consumerism, and if in consumerism, then ultimately in a banal, meaningless application of creativity towards "the market". This is the "art" world we live in. We don't live in Duchamp's world of "anything is art", we live in the The Market's world of "anything that sells on a TV commercial is art." What contemporary artists can you name that faithfully soldier on in the wake of Duchamp's legacy? The only one I can think of is Makoto Fujimura, who superseded abstraction by connecting it back to traditional Japanese Nihonga, thereby redeeming a lifeless art form and breathing new life into it. Check out my profile pic for a taste of his work. But, unfortunately, Fujimura moves in the irrelevant high art circles that have increasingly less and less influence on culture.

Now wait a minute here... Art is something we create — Bitter Crank

But by creating it, do we even know what it is that we're creating? Often times, no.

What more is there, pray tell, than our own estimation of a purpose in something we do? — Bitter Crank

Agreed, except we seem to have different estimations of the purpose of that thing we do, namely art! And here we have a fundamental problem with art; it's definition...

Or, similarly, an agreed-upon consensus of what exactly it is that we're doing when we "do" art...

Is there something more to a bicycle than our estimation of what it is good for, like transportation or exercise and the usefulness that we identify in riding a bike rather than walking or riding a horse? No, there isn't. — Bitter Crank

Correct, but this analogy is misused. Art is not to humanity as a bike is to the rider. Humanity is not riding the bike of art for the sake of getting from point a to point b. Art is as much the rider as humanity is.

If you think there is something above and beyond our own estimation of the value in something that we do, then you need to come up with that something PDQ. — Bitter Crank

What is PDQ?

Art doesn't have an existence outside of human activity. — Bitter Crank

True!

As an amateur from the get-go, I find conversations with people who don't know much about philosophy to be pretty interesting. I'm always surprised by how much they have to say about philosophical topics right off the bat. I'd rather look at these things as a spectrum anyway; some folks are somewhere in the middle: they think about philosophical things from time to time, but don't have the chance to express their thoughts.