The Next Major Human Advancement. HUGE.

Hi People, (MASSIVE POST SORRY)

I have to admit, I have not read the whole 16 pages...but I did read the first three, and then a couple along the way to the 16th.

Now, the problem I have is this: whilst compassion is a positive thing, your line of thought/ argument has a suppressed premise that I feel needs to be explored.

(Premise) "The good of the collective is greater than the good of the individual". How can this be justified?

I understand the arguments for cooperation and how it has come about, i.e. social contract, prisoner's dilemma. For those of you that do not know them, basically social contract means that we all agree to live or abide by certain rules and regulations. We do this to increase OUR quality of life and the overall quality of life. This idea comes from Thomas Hobbes; he described man in a "state of nature", which is essentially a time before government, society etc. He paints a picture whereby people compete over limited resources, which results in death, lack of trust, need for protection etc. Which is why most will quote "Nasty, Brutish and Short".

The prisoner's dilemma explains the motivation for a social contract. Imagine there is Person A and Person B. They both play a game, and at the end of each round, they each receive X amount of coins. Now, you have 2 options: Cooperate or Steal. [I couldnt remember exact terms, made these up, but same thing...] When you "cooperate", BOTH Person A and Person B receive 1 coin. However, if Person A chooses to "Steal", then they receive Person B's coin as well, ONLY IF, Person B choses "Cooperate". Should Person B choose "Steal" as well, then neither receive any coins.

You can see why Person A and Person B would pick "Cooperate" if the game had many many turns. Fairly obvious, but i'll point it out, just in case. Say, you have an unknown amount of turns...its could be 5 or 5000. You would pick Cooperate, because if you didn't, (sure, you may gain short-term profit...), Person B would eventually pick "Steal", reciprocating your move, meaning that both of you would lose out. (Nobody would just allow you to steal their coins continuously).

The prisoner's dilemma is supposed to be analogous to real life, and it is supposed to show our motivations for a Social Contract. The "State of Nature" is essentially one which is undesired - people die early, always have to be vigilant of others stealing / killing, and so on. Therefore, we decide to cooperate and live under certain rules. We now have a central force, government / police etc, which enforce these codes of conduct...making sure people play by the rules.

Right...that was pretty long...sorry about that! Ok, now down to the nitty gritty. Again:

(Premise) "The collective good is greater than the good of the individual."

I believe this is a fair assessment of the thread. Most of the posts I have read have been along the lines of:

1) Altruism would mean no war (if not, considerably less). It would mean a better quality of life for all mankind and would *better* ensure the survival of the human species. I say Altruism rather than Compassion because we already have compassion in our everyday lives. Compassion on the scale promoted in this thread, seems to me at least, to be altruism.

From 1) - Here is the argument as I see it...

2) A better quality of life for all mankind and the improved chance of survival for the human species is a justified end.
3) We all have a desire to do well for ourselves, promote our survival and secure a better quality of life.
4) (3) can be achieved both through altruistic and selfish means.
5) Selfish means only promote the quality of life of the individual (and a few select others).
6) The quality of life of mankind as a whole, super-seeds or is greater than, that of the individual.
7) Therefore, we should all act altruistically to secure a better quality of life.

I believe all of those premises are easily justifiable and are true to the way the world is. I have not presented neither "selfishness" nor "altruism" in a bad light. I have been fair in their treatment. Should you disagree with any of the premises or believe I have presented either side badly, please do say.

****The problem I see is the justification of premise (6). How can we say this?****

I think I should let everyone else come up with the analysis of this, otherwise I think I could become one-sided, and I do try not to be...but find I usually become it haha. Bear in mind however, the groundings for society: the prisoner's dilemma, where we chose to cooperate for selfish reasons and through such choice, agreed to a social contract. A social contract essentially being rules to the game we play.

Great thread OP, got me thinking a lot!

Thanks

reply to post by experienceislife


You could go another route and say premise (6) should be

(6) "Altruistic methods achieve both (2) and (3)"
(7) Therefore, we should all act altruistically to secure a better quality of life.

However, it then becomes a matter of efficiency - Would my individual quality of life be increased by the same amount as it would, had I used selfish methods. To which, I think the answer is No. However, this can be disputed.

Should it be agreed that it isn't as efficient - then the previous premise:

(6) "The quality of life of mankind as a whole, super-seeds or is greater than, that of the individual. "

Still stands. I would be interested in an argument for altruistic efficiency

Well said! It is a bold step for mankind. I also believe in the one. Compassion is a huge step forward and i would also add empathy for our fellow man to achieve. Bravo for you. My hope is that many others can sense it also.

im kinda analytical type of person, compassion might not work very well.. what about its the environment and social condition that change the people? for instance, people might steal and we often see them as 'bad', but do we ever consider solving the environment that causes stealing instead of punishing people?

Originally posted by korgmeister
im kinda analytical type of person, compassion might not work very well.. what about its the environment and social condition that change the people? for instance, people might steal and we often see them as 'bad', but do we ever consider solving the environment that causes stealing instead of punishing people?

As I said above, the reason we see them as "bad" is because they are not adhering to the rules set out by the "Social Contract". Hence, we punish to reinforce behaviour that is in accordance to such rules.

The idea to solve the environment is a good one. I wonder if it would be possible? There are only a set amount of resources and an ever increasing population that desire them. Maybe technology will provide a solution...

If technology cannot though, people then believe cooperation is the way forward: I take less, so that others can have more. This however, falls back upon the same problem I highlighted in the post above: why should I give up so others can have more? I don't see that I should...

Maybe Im just a selfish b@stard haha

It seems compassion, in the manner I was talking about in the original post, is best realized by taking into consideration the relative power of an animal. I was watching some kittens play fight with each other the other day, and while watching, I took into consideration that they probably feel pretty powerful when they do that. What I observed was their own social hierarchical structure that accounts for much of their personality. By observing the group dynamic, I was able to get a better view of each individual kitten, as if I was a cat myself and could understand that life.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
It seems compassion, in the manner I was talking about in the original post, is best realized by taking into consideration the relative power of an animal. I was watching some kittens play fight with each other the other day, and while watching, I took into consideration that they probably feel pretty powerful when they do that. What I observed was their own social hierarchical structure that accounts for much of their personality. By observing the group dynamic, I was able to get a better view of each individual kitten, as if I was a cat myself and could understand that life.

Do you mean empathic intelligence? I think you do...

1) If it is what you mean, then yes, empathic intelligence is a great thing. It allows our thinking to become less restricted, meaning we make better decisions.
2) When you say the next step in human development, I believe you are referring to the development of our culture - of the habit itself. I say this because I believe we all have this ability.
3) This message is arguably the message religions have been trying to preach for thousands of years.
4) This thread shows the problems with it - i.e. possibility of misunderstanding; due to our own faults (i.e. not putting ourselves into "other people's shoes" correctly) and faults in those wishing to be understood (unclear communication)

You are most definitely correct - it might not be THE step, but it certainly is an important one!

Cheers,

reply to post by smithjustinb


Waste of a read. Everyone knows for humanity to succeed there must be compassion. You put the most basic of a sentence in to a rant.

Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Waste of a read. Everyone knows for humanity to succeed there must be compassion. You put the most basic of a sentence in to a rant.

Do they? Or will many die and therefore leave enough resources so that competition is not so fierce?

reply to post by smithjustinb


INTERMISSION

Compassion
by Todd Rundgren
from the album "Healing"

You want more, and still more,
Until you get more than you ever bargained for.
Now its plain, clear as rain,
I've seen your symptoms many times before.

Lying on your bed of pain
What will you have now?

What of riches are told in a life without compassion?
For there's no winter as cold
as a life without compassion.
There's no prescription that's sold
that can heal you like compassion.

Well you tried and you cried,
Don't let your disappointment make you hard inside.
You have doubt, you reach out,
Still you're the only one you care about.

Hiding in your sack of woe
What do you need now?

For there is nothing so sad
as a life without compassion.
And even love has turned bad,
it was love without compassion.
And you don't need what you had
'Cause you did not have compassion.

Dying on your bed of pain
What will you have now?

You'll get no judgment from me,
I can only feel compassion.
And if that's what you need,
I will give you my compassion.
Just don't forget about me
'Cause we all need some compassion.

Open up your heart
so you can start to feel compassion.
Get down on your knees,
pray to heaven for compassion.
Everybody needs compassion.
If you want to be healed
then you know you got to feel compassion.

www.lyricstime.com...

reply to post by smithjustinb


It seems that the gods were woman. After time -by means of the mega catastrophes- they let nature prevail. So man took over. Just like mother earth prescribes. [Woman still have more compassion, and are less egocentric than man, something that has nothing to do with mother instinct but is due to 'the gods'. Time to realize that woman in general still display -a (little) bit more than man- a trait (compassion) that doesn't come from planet earth.]

By the wy: it 's just a personal believe.

www.evawaseerst.be...

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

For all you and I know, animals could also possess the same ability to create. They may just lack the necessary equipment—for example the opposable thumb—to manifest their creations. Birds make nests, bees build hives and ants take slaves. Man is not the most evolved animal, he only thinks he is. Put a man in a cage with a lion. Even with his concepts and ideas, which can only exist in his head, man is nothing more than another mammal.

I'm sorry, but that's such a ridiculous cop out. Look up from space and tell me what you see: You see lights - not natural lights - but lights created by men. Only from this 'cosmic' perspective does it become clear that man is the only terrestrial being with a cosmic origin: the only being, as the ancients say, created in "Gods image", which is to say, a microcosm of the macrocosm, a creature which possesses within his being, both physically and spiritually, all the essential qualities present at all levels in universal manifestation.

You can search and try to 'find' explanations, and obfuscate the inherent wonder - though not obviate - of natures theophanic wisdom, but you will never arrive at a final explanation. You can only satisfy a temporal curiosity at how 'animals evolve', but to rest at this knowledge, self satisfied, thinking you've "cracked the code" is to testify against all that is innate in the human condition. It only shows how circular logic can be: you can peruse the contours of creation all you like, but it will eventually lead us back to square one, to the place you started.

I appreciate science and technology and could not imagine living without it now that we possess it: but I don't confuse what humans are able to do with something that already exists, with a formula for how to live. They are two incongruous areas, the latter a mere zone within the greater cosmic mystery of existence.

Belief is the substance of life? Not to me. It is a bi-product of our language. Without our language and context, belief wouldn't exist. Life would move on without belief. That idea is not subtle at all. I find it absurd and laughable.

I think it's the other way around. Let's say, or assume, that external reality were conditioned by what we believe: that as our beliefs reify and become conditioned by experience, we limit our external experience of the world, which in turn reflects our own inner 'solidity' and repetition of thought/emotion/behavior. This would then make the world just as we are: physical laws would appear 'immutable' merely because we are so used to, and conditioned by, our belief of this perspective. And lets also assume that each consciousness is similar to a planet: our thoughts, feelings, are what 'revolve around it'. Above the individual, there are families, and above families, cultures. In a city of 50,000, or a country of 33 million, or a planet of 7 billion, when you have minds that all think alike, perpetuating a particular point of view, the entire 'collective consciousness' of mankind acts a major sun, which every individual through sheer force of gravity, ineluctably revolves around.

All because of little ole belief. This may sound like 'nonsense' to you, but in fact, it may not be. This may not be 'provable' with the ordinary empirical scientific method, which has it's own criteria for experimentation, but it is nonetheless historically verified in every religious tradition the world over, in Hinduism - yoga, tantra, and the vedanta (hindu metaphysics), in Islam/Sufism, Kabbalah, Hermeticism, Taoism, the so-called 'magical art' which works from the principle of sympathy between things - 'above' and 'below', the connection being forged by archetypal concatenations - resemblances between physical forms and their spiritual (or archetypal) "angel", in Shamanism, which has been rigorously studied by personages like Mircea Eliade, where westerners' used to a certain way of things, walk away absolutely flabbergasted at how a shaman was able to put a burning hot coal in his mouth, or levitate, or do some other thing patently 'impossible': the question I think is not being asked rightly. Science works from the presumption of matter up, assuming that external matter is the ultimate source, and perhaps, man wouldn't have been able to fully understand the intricacies of matter without plunging it's collective consciousness completely into it, which has the unfortunate effect of denying worlds beyond it's limited scope.

Eventually, it is my belief, science will discover the connection between mind - as an ontological reality - and matter. The 'explanation' albeit, crudely expressed by someone without a shred of scientific training, could be explained thus: shamanic rituals produce 'supernatural' effects because the collective consciousness of the community allows it to happen. It is separated from the collective consciousness of humanity by it's remoteness from contemporary beliefs. It follows it's own laws - namely, the 'archetypal' laws that connect thought with object.

You're wrong here. You're confusing compassion with empathy. Compassion is only part empathy because it also involves a need or wish to alleviate the suffering of others. At that point, empathy loses its purity and becomes compassion. I put plenty of stock into Empathy.

Definitions aside, you completely side stepped my point: the ineffable. Do you not experience it? Is there not some kernel of truth commanding the human mind of its veracity? It precedes all cognition, and is naturally there as the soil to all mental flowering. One looks at the world, and unless one is emotionally abnormal, one can't help but feel in awe of the world. The sheer existence of the world is awe-inspiring. The fact that I feel awe-inspired is itself awesome!

But, to return to compassion: I referred to that ineffable something which intimates a higher unity that transcends the banal concern for one's own self interest. This is something wonderful, and it cannot be simply swept aside because 'logic' - that all too feeble yet useful faculty - wants to make sense of what is JUST TOO BIG for it to make sense of. How can a finite being honestly hope to seriously understand - which means, to hold within some concept - how the world is? In your mind, the only 'rational' (too me, highly irrational) solution is to accept the absurdity of life. To me, I take the opposite approach. Life is TOO BIG for me to dissect and make comfortable sense of: I accept the ineffable as an essential communication between God to man, beckoning man to look and be in awe - love life and enjoy it and as Solomon says in Ecclesiastes: That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil--this is the gift of God.

It is nothing but arrogance to find a solution through 'logic' - to leave that natural and innate state of awe - and settle with the absurd: life is inherently meaningless, so man must artificially create meaning.

reply to post by dontreally


1) Because we have an ability to manipulate nature, far beyond other animals, does not mean we have "cosmic" origin.
2) I think "empathy" can easily be account for by logic and philosophy of mind. Look at the Social Contract and "Being No One" by Thomas Metzinger.

Peace,

reply to post by experienceislife


Any theory that tries to explain away consciousness as being contingent on the body, and not as an ontological reality, is simply irrational.

It doesn't account for occult phenomena, synchronicity, metaphysical theories (and their persuasive implications)..... I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could ignore this. You may ignore the last subject - as hinayana buddhism does - but how the first two?

When an external event lines up perfectly, at a precise moment, with an internal thought, what other explanation can be proffered that doesn't postulate an ontological force as it's catalyst?

And again, this easily explains the mind blowing feats of shamans - holding red hot coals in their hands, or in their mouths, without getting burned: what's so wrong with the traditional explanation of an ontological reality - an 'angel' or 'god' - but in more technical jargon, we could call it the abstraction of an emotional reality, the principle itself, which suffuses the shaman or initiate with it's energetic substance; this after all is what occultists and magicians base their science on.

Therefore, consciousness is a thing to itself which the physical world is patterned after. Based on this very reasonable assumption, everything found in the physical sciences must then have an ontological cognate; the law merely being the translation of a higher or more etheric pattern in neurological, chemical or physical terms.

Wolfgang Paulie and Carl Jung may have anticipated this discovery with their work 'the interpretation of nature as psyche' which explores a possible connection between archetypal and quantum phenomena.

Yes. This.

I had an instance of looking at a little dahlia flower and feeling that compassion that turned into pure empathy! It was one of those moments of awe where it seemed like the whole earth spun everything in or on it off at once and into my mind.

To the OP, I find your conclusions to be exceedingly keen. Theoretically, I have also have come to the conclusion we are a multiple of a singular "Godhead" including other lesser Godheads, and down to the most minute of sentience.

This is a grand experiment, and we the few truly lucky of us...will see that our experiences were for "it's" benefit, as well as ours...in the goal of knowing and defining itself. Therefore, compassion, makes the simplest of sense. Beneficial cooperation for the multiple, begets many more multiples, growing the depth and diversity of The Godhead, as known by it's "multiple" individual *sans ego* or Ego enough to put "self" in harmony with compassion, as a way of life.

reply to post by dontreally

Masterful reply. I'm not going to lie, I had to break out the dictionary a few times.

I'm sorry, but that's such a ridiculous cop out.

I don't deny that in your opinion, my opinion is a ridiculous cop out. But I'd ask: "a cop out to what?" Am I not putting man high enough on a pedestal for you? Yet you assert that we are from cosmic origin. That is more of a cop out than anything. To take a huge leap of faith, and to disregard everything earthly in mankind, is in my opinion a huge injustice to life. But these are opinions, and are easily regarded as such.

To answer the question I posed—the one you claimed was a cop-out—the lion would likely kill the man. How, in this instance, is man better than the lion?

Look up from space and tell me what you see: You see lights - not natural lights - but lights created by men. Only from this 'cosmic' perspective does it become clear that man is the only terrestrial being with a cosmic origin: the only being, as the ancients say, created in "Gods image", which is to say, a microcosm of the macrocosm, a creature which possesses within his being, both physically and spiritually, all the essential qualities present at all levels in universal manifestation.

If we show a cosmic origin, how come we are bound to this earth? Why is it when we do leave the planet, we must bring with us the necessities of life found only on earth? If you could prove a cosmic origin, which anything has utterly failed to do in all of human history, I would prefer to agree with you because I enjoy the idea. But until that time, taking a leap of faith in that direction, merely because you wish it to be so, is irrational. There is nothing wrong with suspending judgement.

You can search and try to 'find' explanations, and obfuscate the inherent wonder - though not obviate - of natures theophanic wisdom, but you will never arrive at a final explanation. You can only satisfy a temporal curiosity at how 'animals evolve', but to rest at this knowledge, self satisfied, thinking you've "cracked the code" is to testify against all that is innate in the human condition. It only shows how circular logic can be: you can peruse the contours of creation all you like, but it will eventually lead us back to square one, to the place you started.

Aren't we both using our own logic here? Aren't we both merely going in circles?

No where did I claim to "crack the code." I just cannot fathom building a foundation of interpretation on a series of guesses and assumptions merely because I wish it to be a certain way. Don't worry, I realize the same is with science. It too, like language, religion and mathematics, is built on initial errors and guesswork. Once you realize this, logic is the only tool of navigation to help us through this mess.

In a city of 50,000, or a country of 33 million, or a planet of 7 billion, when you have minds that all think alike, perpetuating a particular point of view, the entire 'collective consciousness' of mankind acts a major sun, which every individual through sheer force of gravity, ineluctably revolves around.

I've lived in the mountains, relatively far from society for nearly a year, and when I wasn't in town to buy supplies, I was in no way affected by the goings on or the collective mindset of the rest of mankind. So by lack of proximity, I was somehow able to escape the gravity of this collective consciousness. Wouldn't this be impossible according to your standards? But in reality, either I was never bestowed with the same spiritual essence as you, my connection with the collective conscious was out of tune, or it was simply because I didn't know what was going on. I didn't have access to the same language and ideas as everyone else.

There is no case in the history of humanity which shows that any two minds think alike. If there is similarity between thought, it is because they were indoctrinated by the same information, not because they share a collective mind. They watched the same TV shows, read the same books, followed the same religion. Where language differs, so too does the culture. To assume every mind is alike, when everyone's experiences differ, and when its obvious our opinions differ, is a very dangerous idea.

It is nothing but arrogance to find a solution through 'logic' - to leave that natural and innate state of awe - and settle with the absurd: life is inherently meaningless, so man must artificially create meaning.

To claim a cosmic origin, and in the process remain ungrateful to the world, nature, your body and everything that sustains your otherworldly "spirit," is the epitome of arrogance. If you were able to go back to your cosmic origins, I would help pack your bags.

Great insight. Although I disagree, I feel better having read it.

Suppressing Feelings of Compassion Makes People Feel Less Moral
www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (Mar. 15, 2012) — It's normal to not always act on your sense of compassion -- for example, by walking past a beggar on the street without giving them any money. Maybe you want to save your money or avoid engaging with a homeless person. But even if suppressing compassion avoids these costs, it may carry a personal cost of its own, according to a new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. After people suppress compassionate feelings, an experiment shows, they lose a bit of their commitment to morality.

Any theory that tries to explain away consciousness as being contingent on the body, and not as an ontological reality, is simply irrational.

It doesn't account for occult phenomena, synchronicity, metaphysical theories (and their persuasive implications)..... I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could ignore this. You may ignore the last subject - as hinayana buddhism does - but how the first two?

1) From this I take it to mean that you are arguing for the dependency of the physical world to the non-physical.
2) While I have been tackling this idea for the last few years - I cannot seem to solve it myself. (1) suffers from the Third-Man Argument and the Problems of Universals etc.
3) I have never come across synchronicity before. Having read some of Jung's work, I must say it is intriguing, nevertheless I cannot see how "meaningful coincidences" actually lend weight to the idea the the physical is dependent on the non-physical.
4) I understand synchronicity to refer to events such like: we both have the same thought at the same time and instances where I dream of an event before that event happens - say I dream of a bird flying into my window, and then the next day it actually occurs.
5) Thoughts at the same time is simple enough to explain. A bird flying into my window, not so much. I can definitely see why someone would posit "there is something more"...

When an external event lines up perfectly, at a precise moment, with an internal thought, what other explanation can be proffered that doesn't postulate an ontological force as it's catalyst?

And again, this easily explains the mind blowing feats of shamans - holding red hot coals in their hands, or in their mouths, without getting burned: what's so wrong with the traditional explanation of an ontological reality - an 'angel' or 'god' - but in more technical jargon, we could call it the abstraction of an emotional reality, the principle itself, which suffuses the shaman or initiate with it's energetic substance; this after all is what occultists and magicians base their science on.

6) Can you give an example of a thought lining up perfectly, at the precise moment, with external events?
7) The mind blowing feats of shamans can be explained through psychological training etc...as for no damage being caused to their mouths after holding a red hot coal - well, im afraid im sceptical and would need to observe this.

Therefore, consciousness is a thing to itself which the physical world is patterned after. Based on this very reasonable assumption, everything found in the physical sciences must then have an ontological cognate; the law merely being the translation of a higher or more etheric pattern in neurological, chemical or physical terms.

8) Your conclusion has not been established. Your argument is along these lines:
i) Consciousness cannot be reduced to the physical.
ii) There are meaningful coincidences between conscious thoughts and external reality.
iii) These coincidences cannot be explained by a physical theory
iv) Therefore, the non-physical is the "cause".
v) The physical, is at times (here im being reserved maybe you wish to be more bold), the resultant effect of a non-physical cause.

9) I would argue against (ii) - there are no meaningful coincidences - we create the "meaning" - the actual event just happens. Maybe the bird in dream analogy just happened to be. There are many examples where I have dreams and they dont occur in physical reality - when they do we naturally give it "meaning" but why?

event A (dream) occurs, event B (physical reality) occurs, and because of the nature of our dream, we believe it to have caused B. When really, there is no connection. Hume argued that the notion of causation is sketchy at best, however it is the recognition of an event (a*) occurring and then another occurring (b*), when we recognise that this pattern as "always" occurring, it is then that we say "A* caused B*".

Hume and synchronicity would not get along. I agree with Hume, and so cannot fully accept sychronicity.

Overall, I really like your ideas and would love to chat further. However, I would like for you to answer a few things:

1) If the physical world is dependent upon the non-physical - how do answer the "Third Man Argument" ?
2) How can we establish the non-physical as the "cause" of physical events
i) There seems to be no regular pattern of event A and then event B
ii) HOW would the interaction even occur?
3) Finally, in light of all of this (including my concerns), how can we argue that consciousness cannot be reduced to the physical?

Peace,