What Is Man?

Various | September 25, 2003 | betty boop

[Alamo-Girl]

As always, you have defined the problem perfectly:

It's essentially a cognitive problem.

So true. So true. Thank you for your reply!

[Zon]

Good post at #27.

"The world is controlled by volition..."

The Universe is controled by volition.

Conscious beings by their volition that are millions and possibly billions of years more advanced than Earthlings who eons ago achieved optimum-health biologic immortality. That's where we on Earth are moving -- by volitioon -- to join -- the civilization of the Universe.

[Pietro]

"....is why we seem to have far more intelligence than we really require"

I think we're just barely intellegent enough to survive. Sort of like there's just enough oxygen to support life and the balance of the universe is fined tuned to just be what it has to be.

Even now, there are problems that seem unsolvable. The fact that we always manage to somehow survive points to the truth that our collective intellegence is "just right".

[William Terrell]

If beings achieve immortality, wouldn't they have to force nonfertility?

[Ogmios]

If beings achieve immortality, wouldn't they have to force nonfertility?

No, they would just need an inexpensive, faster then light propulsion system, and lots and lots of room, within a few thousand years they would take up a number of galazies.

[Ogmios]

galazies=galaxies, I must be low on blood sugar, time for me to eat something.

[PatrickHenry]

Once upon a time, in a xagaly far far away ...

[betty boop]

...he had no choice in the matter.

:^)

Then on the other hand, one could convincingly argue that man is hardly lacking, let alone destitute of, real choices in life, absolutely every day we breathe air.

I gather this is still an [the???] open question? Or are we to concede that the dogmatists of whatever stripe out there have shut down this problem forever, with their ever neat and clever adumbrations of so-called reality?

[PatrickHenry]

Or are we to concede that the dogmatists of whatever stripe out there have shut down this problem forever ...

A dogmatist-- assuming he's not the dictator in a theocracy -- can only shut down the problem as far as he is concerned. But in this country, each of us is free to keep our options open. (But if someone wants to deny free will, I guess it's inappropriate to regard that as keeping one's options open.)

[betty boop]

A dogmatist-- assuming he's not the dictator in a theocracy -- can only shut down the problem as far as he is concerned. But in this country, each of us is free to keep our options open. (But if someone wants to deny free will, I guess it's inappropriate to regard that as keeping one's options open.)

Do you imagine that the only dogmatists/dictators in human history have been of the "theocratical type"? If so, how do you explain the "usual suspects" -- the Lenins, the Stalins, the Hitlers, et al.?

Or is it that you lean to the broadest, most "liberal" definition of the word "theological?"

My guess is you could make such a case, thataway; but not without trashing something like 40 millennia of human experience and reflection of same in the process.

PH, you wrote: "each of us is free to keep our options open."

To which I might reply: "How many options, exactly, do you imagine the denizens of totalist regimes enjoy on a daily basis?" Do we folk living here in America perhaps tend to take a whole lot for granted, compared to other peoples?

Maybe just a different twist on the one argument being ventilated by the two of us.

But now it's sleepy-time for me; good night, dear Patrick! Pleasant dreams and (hopefully) see you tomorrow.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the heads up to your discussion!

A dogmatist-- assuming he's not the dictator in a theocracy -- can only shut down the problem as far as he is concerned. But in this country, each of us is free to keep our options open.

When I read this I took it to mean that as long as people have personal spiritual identity apart from the "state" or "dictator" - they could never be fully subdued. It seems reasonable to me that the most effective tyrannies are the ones which destroy the public's hope - e.g. state mandated atheism in communist countries, taliban theocracy in Afghanistan, etc.

[William Terrell]

No, they would just need an inexpensive, faster then light propulsion system, and lots and lots of room, within a few thousand years they would take up a number of galazies.

Shades of Agent Smith.

[Ogmios]

Yes, doesn't it though?

What I really want is his car...;)

[PatrickHenry]

Do you imagine that the only dogmatists/dictators in human history have been of the "theocratical type"? If so, how do you explain the "usual suspects" -- the Lenins, the Stalins, the Hitlers, et al.?

You're right, BB. Dictators of non-theological systems would also try to control the philosophical views of their people. I was thinking of recent events involving the taliban, and of much older events involving the inquisition, but of course the range of totalitarian disctatorships is far wider than that, and almost all of them would want to control how the people think.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the clarification! IMHO, religious freedom cannot exist with a dictatorship because such people will not accept the absolute authority of the state.

[Zon]

No.

[Zon]

No, they would just need an inexpensive, faster then light propulsion system, and lots and lots of room, within a few thousand years they would take up a number of galazies.

Apparently you assume that million-year-advanced volitional/conscious beings would be stagnant with the level of technology no greater than achieved by Earth beings.

Just from looking at our advances with quantum computation, quantum entanglements and nanotechnology it points to the highest probability that advanced technology beings transfer not the physical self or object, but rather, the information is transferred and the object or being is recreated at the distant destination. Near instantaneous recreation across the Universe making c a  seemingly comparative standstill.

If every conscious being that has lived on Earth was immortal and continued to procreate since the discovery/invention of consciousness on Earth -- about 3,000 years -- there'd still be plenty of room in our solar system for additional procreation of volitional/conscious beings. 

Nonetheless, with their millions-of-years or billion-of-years more advanced technologies, the ability to control the Universe implies the ability to create new galaxies -- perhaps even create Universes. Whatever it takes to preserve the most valuable entity in existence... The controller of existence--volitional/conscious beings.

[f.Christian]

ph ...

You're right, BB. Dictators of non-theological systems would also try to control the philosophical views of their people. I was thinking of recent events involving the taliban, and of much older events involving the inquisition, but of course the range of totalitarian disctatorships is far wider than that, and almost all of them would want to control how the people think.


474 posted on 10/10/2003 3:22 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (The "Agreement of the Willing" is posted at the end of my personal profile

fC ...

What is this obsession - fixation on liberalology --- conservatism blindness !

[William Terrell]

Why?

[RightWhale]

If beings achieve immortality, wouldn't they have to force nonfertility?

It is estimated that if aging and disease were eliminated forever, the average lifetime would be 600 years due to other causes such as accidents.