Philosophical ideas and acting "as though"

[bennyboy]

Many people have ideas in which they are sure represent reality, but these ideas don't necessarily seem to be mirrored in their actual behaviors.  Examples:

-Free will is an illusion, since there's no evidence that anything is outside deterministic causality (or since God knows the future already).
-Mind is the subjective experience of a purely mechanical/physical process.
-God is real.
-The universe is made of mathematical relationships, including particle wave functions-- and nothing more.


This is one thing I've found with both the religious and the science-minded: that ideas are ideas, and personality and behaviors seem to hold little relation to the ideas.  Very few scientists, for example, make it a regular mental practice to ponder the vast emptiness of even solid objects and to let that awareness inform their behavior-- doing this is simply not considered an important part of science.  Very few people who believe the brain is deterministic and free will is therefore an illusion actually change their world views in a way in which this truth would matter: they still get mad when someone cuts them off in traffic, they still blame a killer or a pedophile for his actions, and so on.

It seems to me that the scientfic method, in particular, needs formally to add one more step to its method: the application of scientific truths to the world view, and the expression of those truths in our behavior and in our laws.  We should act as though scientific truths matter as more than a catalogue of details about the world.

This would mean materialists adopting practices they currently abhor, in particular that of meditation. By this, I don't mean seeking Nirvana or trying to achieve OBE. I mean the habitual reflection on ideas, so frequently and with such focus that they become entrenched in the world view, and manifest in one's behaviors. Without this, philosophical or scientific ideas are just bullet points, rather than a key toward improving our lives individually and culturally.

[SuperSentient]

Many people have ideas in which they are sure represent reality, but these ideas don't necessarily seem to be mirrored in their actual behaviors.  Examples:

-Free will is an illusion, since there's no evidence that anything is outside deterministic causality (or since God knows the future already).
-Mind is the subjective experience of a purely mechanical/physical process.
-God is real.
-The universe is made of mathematical relationships, including particle wave functions-- and nothing more.


This is one thing I've found with both the religious and the science-minded: that ideas are ideas, and personality and behaviors seem to hold little relation to the ideas.  Very few scientists, for example, make it a regular mental practice to ponder the vast emptiness of even solid objects and to let that awareness inform their behavior-- doing this is simply not considered an important part of science.  Very few people who believe the brain is deterministic and free will is therefore an illusion actually change their world views in a way in which this truth would matter: they still get mad when someone cuts them off in traffic, they still blame a killer or a pedophile for his actions, and so on.

It seems to me that the scientfic method, in particular, needs formally to add one more step to its method: the application of scientific truths to the world view, and the expression of those truths in our behavior and in our laws.  We should act as though scientific truths matter as more than a catalogue of details about the world.

This would mean materialists adopting practices they currently abhor, in particular that of meditation.  By this, I don't mean seeking Nirvana or trying to achieve OBE.  I mean the habitual reflection on ideas, so frequently and with such focus that they become entrenched in the world view, and manifest in one's behaviors.  Without this, philosophical or scientific ideas are just bullet points, rather than a key toward improving our lives individually and culturally.

Science should inform our behavior and practices?

I mean the habitual reflection on ideas, so frequently and with such focus that they become entrenched in the world view, and manifest in one's behaviors.

Well, people tend not to consider science as a cultural and ritual practice system. Why do you think science should be treated more this way?

[bennyboy]

Science should inform our behavior and practices?

Scientific truth should inform our world view, i.e. our core understanding at the most fundamental level.

Well, people tend not to consider science as a cultural and ritual practice system. Why do you think science should be treated more this way?

Because we are not allowing our world views, to reflect truth when we discover it.  Just acknowledging that the science of the day tells us X and Y is not the same as learning to look at our experiences through X and Y.


You ask this question, but I believe the OP gives a pretty clear example of why I think science should be treated more this way: an understanding of the mechanism of the brain should lead us to moderate our thoughts about, and our responses to, other people.  But few people do this, and those rarely.

This is because understanding brain function or determinism on paper is not the same thing as training one's mind to actually perceive other people's behavior through understanding-colored glasses.

[The Grand Nudger]

Very few scientists, for example, make it a regular mental practice to ponder the vast emptiness of even solid objects and to let that awareness inform their behavior-- doing this is simply not considered an important part of science.

It isn't important to every part of science (or every scientist).  Why would it be?  There's no need to ponder it, for example, when studying mosaic resistant cultivars or asking the question "will it blend!?!".  It is important, though, when modeling nematode migration, and so "regular practice".  I think that you'd find that in any portion of science where the resolution and realization above actually is relevant and important, it -is- regular practice.  

Very few people who believe the brain is deterministic and free will is therefore an illusion actually change their world views in a way in which this truth would matter: they still get mad when someone cuts them off in traffic, they still blame a killer or a pedophile for his actions, and so on.

-but can they help themselves, can they stop doing that or is it a deep seated compulsion...lol?

It seems to me that the scientfic method, in particular, needs formally to add one more step to its method: the application of scientific truths to the world view, and the expression of those truths in our behavior and in our laws.  We should act as though scientific truths matter as more than a catalogue of details about the world.

I agree with the last sentence despite disagreeing with those that led up to it.  There's no categorical imperative to make our world view, behaviors, or laws conform to scientific truths.  They may matter more than some people think, but that doesn't mean they matter as much as you seem to think they do, or in those instances in which you think they matter, or for the reasons you think they matter, in this post 

This would mean materialists adopting practices they currently abhor, in particular that of meditation.  By this, I don't mean seeking Nirvana or trying to achieve OBE.  I mean the habitual reflection on ideas, so frequently and with such focus that they become entrenched in the world view, and manifest in one's behaviors.

Sooooo..you mean thinking, not meditation.  We do that all the time.

Without this, philosophical or scientific ideas are just bullet points, rather than a key toward improving our lives individually and culturally.

I think we do it more than you give us credit for, for better or for worse...we just don't reach the same conclusions or positions or behaviors you feel we should.

[bennyboy]

Sooooo..you mean thinking, not meditation.  We do that all the time.

No, I don't mean thinking. To compare it to a computer, thinking is the contents of RAM, the function of the CPU and so on. Meditation I'd describe as rewriting a firmware OS: there's an intent to change the underlying function in a fairly permanent way. If you still want to call it thinking, I'd say it's thinking with an intent to make that thinking a permanent fixture at a preconscious level.

I think we do it more than you give us credit for, for better or for worse...we just don't reach the same conclusions or positions or behaviors you feel we should.

I don't think most people deliberately contemplate scientific truths for the purpose of changing their world views at a deep level. But perhaps you can give some examples, so I understand better what you mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think most people deliberately contemplate scientific truths for the purpose of changing their world views at a deep level. But perhaps you can give some examples, so I understand better what you mean?

I don't think that we do that either, but we do deliberately contemplate scientific truths as a key towards improving our lives individually and culturally, with so much frequency and force that they become entrenched in our worldview.  I, for example...think about soil hydrology, alot, lol.  That's why the empty space in solid mass isn't the mindfuck for me that it is for you. 

We could repeat this example over a never-ending stream of personal and professional interests and we'll find the same thing over and over.

[Angrboda]

Sooooo..you mean thinking, not meditation.  We do that all the time.

No, I don't mean thinking.  To compare it to a computer, thinking is the contents of RAM, the function of the CPU and so on.  Meditation I'd describe as rewriting a firmware OS: there's an intent to change the underlying function in a fairly permanent way.  If you still want to call it thinking, I'd say it's thinking with an intent to make that thinking a permanent fixture at a preconscious level.

I think your understanding of the process of meditation is askew. What makes you think anything is being rewritten in meditation?

I'm also skeptical of this notion that the ramifications of scientific discovery aren't being accounted for in our day to day behavior. What are the ramifications of hard determinism with regard to our behavior regarding questions of the will? It's not clear that the ramifications suggest we behave any differently than we do. In any case, you haven't shown that there is such a case. And what of the idea that most of matter is empty space? It's not. Matter is filled with various fields which maintain its structural form. The ramifications of that don't appear to differ from us treating things as solid, particularly when you take into account that our doing so has more to do with the granularity of our perception, rather than any disparity between 'science' and 'act'. I think you've made up a problem which doesn't exist.

[bennyboy]

No, I don't mean thinking.  To compare it to a computer, thinking is the contents of RAM, the function of the CPU and so on.  Meditation I'd describe as rewriting a firmware OS: there's an intent to change the underlying function in a fairly permanent way.  If you still want to call it thinking, I'd say it's thinking with an intent to make that thinking a permanent fixture at a preconscious level.

I think your understanding of the process of meditation is askew.  What makes you think anything is being rewritten in meditation?

Well, I've read quite a lot of books about meditation. A particularly philosophical one (and not particularly religious one) is this: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10856..._Emptiness

I'm also skeptical of this notion that the ramifications of scientific discovery aren't being accounted for in our day to day behavior.  What are the ramifications of hard determinism with regard to our behavior regarding questions of the will?

Our understanding of justice, for example, is almost completely dependent on the idea of free will. How do you vilify (or even blame slightly) a person who acts as he inevitably must act? Acting as though someone has free will if one does not, despite all evidence, is an expression of delusion. And where people already KNOW about brain function and disease, but still continue to act this way (i.e. like 80% of the educated population), then there's a disconnect between what is "known" on paper and what is "known" as part of one's actual world view.

 It's not clear that the ramifications suggest we behave any differently than we do.  In any case, you haven't shown that there is such a case.

Pretty much all moral outrage, from honking horns to demands for execution, show that either people do not KNOW the science of mind of today, or have not adopted it as part of their world view.

 And what of the idea that most of matter is empty space?  It's not.  Matter is filled with various fields which maintain its structural form.  The ramifications of that don't appear to differ from us treating things as solid, particularly when you take into account that our doing so has more to do with the granularity of our perception, rather than any disparity between 'science' and 'act'.  I think you've made up a problem which doesn't exist.

This is just an example of the disconnect between perception and fact. When I look at my desk, all the scientific knowledge I have (and it's admittedly little) about fields and functions serve mainly as trivia. I simply do not / cannot see the world in this way, unless I ponder it constantly. But there are other ideas ("We are all stardust.") that upon deep reflection are likely to help moderate behavior-- lessening the sense of importance of the self, and so on.

Most people will have the occasional "Aha!" moment when they consider this stuff. Then they'll go into a flying rage when someone tries to pull into their lane on the drive home.

[henryp]

Many people have ideas in which they are sure represent reality, but these ideas don't necessarily seem to be mirrored in their actual behaviors.  Examples:

-Free will is an illusion, since there's no evidence that anything is outside deterministic causality (or since God knows the future already).
-Mind is the subjective experience of a purely mechanical/physical process.
-God is real.
-The universe is made of mathematical relationships, including particle wave functions-- and nothing more.


This is one thing I've found with both the religious and the science-minded: that ideas are ideas, and personality and behaviors seem to hold little relation to the ideas.  Very few scientists, for example, make it a regular mental practice to ponder the vast emptiness of even solid objects and to let that awareness inform their behavior-- doing this is simply not considered an important part of science.  Very few people who believe the brain is deterministic and free will is therefore an illusion actually change their world views in a way in which this truth would matter: they still get mad when someone cuts them off in traffic, they still blame a killer or a pedophile for his actions, and so on.

It seems to me that the scientfic method, in particular, needs formally to add one more step to its method: the application of scientific truths to the world view, and the expression of those truths in our behavior and in our laws.  We should act as though scientific truths matter as more than a catalogue of details about the world.

This would mean materialists adopting practices they currently abhor, in particular that of meditation.  By this, I don't mean seeking Nirvana or trying to achieve OBE.  I mean the habitual reflection on ideas, so frequently and with such focus that they become entrenched in the world view, and manifest in one's behaviors.  Without this, philosophical or scientific ideas are just bullet points, rather than a key toward improving our lives individually and culturally.

The part of our mind that we call conscious doesn't run the show.  It's one little voice in our head that sometimes is working against millions of years of evolution and/or a lifetime of social indoctrination.  The little voice having knowledge of something doesn't undo everything else.  

I know there's no reason to be afraid of heights if I'm not at risk of falling.  But my knowing that doesn't turn off all the physical and psychological impulses that goes along with being up very high.  At the same time, the knowledge I'm not truly at risk may help me reduce some of the symptoms that go along with the natural fear of heights.

You have to overrule your subconscious in every instance, which itself may not even be possible.  And maybe someday down the road, if you do it enough, you'll have reprogrammed yourself enough that your behavior lines up better with the ideas the voice in your head is coming up with.

But the big point, I think, is that the voice in our head is in the passenger seat.  And the best it can do is try to convince the driver where to go.  But sometimes the driver is just going to do whatever they want.

---

The other trick with some of the scientific discoveries, is behaving accordingly isn't necessarily in our best interests.  It's probably better we all just pretend to have free will for example.

[bennyboy]

The part of our mind that we call conscious doesn't run the show.  It's one little voice in our head that sometimes is working against millions of years of evolution and/or a lifetime of social indoctrination.  The little voice having knowledge of something doesn't undo everything else.  

I know there's no reason to be afraid of heights if I'm not at risk of falling.  But my knowing that doesn't turn off all the physical and psychological impulses that goes along with being up very high.  At the same time, the knowledge I'm not truly at risk may help me reduce some of the symptoms that go along with the natural fear of heights.

Now we're getting somewhere. The reason you can't suppress your fear is that while you hold an idea on a cognitive level, you haven't yet dedicated it to your world view. You must meditate on the truth that you are unlikely to fall, until you believe it not as an idea to acknowledge, but as something which FEELS true enough to be acted on. If you REALLY believe that it's safe to climb a tall ladder, you won't feel insecure anymore.

You have to overrule your subconscious in every instance, which itself may not even be possible.  And maybe someday down the road, if you do it enough, you'll have reprogrammed yourself enough that your behavior lines up better with the ideas the voice in your head is coming up with.

That's the key. You can't make yourself believe. You have to change the self, because the self is a collection of beliefs. "Reprogramming" requires constant vigilance and attention to an idea, until it can be moved down from the conscious into the preconscious/subconscious. Most people are collecting glass beads in life-- those things which shine enough on the surface to hold their attention-- and in doing so, they are neglecting the real value of knowledge-- the ability to perfect the self through an increase in understanding.

The other trick with some of the scientific discoveries, is behaving accordingly isn't necessarily in our best interests.  It's probably better we all just pretend to have free will for example.

Why? So we can continue to condemn those whose genetics and life experiences lead to an unfortunate state of affairs in which they offend the rules of society sufficiently enough to be punished? So we can happily maintain a delusional sense of control over our world while big businesses tear holes in the atmosphere and wipe out species one by one?

I'd say as a general principle that we should put our money where our mouths are-- any idea we insist on asserting as truth, we must dedicate to integrating into the ego. And example is the many people here who say they're not afraid of death, for this and that philosophical reason. The actual cessation of the fear of death would be a real philosophical and personal achievement, but the reality is much different-- if any of these people had a gun pointed at them, they'd shit their pants. I'd like to MEET a person who legitimately had managed to rationalize away their fear of mortality-- this would be a person I would be very interested in learning from.