Questions/Ideas that bug/confuse me...

[bob135]

1) How can you compare life and death, assuming life is existence and death is nonexistence?
I don't see how you can. You are trying to compare something with properties, existence, with something that lacks properties, nonexistence. You can say life is happy or unhappy, but you can't say anything about nonexistence. This leads me to belive that it isn't rational to say I should prefer life to death, or death to life, since I can't compare them. I can't say, "oh yeah, I remember back before I was born, it really sucked (or was awesome)." If value is the deciding factor in rational choice and life and death cannot be rationally chosen between, then it follows that life and death have the same value. However, death has no properties, so it has no value, since value is a property, so life, having the same value as death, also has no value. How depressing...

2) Is there a resolution to the "Buridan's ass" paradox?
In the paradox, a hungry, but completely mule is offered two identically desireable bales of hay. Since he is rational, he has no rational way to choose between them, so he starves and dies. I think that if the mule resolved the issue in my first question, and found survival to be a rational goal, it would be reasonable to flip a coin, giving each bale of hay a 50/50 chance, consistent with its value. However, the one problem I see with this solution is that it doesn't change the fact that actually picking the bale of hay would still be irrational. Following the result of the coin flip and ignoring the result both result in survival, so you are stuck in the same dilemma.

3) Can you prove that induction works?
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow because of physics, which has worked in the past, so I conclude that it will continue to work. In the same fashion, I believe induction works because it has worked in the past. Can what appears to be circular logic be avoided?
Also, I belive that somethign will be blue tomorrow, all else equal, because it is blue today. Is that any more reasonable than believing it will be grue tomorrow because it is grue today? Grue means blue now but green after time X. This seems to undermine the logic of induction as well.

4) What is the nature of the self?
Is there any reason to believe it is continuous? Am I someone new every instant, sharing only memories with previous selves? Assuming a continuous self, if every molecule in my brain was replaced with an identical copy, would I still be me, or would I be someone different, but with the exact same thoughts, memories, and environment?

5) What is cause?
Is it just a word we use to describe very strong, maybe even perfect, correlations? When I open my hand to drop an object, is the object causing my hand to open, or is my hand causing the object to begin free fall? There is never a moment where my hand is open and the object isn't in free fall, nor is there a moment where the object is in free fall but my hand isn't open, so I can't say one occurs first and therefore is the cause. The open hand and the free falling object, just like the closed hand and the stationary object are perfectly correlated. Also, why is it that the past causes the future? Couldn't the future cause the past? Does the fact that the object is now on the ground but once was in my hand force (or cause) the past event of me dropping it? Is this any better (in terms of explaining events) than saying that my dropping it forced (or caused) the future with the object on the ground?

6) Whats the deal with free will?
I don't know where to start. I just don't get it. Humans have a will (I think of will as being desires/wishes), but I don't see how this will can be free. I think my problem is also a result of my confusion about cause and its relationship to freedom. If A causes B causes C causes D and so on, you have hard determinism and it seems free will is impossible, as you are just a link in the chain. If A results in B or C, I don't understand what occurs at the point of divergence (when A "decides" to cause B or cause C). People say that this is where free will comes in, but I don't get why free will is any better here than a genuinely random number generator for picking B or C. If it is truly no different from a random choice, then I don't see how free will is any different from random will (random between B and C at least). If you don't buy causality at all, then I guess I would say that you don't have free will because its all random/uncauses. It seems to me that uncaused=random, since totally uncaused would mean totally unconstrained, or random.
I hope most of that made sense.

As significant as I think these issues are (I'll add more if I think of them), none of them seem to interfere negatively with my daily existence. I just think it would be nice if anyone has a good response to these questions and my answers to them. Also, some of these issues have wikipedia articles on them, which I have read; I am just looking for something in your own words, or at least something wikipedia offers in more detail.

If you have any recommended reading on these topics I would appreciate it.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

From a christian perspective...there is life after death, not non existance, so it is comparable.

 

[bob135]

Yes of course. I know that. You can resolve these paradoxes and questions if you have a very different set of premises. Do you think you could resolve these issues within the context of my assumptions? Or demonstrate where my assumptions are incoherent, so the paradox/issue is resolved or becomes a non-issue?

I suppose the question of comparing existence and nonexistence still remains for the Christian. Although i suppose they could argue that nonexistence is impossible, since your soul is always floating around somewhere.

Anyway, any other takers?

 

[moogoob]

1) How can you compare life and death, assuming life is existence and death is nonexistence?

Interesting question. But you just answered it. Your statement, "life is existence, death is non-existence" was a comparison.

2) Is there a resolution to the "Buridan's ass" paradox?

I beleive a truly rational being will rationally flip a coin, as the possibility of starving will be taken into account. Only insects (which are devoid of rationality) could be fooled by this paradox. It actually has a name, too: sphexishness, named after a particular parasitic wasp that has evolved a behaviour of stuffing a burrow with a paralysed caterpillar and laying its eggs on it for the larvae to feed. If a person moves the caterpillar while the wasp prepares the burrow, the wasp will move the caterpillar back into position and begin the burrow preparation anew. In other words, it lacks adaptability, one of the most important rational faculties.
More here: http://www.personalityresearch.org/evolutionary/sphexishness.html

3) Can you prove that induction works?

Not my area of expertise. But as long as it's worked in the past, it should, all things being equal, work in the future. But that's the thing about science: it's open to change. If a physical property were to change, new theories would be postulated.

4) What is the nature of the self?

Without getting into hive-minds, this is a subject I like to avoid, because I value my sanity. Others are welcome to try, though.

5) What is cause?

Excellent question! Is there an ultimate cause to everything?(since nature is an effect?) Sorry I don't have any answers, but I've always liked good questions more than answers anyways.

6) Whats the deal with free will?

I was thinking about this recently. And I came to the conclusion that even if the future is set in stone, we don't know what's going to happen (certain laws of nature make sure of that ) and therefore shouldn't worry ourselves with the idea we're not free- simply act as though we are no matter what.

Hope some of my points are interesting to you.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

1) How can you compare life and death, assuming life is existence and death is nonexistence?
I don't see how you can. You are trying to compare something with properties, existence, with something that lacks properties, nonexistence. You can say life is happy or unhappy, but you can't say anything about nonexistence. This leads me to belive that it isn't rational to say I should prefer life to death, or death to life, since I can't compare them. I can't say, "oh yeah, I remember back before I was born, it really sucked (or was awesome)." If value is the deciding factor in rational choice and life and death cannot be rationally chosen between, then it follows that life and death have the same value. However, death has no properties, so it has no value, since value is a property, so life, having the same value as death, also has no value. How depressing...

If you have any recommended reading on these topics I would appreciate it.

To resolve this first question, what you are missing is the "What is the purpose of Life?" answer. I could try to spell out exactly what that answer is, but such would just lead to ranting and more chaos.

As far as what to read concerning getting that answered... Forget it. You must THINK for yourself. Anything that anyone says can be doubtful until you can think for yourself enough to already see the basics of what they are trying to relay.

Without thinking for yourself, no one can communicate any confidence into you on any subject. Without thinking, you are left to merely take things on faith because either you are impressed with the qualifications of the speaker, or you just desire that they be right.


To learn how to think, you merely need to do as Jesus said to do. I know that probably sounds silly to you, but the fact is that Jesus had pointed out HOW to become “enlightened”. But I have yet to find any Christian who seems to understand what He was talking about.

So without accepting anyone’s word for how to learn to think, then you are stuck with finding it on your own or giving it up and accepting faith in something that you don’t really understand.

 

[bob135]

moogoob:
1) Yes, I know I'm making a comparison in the question. I was sort of looking for comparisons beyond truisms/stated assumptions.
2) I remember seeing that wasp on Animal Planet or something like that. Obviously, in the real world, two equally desireable bales of hay won't exist. The one the donkey is looking at might be more desireable. But that doesn't resolve the paradox as a thought experiment. The donkey is equally well off if he follows the coin flip or disobeys it. He could keep flipping coins again and again and again....
3) Well, you acknowledged the paradox. The thing about induction is it doesn't seem to be verifiable.
4) Good plan.
5) Yeah I like that question too. It gets into discussions of free will and other topics very often.
6) Yeah thats pretty much my position too, I'm just wondering if anyone disagreed.

ReluctantProphet:
1) I have thought for myself, and those are the conclusions I have come to. I'm just looking for a logical consistency check and for other people to offer their lines of reasoning. Of course, when you respond I will think about what you have said and accept it or reject it.

Of course, this brings up another little dilemma. How do you think about how to think, if you can't think in the first place? How do I follow or understand anyone's idea on "how to think" without first being able to think myself? How do I learn to think without thinking about how to learn to think? Don't you need to think to learn?