@Vastness: just as analytical, using of determinism and self conscious as i am in a way i see. i wasn't saying you weren't appreciated. sometimes 4 heads are better than two and it was my typical way of shoving my nose where it don't belong and making things odd. no worries.
i find it hard to fathom but not hard to accept a mind like yours would use science as evidence in support of a conversation on ethics. science has less to do with humans and more to do with the journey through this life as well as how the universe works around us.
the problem with modal logic (like any other logic) people don't practice what they preach, glad you got some understanding from it though. very nice.
what do you think happens if we jump start that star?
Vastness said:
We might as well debate whether the study of geology or music was "discovered" or "invented"
if this is the book i'm thinking of (A Brief History of Geology by Kieran O'Hara) it will explain a lot about how we came to understand geology (great idea using seismographs around the world to prove plate tectonics). the soul is another thing all together different. the beginnings of human history and implementing ideas that were the foundation and carried over to today are more accurate in guessing in the start up compared to the soul. music was probably discovered as part of language, entertainment (which was hellof a lot more basic back then. movies today are nothing more than gussied up versions of stories once told around campfires), bordeom, connecting and emotion.
music came from expression, geology was invented to discover what was already there. one was drawn out to give form and function, one was discovered to make us more comfortable with our surroundings. imo of course.
Vastness said:
As far as ethics goes - I would say you are correct in thinking there is an innate ethical code which has prevented us from killing each other, this is something that was selectively bred into us by the forces of nature because any species too hell-bent on killing every other member of that species would not last very long. That said, it's too early to say if our innate ethical code will truly stand the test of time - we might still annihilate ourselves in the future.
I would also posit that these tendencies are less an "ethical code" as most people understand that idea, and more just a collection of hardwired tendencies and behaviours, from which certain codes of ethics are likely to arise as a side effect - with some significant variation of course. So I would personally credit our survival to the cumulative effect of many instinctual, sub-ethical tendencies of our species... rather than the deliberate upholding of any specific ethical code, god-given or otherwise. I could be wrong also of course.
not wrong, i think in addition it is to note that survival mechanics denotes that we could easily at one time or another make ourselves extinct, excluding the possibility imo is akin to wishful thinking but too pessimistic for most.
@sigmond: haha, the topic is a real page turner but makes one all woozy doesn't it?!
i'll have to check out this ebola?'s posts if i can find them.
to answer your original question. god before the word. (chicken and egg was nice touch). the innate ethical structure does exist, only problem is no one has the patience or the lifespan necessary to see it beginning to end. it's a process that we as a race must partake in and not the individual alone (sometimes it's the journey and not where your going type of thing) even if it turns out like most ideas in this world it takes several individuals to grasp parts of it and the majority of humanity to embrace it and propel those few minds further again down the road. personal note: i'm curious as to when we do finally see the conclusion of the finding as a species. will we cease to exist or lose our drive to survive in this universe? i digress.
i read the first article, apparently the second link is a series of 3 books. i will try to get to those in time as they seem interesting but it will be a lil while from now, plus some time to read. i gotta be honest with ya, if they're opinionated i wont finish them. i like factual and theorems, not opinions (libraries are full of so called factual works when most are opinionated and strutting your stuff for the world stage to see. sheesh.) i prefer fictional and anything else over opinions.
the first article is the basic theory of math being an underlying driving force through out the universe but to answer your question, the author of the article has it right. what Vastness is describing if followed through to the end of the thought will get a person to the same conclusion. seeing the differences between ideas is not the same as recognizing the similarities between them, again i digress. for an OPB article that was well said actually (by that i mean i see OPB similar to VOX news. kinda like a comprehensive basic understanding, not liken to sesame street though, that would be insulting).
i don't know what this leap of faith your referring to is but seeing as this is P&S, the "random people showing up" are to set the board. it removes all of the filters and leaves only some so you cannot be as distracted in your purpose or along your path. the goal is to bring all of the filters back in view (in so few o words). the leap of faith is a first good step, seeing as you've taken it before you would be benefited in continuing to do so (and only you know what it looks like when the time is ideal and when it is not). basically all the characters on the board show up when your ready to play, how all the characters play out their roles is not always important. some are only there as "filler" and have reasons for being so themselves that might not apply directly to your life but their own. distraction, being tested, learning to see the difference, etc. (the woman in the red dress from the matrix but less flashy as opposed to seeing everyone as potential agents. make sense?) seeing the right relevant players and then understanding why is more important. that's the lesson, it's learning to discern what is important and what isn't. if your focusing on the players too much your going to miss the key stuff and start all over again later but with a lil more info this time (thankfully we always start over unless we're 6 feet under, that's the only time limit i'm aware of so far.). plus all the pieces go into the same box at the end of the game.
don't apologize, i'll hunt you down and tickle you until you pee your pants if you do that again, haha. seriously though, no worries, it's part of the process sometimes, trying to figure out what to say or ask. as human beings we are creatures of habit. sometimes we relearn lessons and sometimes we go through similar things only for the practice of it, to keep sharp for the next time. sometimes we learn there is no point at all and to only live this experience we call life. sometimes it's the big things we learn and some times it's the lil things we learn. it's frustrating in today's day and age where the whole of the humanity is arrogant to the age range of a teenager but we're more like 6-8 year old age range. making mistakes means your human and not dead yet cause your still learning and have something else to experience.
@Foreigner: after reading the articles and all of the posts, i think your right. sound reasoning and experience there. glad to see your still with us.
