[extropy-chat] theobiology

Sat Dec 6 03:57:55 UTC 2003

Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote: 
Intellectually little is gained by positing a something out there calling the
shots and then treating that something as a great unknowable black box
outside of and separate to the many other things that intelligent people
also don't know. 

True I don't think anything intellectual is gained by the exercise. Although 
I don't think anything is lost either. Moreover, I wouldn't choose to treat it as a black box but rather a field open to exploration. There is an entire discipline called Theosophy which is dedicated to trying to understand the mind of that something.

I like Sagan's question on this point best. When considering arguments
of uncaused causes and positioning that the universe had or needed a
creator but that the creator didn't need a creator - "why not save a step"?

In my view the universe didn't need a creator because the universe IS the creator. Of course this view gets me in a lot of trouble with christian theologists (although not so much with the jewish ones) because it violates their dogma that heaven and God are separate from and and outside of the universe. Call me a heretic. *shrug* 

I think the low psychology rather than high IQ is the real cause. I think 
(and this is speculation I admit) that humans are simply wired with a very
strong propensity to anthropomorphise. Much of what we do and what
matters to homo saps happens in a social and political context and our
brains have developed to reflect that strong preoccupation. Seeing design
and intention and athropomorphising all over the place is easier and offers
the possibility of appeal when circumstances may otherwise seem hopeless.

This is actually a very good point. The question of whether the Universe created us in its image, or we interperate the Universe in ours is the Big Question after all. I choose the former out of simple humility. After all, if both life and consiousness are emergent properties of complex states of matter, how could I assume that I am more complex than the infinite Universe in which I am but the merest speck? And if the Universe is more complex than me, it would be sheer hubris on my part to assume that I am either more alive or intelligent than It is.

I do not think the high IQ types were immune because of that from 
existential angst. Nor do see any reason why their existential angst should
be resolvable any better in the universe than that of the lowest meanest 
brute.

I would posit that the high IQ types would be MORE prone to existensial angst since the lowest meanest brutes are too busy eating, boozing, and breeding to care.

 I see the turning toward religion and providence as quite natural, as 
natural as panic in the face of near certain oblivion and about as helpful.

I find it actually prevents panic allowing me to face life and death situations with calmness and serenity. That in turn usually allows me to successfully survive those situations (so far at least).

Cheers, :)

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

The Avantguardian 

"He stands like some sort of pagan god or deposed tyrant. Staring out over the city he's sworn to . . .to stare out over and it's evident just by looking at him that he's got some pretty heavy things on his mind."

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031205/99508b6a/attachment.html>