[extropy-chat] Re: Intelligent Design and Irriducible Complexity

[Jef Allbright]

This question is deeply intertwingled with the issues of morality, 
subjective experience or 'qualia', personal identity, free will, and 
meaning of life that are discussed on this list.  Each of these appears 
to present a paradox when considered beyond the context of conventional 
human experience. 

Each of these issues can be seen in completely rational terms if the 
context is enlarged (approaching an objective viewpoint)  but then there 
is a sense of loss as each appears to be devoid of meaning, in the terms 
to which we are accustomed.

I had an experience many years ago that I describe as "going through the 
void and coming out the other side".  No drugs were involved, but I had 
been struggling painfully for years to make sense of these philosophical 
issues and others.   Zen philosophy took me part of the way, with the 
subjective component, and my scientific rationalist background took me 
the rest of the way.  I realized that each of these issues appears 
paradoxical only through the tunnel vision of our limited subjective 
experience, and necessarily so.  We can rationally conceive of the 
larger view, and we see that everything works just as before, but we 
recoil from the perception that it is utterly mechanical.  "Going into 
the void" means letting go of the illusion of an independent Self, 
defined by transparent beliefs and values.  Coming out the other side 
means making the journey, looking back, and seeing that all is as it 
was, but with a new perspective that provides clarity on these issues.

Like particle/wave duality, there is a subjective/objective duality of 
human understanding that underpins each of these apparent paradoxes.

What is the meaning of life?  In the ultimate, objective sense there is 
none.  But when people ask this question, there's an implicit request 
for a value statement, inherently subjective.  Therefore the practical 
question becomes "I exist. What can I do to maximize the value of my 
life experience?"  And given that understanding, the quest is 
(subjectively) fully self-directed.

Do I have free will?  In the ultimate, objective sense, everything is 
determined (good thing, too.)  From the subjective point of view, the 
only point of view that matters to the subjective Self, one has complete 
free will.

What is the nature of 'qualia' that makes my subjective experience seem 
so unique?  From the ultimate objective point of view, the experience is 
just the result of the mechanical functioning of the brain.  Anything 
that can ask itself the question "How do I feel?" will report the answer 
as an experience.  From the subjective point of view, with no other way 
to experience except via the mechanism be queried, the experience is the 
total reality.

Can there be an objective morality?  From the ultimate, objective point 
of view, there is none.  The ultimate law is what works, survives and 
grows.  But from the subjective point of view, which is the only point 
of view that has value (meaning) to us, our evolutionary and social 
matrix clearly defines what is Right for us at this moment.  As we make 
choices, those that work will tend to proliferate, and no matter what 
our starting point, our 'moral' choices will approach, but never reach, 
an objective basis.

In the bigger picture, it all fits -- there is no place for paradox in 
the universe.  But in the perceiving it's all a matter of context.

Why does all this matter?  We are close to a technological and 
cooperative cusp that may carry us into a new phase of human existence. 
Within the intersubjective 'reality' that we humans share, accurate 
perception leads to actions that work, and are therefore 'good'.  
Clinging with blind unawareness to all aspects of our evolved nature 
will result in actions that don't work, and the pain of bumping into the 
hard edges of reality.  The (subjective) choice is ours.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net








>  
>
> Many philosphers like Camus, Sartre, and Kierkegard seemed to meditate 
> on the inherent meaninglessness of life assuming there is 'no God.'  
> They seemed to think that without a creator or power greater than the 
> sum of all humanity than the notion of any meaning in life becomes a 
> cosmic joke.  Contemporary existentialists like Woody Allen and Ingmar 
> Bergman certainly use this brand of nihilistic atheistic philosophy as 
> a key focus for many of their films.  The idea of nihilism 
> certainly frustrates me on a gut level; the fact that people 'freak 
> out' at the notion that if there is no God than all of humanities 
> aspirations, ambitions, creations, and individual and collective 
> thoughts maybe completely transitory and therefore become 
> pointless/meaningless. 
>  
> In  Annie Hall the young Woody Allen character seemed to find life 
> meaningless at just the thought of the eventual collapse of the 
> universe.  That anthro-biased word 'meaning' that philosphers and 
> laypeople babble on about seems so often to be the key deciding factor 
> for whether people see the glass half full or empty in life.  It seems 
> to me that many, if not most people, who are not very religious seem 
> to use distraction through simple pleasure/novelty seeking as a way to 
> shield them from the threat of atheism and  therefore nihilism.  Most 
> people in the middle therefore have a don't think to hard or else 
> become depressed kind of attitude...this also frustrates me.
>  
> Now I know that part of existenialist, humanist, and transhumanist 
> thinking is that humans can and do create 'meaning' through our 
> actions and our ability to reason etc. And >humanists seem to 
> believe that our ability to make decisions will one day be augmented 
> and advanced through bio-engineering and nano-technology and so on.  
> They seem to hint at the notion that we can overcome the threat 
> of nihilism through creating a world of amazing complexity through AI, 
> the Singularity and cyborgian super advanced humans, and people like 
> Kurzweil take it even further. 
>  
>  The notion of superintelligence itself promises to break the cold 
> barriers of hard determinism and potentially create true free will.  I 
> could speculate on both sides of the issue and babble on about 
> free-will vs. detereminsim and whether >humanist level thinking can 
> produce greater free will etc.  But I was curious to hear some of your 
> opinions on creating more meaning, true free will, and whether or not 
> other 'old hash' philosophical ideas like nihilism, existentialism, 
> and human level meaning have any validity when dealing with hard 
> materialist science?  Is nihilism just a stupid loaded term or does it 
> have any truth to it? 
>  
>  
> */David <deimtee at optusnet.com.au>/* wrote:
>
>     Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>     > Kurt Schoedel wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >>The creationists argue that biological systems so complex,
>     irriducibly
>     >>complex that they simply cannot have evolved through natural
>     processes.
>     >>So they say, biology had to have been designed. The problem, of
>     course,
>     >>is that the designer itself is an example of an irriducibly complex
>     >>system that the designer itself had to have been designed by
>     another
>     >>designer, and so on. this is an example of an infinite
>     recursion. When
>     >>you point this out to creationists, they tend to go bananas on you.
>     >
>     >
>     > In your dreams. When I have pointed this out to Christians, they
>     > have just stared at me incomprehendingly as if I had just said
>     > something entirely nonsensical. God ! is the Creator, the Source of
>     > all, who just IS. A question about the origin of God is MEANINGLESS.
>     > This is entirely OBVIOUS.
>     >
>     > Considering that even (by US standards) enlightened Christians fail
>     > to grasp the problem there, I don't think this will make the least
>     > impression on whacko creationists.
>     >
>
>
>     I think a useful strategy against ID would be to emphasize the
>     "alien creator" aspects of their argument. If they are trying
>     to remove God from their arguments, then portray them as arguing
>     that mankind was created by little green men.
>     This is very easy to make fun of, and the only way they can
>     counter it is to bring God back, which makes their argument
>     religious, not scientific.
>
>