Nov 302008
 

There’s an episode of Futurama where the main character, Fry, falls in love with a robot programmed to be like Lucy Liu and to love Fry. Fry’s excited when she says stuff and dotes on him like a real lover might and everyone else says stuff like, “she’s programmed to do that”. They’re implying that this is somehow inferior to “real” or “authentic” love that loves you for who you are rather than because they’re “forced” to.

However, isn’t it pretty much the same thing whether a woman or man loves you “for real” than if they have to. You end up in a romantic or physical relationship both ways. Imagine for a moment that you have this love potion that can cause anyone you’re interested in fall in love with you. Why would that affection be “inferior” than if a series of random events caused a high enough probability to allow a relationship to develop?

The only thing I can think about is validation. That is, wanting to believe, “I am deserving of love and a worthy person”. What are your thoughts?

Also, in the same episode of Futurama, they show a propaganda video that shows people just making out with robots all the time and society collapses, which is not good for anyone. This reminded me of how, for the sake of society or other larger unit, we are convinced to do things that are not always in our best interests. For example, people believe jobs are necessary and the consumerist culture that has grown up to attempt to constantly grow the economy, but jobs are not necessary and things can’t make you happy, but enough people have to be convinced that they are for the system to function. Or, how, according to Dan Gilbert who wrote in Stumbling on Happiness that people with no kids are happier in their day to day lives than people with kids. However, enough people have to be convinced that having kids is a good thing so that humanity doesn’t just die.

Anyhoo, to recap: why is someone’s care or love because they “have to” inferior to “authentic” or “true” affection.

Nov 282008
 

Someone posted this comment on Steve Pavlina‘s blog a while ago:

Why improve at all? We are born. We die. Everything else shares the same fate. Then why this struggle to improve? What is the use? Expectations can only lead to misery if we dont achieve. Why not just lead a life of no expecation and see what happens?

That chap Jim achieved first place. Cool! So what next? He will now set his goals to win the Milky Way Speaking Championship? Ok, let us give him the first place there. Then what?

Has anybody here tried to live a life of no goal setting, competition, improvement? Doing things intuitively without expectation. Isnt that peace? Isnt that what we are truly after?

Steve addressed it in the blog post titled, Why pursue personal growth at all? I feel he could have done a better job in addressing it by making more of the issues and hidden assumptions conscious and then addressing them. His actual answer seems to be that, no, nothing really matters in the long run, and that your subjective experience is what’s important.

I’ve held the beliefs that are mentioned by the commenter above so I feel I can offer a different intepretation. The first is that a materialist/physicalist/naturalist perspective pervades our society, which essentially rejects metaphysical or super-natural concepts. Materialism, as a philosophy, considers matter the only philosophical substance. Sorta like how an old Greek idea was that the world was made up of the four elements: fire, water, earth and air, except the universe is made up of matter and nothing exists beyond that. Now, in our folk philosophies we tend to assume that meaning of things in inherent in them. For example, if I say an elephant is big, we assume that “bigness” is somehow a property of an elephant (it’s noumenon), while I believe that “bigness” is a property imposed on the elephant within our own consciousness. In fact, I believe that meaning or value exists only in our consciousness and results as a consequence of the interaction between the “actual” thing, my sense and my consciousness. This is a tough concept to get across at first, so I suggest re-reading this paragraph a few times. Another thing to consider: what’s “red”? I’m colour-blind, so your experience of the wave frequencies that we perceive as “red” is different from mine. Red is not a quality of the object itself, but rather my experience of it.

Now for the second part of this argument: what the commenter is referring to is a realization that things don’t have meaning or value in and of themselves, and because materialism may be the dominant philosophy (often unconsciously), the meanings of our actions are value-less because they are not physical, but rather metaphysical in some way. This led me to a sort of nihilism. Not nihilism as a sense of dispair, but simply a recognition that existance has no inherent value or meaning. This can be dispair-inducing and may cause people to ask, “what is the point of it all, if it doesn’t matter in the long run?”

Of course, the hidden assumption in that question is two-fold: Things have meaning, value or point if they last or are eternal (an inheritance with Plato who claimed that “reality” is permanent); and that meaning only comes when things have physical form and last a long time. I would add that there may be a third assumption: to wonder whether things have meanings if there is no human consciousness to “judge” it. If a third-person, “objective” observer was to look at this, what would they say? This may be the primary way that folk philosophy looks at this problem.

I am arguing that things have no meanings in and of themselves, and that there is no meaning without human consciousness. That is my mind/consciousness creates the meanings around me. So, while something may not have any meaning in the long run or the rest of the universe or even to the rest of the world, my own conscious experience in this present moment is what’s important, and that is bar I judge things by, rather than how things would look to an “objective” observer looking at things in the context of the universe and a long time horizon. This view actually creates some interesting side-effects. For example, losing your job does not include disappointment, anger, dispair or however you may feel, and in fact, can be a non-issue because those are all reactions and you can choose to have a reaction of happiness in all situations.

There’s two broad movements that fail us here: religion and folk theories of science. The major religions emphasizes the immaterial, the supernatural, the permanent and can lead to the following: “But a person who rejects God and the divine may still retain the belief that all “base”, “earthly”, or “human” ideas are still valueless because they were considered so in the previous belief system (such as a Christian who becomes a communist and believes fully in the party structure and leader). In this interpretation, any form of idealism, after being rejected by the idealist, leads to nihilism.”

Folk theories of “rationalism” and “scientific” perspective can lead us astray by making us think of things in brutally logical and greedy reductionistic terms which may strip away the meaning of things by asking “so what?”. There’s nothing wrong with that perspective but I believe it is inherently disempowering to my consciousness while being less accurate than the phenomomenlogical perspective I’m advocating.

Additionally, goals are important for the psychological health and well-being of individuals. Hope this was interesting! I wish I could go back six or seven years go and tell my younger self about this stuff.