are you going to watch the movie coming out this December “Violent Night” where Santa Claus becomes an action hero and beats the crap out of some mercenaries trying to rob a rich family?
some relate Pythagorean’s Theorem to justice, in that once you could provide evidence of proof, as in proving that sides a and b on the non-hypotanuse sides of a right angled triangle, if both squared separately and added together do equal the length of the hypotanuse squared. Once you could prove something scientifically, you can create evidence in a trial to allow justice to take place. I read that from Neil Turok in “The Simplicity of Everything” talk he did at Perimeter Institute, which is on YouTube if anyone’s interested.
If you’re just the mechanical result of cause-and-effect determinism, and can neither choose nor independently assess and evaluate anything, you don’t care about the answer to this question. By definition. Nor do you care about anything else. Nor are you meaningfully conscious. In fact, there is no you. You’re an illusion. (Yes, I anticipate the “illusion? to whom?” reaction, but the universe is not, in fact, merely spacetime and matter).
While those inferences about Determinism are popularly-held, none of them in fact follow.
This alludes to the typical notion of “free will”. In terms of your comment, it is only necessary to point out that there is the philosophical position of Compatibilism, which posits that free will can exist in a Deterministic universe, and therefore not all philosophers would agree with your assertion here.
(FTR, my own position is that the concept of “free will” is poorly-defined, and not useful. And that choice is absolutely something that can exist in a Deterministic universe).
This doesn’t follow at all.
But let’s get into specifics here, because we were talking about physical pain. Do you contend that physical pain is impossible in a Deterministic universe?
What do you mean by this?
I don’t think it’s going to be useful for you to reply to me as if I were a banner-carrying zealous member of the Free Will team or the Compatibilism team or whatever.
I find that the concept of “determinism” is a useful tool for a variety of endeavors, but as a model for what’s actually occurring in the universe as a whole, it does not correctly describe reality.
Since your thoughts, feelings, intentions, passions, etc are permanently meaningful, March 12 2009 is an outgrowth of what you experienced 100 years prior to that. Not that what you went through is uniquely the cause of something else that is the effect, but they’re part of the same; the you of 100 years ago interacted with the world as it interacted with you, so you participated in creating the future, with your participation including your accommodations to the pain you went through at the time.
Not at all. It’s just that your post contained a number of assertions, of things which are very much in dispute. If you want to just say that these things are your opinion, and not a statement of fact, then sure.
I’m sorry, I’m still not following. There was no “me” 100 years ago.
If you mean the material that makes up my body, that was spread all around the world and is continuously changing throughout my lifetime. Some of the atoms in my body were once part of another human’s body…it just doesn’t make sense to try to label the material as being “me” (if that’s what you were alluding to).
Now I’m the one not following. I thought that was the premise. At time “x”, you are in pain. At time “y”, 100 years later, what did it matter? Am I misconstruing the original question?
But you said that my thoughts, feelings etc “are permanently meaningful […] an outgrowth of what you experienced 100 years prior” [emphasis added].
What do you mean by that?
Apologies if I wasn’t clear. March 12 2009 is an outgrowth of what, 100 years prior to that, you experienced.
Is that clearer, or are you asking me to unpack terms like “me” and “you”? I recognize that they aren’t self-explanatory even though we tend to treat them as such, but there was a self in the original premise –
Not in the slightest 
March 12 1909, I didn’t exist. The matter that would one day make up Mijin was present, spread around the world in various forms, but there was no single conscious entity capable of having subjective experience.
Thus there were no experiences to “outgrow” from.
Is your meaning simply that the future state of the universe is a product of the current state, including my experiences now, whether I am alive or not to see it myself?
I give up. Start over. Apparently you aren’t asking Polerius’s question, but some other question. I don’t know what your question is. So I can’t answer it yet.
Respectfully, I think it is you that has misparsed the OP.
The OP is about the effect in the future of his experiences in the present:
This makes sense as a question, because Polerius was alive in 2009.
Meanwhile, you made a statement about 100 years prior to that date, and about his experiences at that time:
This statement doesn’t make sense, as Polerius was not alive then, and didn’t have any experiences of any kind.
Trying my best to understand what you’re attempting to say, perhaps you are just rephrasing the question…if he had been alive 100 years ago then 2009 would be an outgrowth of his experiences then. But this rephrasing doesn’t add anything to the OP, it just caused confusion. And saying it is an “outgrowth” is also largely meaningless, and would need clarification.
Or did you simply mean 2109?
Reading along with this rather than contributing but I find myself in the same confused boat as Mijin.
Might it be that when AHunter3 is saying…
It is a statement about the world in general rather than an individual. i.e. What happened 100 years ago continues to have relevance in the world that comes after. Therefore suffering then, impacts us now even if we were not alive.
Don’t know if that is any nearer the mark or not.
Let me try again.
Polerius is alive at some point. Has some experiences, pain included. Let’s stick a date on that. Let’s say Polerius is alive in 2022.
One hundred years later is 2122. Let’s stipulate that Polerius is not alive in 2122. His experiences back when he was alive (in conjunction with the experiences of all other life forms prior to 2122) help shape what 2122 is.
Is that less unclear than how I said it the first time? (I hope so!)
I can’t speak for Mijin but that is what I suspected you might be meaning.
i.e. Society, cultures, the world in general is shaped by our reactions to the experiences that we have whilst we are alive, those changes persist past the point of our death and have an effect on others in the future.
Yes this is a clearer phrasing.
And I agree. I suspect that the world is a chaotic system (it’s hard to see how it couldn’t be, given that it is composed of many chaotic systems), which implies everything that you do in your life has ripple effects.
But it also doesn’t matter, in my opinion. If pain had no effect on the future state of the universe, I would still care about it. I would not think it would make it OK to torture someone, say.
It’s true that pain is just some arrangement of atoms (we still have no model for how subjective experiences come about, but enough observations to be confident that it is purely neuronal; something that the brain does…somehow). But if anything matters, you can make a strong case for this mattering. Only conscious agents even care about anything mattering.
Well…
a) The world does not appear to be made up of particles, after all. However reasonable a premise it may seem, the truth seems to be that relationships are more fundamental than things. The tiniest particles don’t exist so much as they have a tendency to exist when the relationship between such tendencies is of a certain configuration. So as odd as it may seem to us, interactions are the fundamentals and they leave the structure we call “things” behind, like a dance. Hence pain is not some arrangement of atoms so much as it is an arrangement of interactions.
b) That would apply to what we call “subjectivity” and “objectivity” as well. Our mental processes are the consequence of interaction, as we are affected by the surrounding universe and affect it reciprocally. There are no things we can have knowledge of that is independent of ourselves as viewers; all meaning is meaning to an interacting observer.
What is your basis for this?
Well of course yes, our mental processes are largely dictated by our environment; the whole point of a brain is that it is responsive to external reality (plus managing internal bodily processes…which may or may not be defined as “external”).
However, there’s just too much that is unknown about how subjective experience works for us to make declarative statements about it.
Why would you think that permanence is the magic difference where hurting others becomes immoral? I utterly reject your premise here.
Morality is not about particles and quarks. Morality is about humans, human consciousness, human rationality, and human emotions. A shark eating a seal has no moral component. A human smashing a rock has no moral component. An avalanche smashing a human has no moral component. Conversely a human eating a seal or smashing another human certainly does.
Morality is about what people do, and especially what people do to each other.
The harm of immoral behavior is not that it leaves some eternal mark on the quarks. The harm of immoral behavior is the impact it has on the psyche of the person harmed and those who care about the person harmed. Which may be quite transitory or may be life-long. From the perspective of a human consciousness, lifelong is eternity; it’s all we have.
The universe is a vast and nearly empty void of radiation and gas with a few dust motes scattered about. The only thing that keeps us warm in all that emptiness is each other. That is where morality comes from.
When I think of human socialization and the attempt to develop a peaceful society with as little pain and anti-social behavior as possible, I can’t help but be reminded of the instructions Dalton gave in Roadhouse:
Dalton: If somebody gets in your face and calls you a cocksucker, I want you to be nice. Ask him to walk. Be nice. If he won’t walk, walk him. But be nice. If you can’t walk him, one of the others will help you, and you’ll both be nice. I want you to remember that it’s a job. It’s nothing personal.
Steve: Being called a cocksucker isn’t personal?
Dalton: No. It’s two nouns combined to elicit a prescribed response.
Steve: What if somebody calls my mama a [whore]?
Dalton: Is she?”
Dalton: I want you to be nice until it’s time to not be nice.
Steve: When will we know?
Dalton: I’ll tell you.