We are all metaphysical creatures...discuss

In My Humble Opinion
1

Note to mods:
I’m opening this here, because it will be based on my own personal observations, theories and conjecture. If it moves to a more formal debating style, I will trust in your judgment to make the necessary move. Thanks! - Dirk
I sometimes find that I formulate a thought dimly, and then have some difficulty articulating said thought in a cohesive fashion. That said, I hope you will be able to follow with me.

It occured to me today that one of the fundamental issues we face on the SDMB is that of religious followers of various stripes and those that supposedly aren’t. My observation is that it is often postulated that those who observe a religion are labeled as “ignorant” whereas those who don’t consider themselves to be “enlightened.” Often these discussions dissolve into quite unpleasant exchanges, with itinerance and firm butresses established on both sides, neither of which is 100% based in reason (regardless of what the non-religionists claim, they too can be quite intransigent in their views, even to the point of irrational intolerance; which I find ironic since intolerance is often the claim they most pointedly make at the religionists themselves.) (I also find it interesting that a few hundred years ago, those who refused religion were considered to be the “ignorant” ones. This is not a moral judgment, merely an observational aside.) Through a series of rather tortured musings, the basic thought occured to me that, perhaps, we are all metaphysical, or spiritual creatures at some level and that this is actually what is the underlying friction that stirs up such debates.

To clarify:
I believe we all want to be a part of something that is greater than ourselves, be that religion, or science, or some other cause. Because of this basic, perhaps genetically-encoded desire, we all become emotionally attached to our personal pet projects, even to the point of irrationality. That on which I find myself cogitating is the possibility that our desire to be a part of this “greater cause,” whatever it may be, could be so strong as to involve our emotions on such a level that true objectivity could never be achieved, regardless of the enterprise being undertaken, be it rational, scientific, pragmatic and humanistic, or emotional, religious or humanitarian.

That said:
I would like to open this to discussion. Has anyone perhaps made similar observations? I’m being careful as to not couch this in “wrong or right” language, but merely proposing that there may be a deeper, more driving force to our makeup that affects us and how we perceive our endeavors and “pet projects” beyond our actual ability to be 100% objective.

Respectfully,

  • Dirk
2

what are you asking here? Do we all have a deeper drive? Are we incapable of becoming 100% objective b/c our emotions?

on the first point I’d have to say no. There are plenty of people that just go through the motions with no interest in a deeper drive other then making their next round of bills.

on the second I’d say Perception (which sometimes has emotion entangled in it sometimes not) of course colors our conclusions. When we think we’ve found the right answers and someone disagrees you are of course going to be biased towards your own judgments (unless of course you’re just one of those people that are just waiting to be filled up by someone else)

As for the believer vs. the non-believer debate the reason it’s so clear on this is it has been so polarized by discussion. Whenever anyone around here finds out I’m Atheist there’s an instant negative reaction. When one person heard that I was (I was telling an unrelated story about it) she stopped me in the middle of my story to tell me “Your grandfather may have been a monkey not mine.” That wears on my personal tolerance. If the person I’m talking to keeps coming back to it and taking jabs at me I find I grow more and more surly. Eventually shredding through the inconsistencies of the bible etc etc. Then I usually get told I’m the one being close minded an ignorant. So I by the end I think they are ignorant they think I am arrogant and nobody budges.

3

I promise you that I can explain this:

Humans have a special universal connection to nature that they mistakenly project beyond that.

What you describe when you say that “nobody budges” is the evolutionary process at work. Polarization is a natural effect of evolution, and the static, “apparently stagnate” effect is what is otherwize known as “punctuated equilibria”, which is a long period of time where there is very little observable progress, until tension which builds from the constant interaction between opposing tendencies/beliefs, ends when the shystem leaps to a higher level of understanding.

This applies on a grand scale if tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter builds until the universe leaps to a higher order of entropic efficiency, and this universal is connected to humas via the exact same mechanism as increasing tension between the relevant opposing evolutionary tendencies enables the entropically preferred species to leap to a higher level of entropic efficiency, e.g., apes to humans is a good observational proof for this.

Humans have more degrees of entropic freeedom than possibly any other system in the universe, and humans attempt to mix <b>ALL</b> levels of energy in nature, making intelligent humans at least one of nature’s most preferred methods for completing the big bang on a universal scale…

…meaning that intelligent life is a manifestation of the Principle of Least Action… on a grand scale, and THAT is one very intricate connection that we feel to the “whole” universe.

FYI: This is a new clarified interpretation of the Anthropic Principle as it applies to the most fundamental, (primary), entropic inclination of every object in a big-bang induced expanding universe, as this pertains to the evolutionary mechanism at the universal level, where asymmetric transitions which occur with real particle pair production cause the universe to leap/bang to a higher ordered strctructure.

4

Dirk, not to be critical of the topic, but I’m not really clear what it is that you think. You say:

Are you assuming that science/religion is somehow ‘greater’ than who we are? In what way do you mean that?

When you say religion, do you really mean religion as in an organized religious institution, or do you mean something else. What is that something else?

You say, “or some other cause.” Do you view science and religion as causes? What do you mean by that?
Like I said, not meaning to pick this apart too much, but I’m pretty unclear on what it is you are saying. Perhaps this is why this is such a difficult subject.

As to my own response to my own interpretation of the subject of the op :wink: (We are all metaphysical creatures… discuss), I would say that I personally do not believe that.

I understand something that is ‘metaphysical’ to be something that exists in some way beyond the natural world, and since I do not believe in something that transcends existance (nor can I even wrap my mind about such a thing), I say that we are purely composites of our physical make-up, though how that physical make-up operates to make us all that we are I couldn’t tell you.

5

island heh overanalyze much? Anyway welcome to the boards. I think you’ll have a lot of fun in great debates.

6

Actually, this is a very good start to the discussion, in my view. I already stated that sometimes I “…formulate a thought dimly,” and that is precisely what happened, for better or for worse. I suppose I wanted to open this up to discussion so that I would have the opportunity to perhaps stimulate other minds on the (rather vague) subject, and that, in turn, would hopefully help me to congeal my own thoughts about it.

Darkhold,
On your observation that some people just “go through the motions,” I believe I concur that there are those out there, which of course would seem to dispell my hypothesis that we are all metaphysical creatures (which may be a misnomer - more on that momentarily). I have to wonder, though, if those people who simply go through the motions are in reality less fulfilled than those people who seek to become involved in something bigger than their own individuality.

island,
That’s some pretty deep stuff, and I’m going to have to contemplate on it further, but it does seem to move in line with my “metaphysical” hypothesis, if only from the concept that we perceive such drives as “metaphysical” or “spiritual.”

Eonwe,
Yes, you could say that I perceive religion/science as “bigger than oneself” when taken as an entire pursuit. For example, environmental activists join because they feel obligated to do something “for the greater good,” just as so many do in pursuing their own religions, etc. It can be even said that some businessmen start their businesses as part of a “greater good” (healthcare comes to mind here).

I should say that my use of “metaphysical” may be inappropriate, but I was attempting to convey a drive that compels us beyond our reasonable understanding; something that makes us want to do something, when there isn’t exactly a 100% logical reason to do such. I suppose it could be said that the desire to be part of “something bigger” is actually a perfectly logical, evolutionary reason, but if it is something built into us instinctively, then I tend to put it under metaphysical/spiritual rather than cognitive.

Note that I’m also open to hear what religionists have to say about this driving motivation.

  • Dirk
7

By the way, island, Welcome to the Boards.

  • Dirk
8

island,
I’ve given the “punctuated equilibrium” theory some consideration, and a couple of things bother me. First, I suppose I’m a bit stagnant on my science, but entrope allows follows from order to decay and I’ve seen, to date, zero evidence that the opposite can occur. Organized matter always descends to disorganized matter, and energy does as well.
It also seems a bit odd to claim that, as the theory suggests, a dinosaur suddenly hatched a bird one fine day, or a primate suddenly produced homo sapiens that would be able to walk erect and form logical, cognitive, inductive thought…
last time I checked, genetics just didn’t work that way…that little 2% difference in DNA is a pretty major issue…
(Really not trying to make this a debate about evolution/creation/little green men…just organizing my thoughts about what you had to say on that particular subject - though I could possibly buy into an evolutionary driver for the behavior I mention in the OP.)

9

DirkGntly,

You say you do not wish to debate which is fine. However just to clarify
a dinosaur did not just hatch a bird one fine day.
Nor did primates just suddenly pop out a recognizable human baby.

Millions of generations displayed small differences that eventually led down a path. You’re turning a journey of a million steps to one huge jump. If that happened it would actually help disprove evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul02.html post on talk origins about generations

Energy in a closed system does indeed break down. We do not live in a box though. We’re constantly fed energy (most notably from the sun) It’s like saying kids shouldn’t be able to grow b/c they are breaking down. Nope you feed them energy they grow up.

10

Darkhold,
Please pardon my ignorance - aren’t we in a closed system? The sun is, indeed, winding down…is it not? (looking for clarification, not debate)
My understanding is that there is a finite amount of matter/energy in the universe - has this theory/understanding been revised in the last 5 years, and I’ve been unaware?

11

I was speaking in relation to evolution. You can consider the universe a closed system (by no means proven but what the heck I don’t have any evidence to the contrary perhaps someone that understands quantum theory will wander in) Earth however is NOT closed. So it is being fed energy. The sun shuts off evolution shuts off. We break down.

12

I’m not sure what the debate is exactly but hopefully this is more or less on point.

If the question is: Do humans have a strong innate desire to be part of something larger than themselves? The answer is yes, of course. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any religions (or at least they would be very different). Also patriotism or devotion to any sort of movement seem to result from this desire. Even our quest for family or social ties relates to this. And what is love but the desire of two people to form a whole greater than their sum. (OK, that’s not all love is, but its a big part.)

From where does this arise? Well we are social creatures. Even our primate ancestors probably formed social units inwhich the individual was subordinated to a group. Certainly this is the case with other social animals such as apes, wolves etc. Our powerful brains probably exacerbated this tendancy where we now feel a desire to connect with the entire universe.

However this quasi-evolutionary explanation does not address the yearning the OP describes. I think ultimately it arises from the paradoxical nature of the human condition. As hamlet said “Though bounded in a nutshell I could be king of infinite space, but that I have bad dreams.” Or, as Pascal pointed out, we are frail reeds, mortal and vulnerable, but at the same time we are greater than the entire universe for we can comprehend the universe.

Our mind rebels against our body’s mortality, and against the cold indifference of a meaningless cosmos. Thus we imbue the Universe with meaning so our lives can escape the prison of our body and soar to the limits of the mind.

13

I was thinking about it a bit and decided if you hadn’t posted yet I’d expand upon my thought.

Forget evolution for a moment. Let’s try something not very charged like the water cycle. You have water being evaporated by the sun moved about by the winds re-deposited by condensation and evaporated again. On the surface a simple system that gets terribly complex when you start to look at all the fine details hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, floods, not to mention how really complex all the changes that take place in simple H2O as it’s frozen, evaporated what have you… It grows and shrinks depending on how much energy it is fed. It changes over time and adapts to changes in the environment. If Earth was a closed system it would quickly vanish grinding to a halt. And indeed when the sun burns out the water cycle will be gone (well earth will be destroyed before the sun goes but let’s just say it survives somehow with an atmosphere)

Now say the universe was a closed system. However it is a gigantic system. Even as the lights are being turned off over countless years (and in fact time would grind to a near halt near the very end) many complex systems would form being fed energy from many sources as that energy would be used up the system would eventually fail vanish and be replaced with other systems and dynamics that could easily mimic order from chaos for short periods of time (remember a ‘short’ period as the universe ran out of energy would be billions of years)

14

Larry Borgia,

perhaps it’s simply the dynamic of wanting to be the pack leader (striving for something more) vs. the desire to follow said leader (dedication to a cause) couple that with a knowledge and fear of death it’s easy to see why we look for a continuation of ourselves.

Or am I oversimplifying your post?

15

erg…ran out of energy should be as energy broke down to it’s simplest form. :smack:

16

Oh, BTW, I’m not sure what the points being made about Punctuated equilibrium and entropy have to do with the OP. Not that they’re not interesting, they just seem to be about a completely different subject.

And, yes, the earth is an open system, whose entropy “loss” is more than compensated by the suns “gain.”

Interestingly, if the Universe is a closed system, It must have been highly ordered at its beginning. (i.e. there must have been low enough entropy to allow the structured universe we see today.) One wonders where all that entropy was in the infinitely hot and dense dot.

17

Larry Borgia,

heh if you noticed the OP was all over the place so we all responded to different parts. He in turn responded to our responses. I’d say this is just going to turn into a stream of conscience thread, but that’s ok. This isn’t great debates.

18

Sorry Darkhold, I was typing my last post and didn’t see your reply to my previous post so my last post wasn’t a reply to that.

Yes I do think knowledge of and fear of death are strong motivating factors in a desire to seek an extension of ourselves, but I also think some people are freaked out at the idea of living in a universe which means nothing and seek to find–or impose–meaning on the universe.

you can see this in some religions that de-emphasize personal existence after death as (I think) some branches of Judaism and Buddhism both do. Also in political ideologies that demand a near-religious commitment from their followers (Communism or fascism for example). I think its just that people want their lives to mean something and some people can’t find that meaning without the whole of existence meaning something too.

19

heh I didn’t think it was. It seemed like a general statement about the thread and took it as such.

Hmm as you say there are plenty of causes that have no afterlife connotations. But isn’t that included in the desire to follow the pack leader mentality I described? Similarly many of the leaders themselves seem to be in it only out of a desire to lead with less devotion to the cause then many of the followers. One wonders how much of this is an outgrowth of our rational mind vs our deep seeded tendancies.

20

Darkhold,

Yes pack mentality is a way for people to subsume their individuality into something greater. It’s almost always bad, as in political and religious fanaticism. Separating out reason and our deep motivations is sometimes difficult. We’ve all got things we believe in, and just because you have strong beliefs doesn’t mean you’re irrational. I think the test is how tolerant you are of opposing views (though again within reason–I’m not tolerant to Nazis, for example) and how willing you are to weigh and test your beliefs.

I think the OP was really asking about something so broad there is no one answer. The search for meaning, the desire to belong to a group, the fear of death, the difficulty in separating reason from prejudice; all of these things are related but its difficult to see how one answer is going to cover every aspect.

Anyway I gotta deal with the family tomorrow, so I’m off to bed.