We are following the evolutionary path, or at least the motions being
played it seems ad nauseum. I can't help imagining people with vastly
expanded capacities and material mastery being able to shape our world
to greater ends, overcoming each roadblock to humanity. Our
technological prowess seems on the verge of explosive progress, I hope
we make wise choices in how we apply them. Meaning we can use them for
the common good, and mistakes are inevitable, but it would be depressing
to know we have the potential to create a better world (humanitywise)
and let the boat sail by. The idea is to raise the awareness of all
people to a level for making responsible choices, with society providing
the tools to better humanity (the product of our efforts reciprocally),
or there will always be a great enough population in ignorance,
depravity, and apathy to degenerate and diminish the whole. No rigid
ideology is necessary, just the willingness to look at things plainly
and weigh the merits toward sustainable ends (including evolution). I
agree civilization is ethically way behind our technology, we just use
it to be more decadent and apathetic (NOT sustainable - good starting
point).
On 6/16/2011 8:00 PM, archytas wrote:
I sort of think maybe we have to not know what we are about for a
reason that can only be grasped by such experience and then taken on.
Which is a guess. Our ethics don't seem to be catching up with where
we're at, though have been 'way ahead' in eugenics and the like for
the wrong reasons.
On Jun 11, 7:41 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/10/2011 10:00 AM, Pat wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:35 pm, Ash<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/8/2011 11:33 AM, Pat wrote:> On Jun 8, 2:44
pm,"[email protected]"<[email protected]>
wrote:
Is the right to use your intelect to draw conclusions really a right?
Naaa I would not have thought so.
Ahh, but that's not exactly what I said. I said, "you have the
granted right to misinterpret the truth at your leisure". Drawing
conclusions is, though, the larger part of thinking. Do we not have
the appearance of the right to think? The truth, of course, is that
our thoughts are God's and we're just multiprocessors with differing
firmware. But it might take an IT guru to fully grasp that analogy
Beautiful Pat, but the analogy implies that computationally we should be
solving some problem or calculation: life, the universe and everything?
The problem we are solving is the answer to the question "How do we
get to the end of this universe?" As we don't know where it's headed,
it's difficult for us to determine; but, for God, who can't help but
know where the universe is headed, God simply act and we are a part of
those actions that lead to the end. Yes, it's teleological, but space-
time IS a teleological entity.
You should know that I have strong reservations against an absolutely
linear (or deterministic) temporality, I agree only so far as satisfying
causal relationships. How is space-time a teleological entity? Not sure
I understand that clearly, as it seems to dissolve the further from
biological systems you get. Even the teleological focus in biology seems
for brevity, as the functions (or purposes) are complex and dynamic,
self reinforcing. Multiple goals embedded in the gene programming
competing for further expression, the arrow is repeatedly re-set to
forward and failing that test means death leaving more opportunity for
other competing genes. Hmm, this is a tough one because purpose is
emergent and apparent (IMO) though I reject outright ontological
reductionism. Perhaps considering a suitably complex conception of
either (with or without purpose) they merge, as aspects of a process.
What is the hybrid?
Or I could be on a confused tangent, it happens. :p
