Is it possible for us to create a purpose?

[Willamena]

I would reply that those things are easily discernible as you contrast and compare things that you feel are a detriment to your self/situation vs. those you feel are a benefit. The things that benefit you are "good" (e.g. sugar in food, a vacation, a swim when hot), and the things that detriment you are "not good" (e.g. bitter tasting things, imprisonment, having to walk across a baked parking lot in bare feet). Basically, the human experience itself offers you loads of information on what is "good" vs. what is "bad". In other words - I don't need someone/something to tell me that eating something sweet tastes good, while eating something bitter is terribly unpleasant. I don't need to be informed by an outside party that I enjoy a vacation more than I do being locked up without access to anything. No one had to relay to me that walking across a heat-blasted black-top parking lot with bare feet is "bad" - my feet+brain already gave me plenty of information to come to a decision on that.

Right. But the same question applies to those things, as well as the things that are beneficial. At some point between birth and when we start using these qualitative terms, an understanding triggered a variable against which to conmpare in order to judge a qualitative value. I would suggest that that variable, a universal, is the "objective good."

While choosing a career path, and whether or not to have children are more abstracted from body-responses informing you of the benefit/detriment of your choices - it isn't such a stretch to believe that environmental and social factors that we've been introduced to throughout our lives shape our complex minds in ways that give us the means to determine our benefits/detriments in that realm. To believe there is some supernatural agency providing you with those benefits/detriments is actually a lot further a stretch, in my opinion.

Agreed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Right. But the same question applies to those things, as well as the things that are beneficial. At some point between birth and when we start using these qualitative terms, an understanding triggered a variable against which to conmpare in order to judge a qualitative value. I would suggest that that variable, a universal, is the "objective good."

I actually see this as a sort of "sliding scale", or maybe a better description is a scale that grows at each end by accretion. So, you have a default "blank slate" as a baby - with no idea about anything, and not even really the cognitive ability to make assertions about "good" vs. "bad". But, once you're in the world and have literally hundreds of thousands of opportunities to come in contact with things that you need to make a call about with regard to their perceived benefit or detriment to yourself, and as your cognitive power increases you can then begin to sort the objects your brain remembers for you into "classes" of benefit and detriment. Perhaps "carrots" are deemed "good" - at least until you have "applesauce". After you have the thing called "applesauce" you place that as "good" and then realize that carrots are actually more like "bad". Kids do this sort of flip-flopping all the time - and it is because the scale by which they judge "good" and "bad" is in flux - they simply haven't had enough experiences to know what is the greatest good vs. the worst sort of bad. And there is no "truth" to be found when asking the question "Are carrots good?" - so why do we suddenly say that there is objective truth when the subject under scrutiny is something that only happens to be deemed more "profound" than "carrots"?

 

[ArtieE]

I actually see this as a sort of "sliding scale", or maybe a better description is a scale that grows at each end by accretion. So, you have a default "blank slate" as a baby - with no idea about anything, and not even really the cognitive ability to make assertions about "good" vs. "bad".

A baby comes pre-wired with instincts such as the survival instinct. If you prick it with a needle it screams. If you try to feed it something it differentiates between what tastes good and bad. There's no "blank slate". Its operating system is already there thanks to evolution and natural selection. "Good" and "bad" is already there. We expand and elaborate on it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

A baby comes pre-wired with instincts such as the survival instinct. If you prick it with a needle it screams. If you try to feed it something it differentiates between what tastes good and bad. There's no "blank slate". Its operating system is already there thanks to evolution and natural selection. "Good" and "bad" is already there.

In a way, I agree. However, there's no developed knowledge of what it is like to be pricked with a needle. Put it this way: If you were able to ask a baby (and receive a reply) whether or not it wanted to be pricked with a needle, would it have any idea what to answer? Suppose you had just asked it if it wanted to try applesauce and it agreed, and loved it - and then right after you posed the prick with the needle - do you feel it might be more inclined to agree to the needle prick because the developed knowledge of interaction with you had so far led to positive experiences? I would say that yes, that is the way it would go given that little experience with the things involved.

Also, with the food thing, there are obvious negative reactions pre-built into us to help keep us away from harmful things. Like our reactions to bitter and sour. No argument there. However - do you have kids? Because they flip-flop on what tastes "good" and "bad" all the time. My carrots vs. applesauce example is perfect as an example of what happens to parents literally all the time. You're feeding the kid the sweet-potatoes and corn dinner for a whole 6 months, and the baby just eats it right up - but then once it gets a grasp of the fact that "apricots" or "peaches" are also a possibility, then the spitting out of the more "savory" meals begins. Therefore I argue that "sweet-potatoes and corn" was not, objectively "bad". In fact, it was the "good" of its time. However its seat on the throne was supplanted by something that was deemed a "greater good" after a developmental shift in experience-based memory.

 

[Willamena]

So, you have a default "blank slate" as a baby - with no idea about anything, and not even really the cognitive ability to make assertions about "good" vs. "bad". But, once you're in the world and have literally hundreds of thousands of opportunities to come in contact with things that you need to make a call about with regard to their perceived benefit or detriment to yourself, and as your cognitive power increases you can then begin to sort the objects your brain remembers for you into "classes" of benefit and detriment.

So how do you make those early calls? Before you can use the qualitative statement, you've grasped the basis for comparison.

Perhaps "carrots" are deemed "good" - at least until you have "applesauce". After you have the thing called "applesauce" you place that as "good" and then realize that carrots are actually more like "bad". Kids do this sort of flip-flopping all the time - and it is because the scale by which they judge "good" and "bad" is in flux - they simply haven't had enough experiences to know what is the greatest good vs. the worst sort of bad. And there is no "truth" to be found when asking the question "Are carrots good?" - so why do we suddenly say that there is objective truth when the subject under scrutiny is something that only happens to be deemed more "profound" than "carrots"?

Objective truth is another topic for another time. Imagine that first taste of carrot--with no basis for judgement, it is neither good nor bad. It just is. We learn, " This is good," the same way that we learn, " This is carrot," when we garner that quality.

 

[ArtieE]

In a way, I agree. However, there's no developed knowledge of what it is like to be pricked with a needle.

That is the whole point. You start off with a baby who instinctively can differentiate between "good" and "bad". The foundation for "good" and "bad" is instinctive no matter how much we evolve and change.

Also, with the food thing, there are obvious negative reactions pre-built into us to help keep us away from harmful things. Like our reactions to bitter and sour. No argument there. However - do you have kids? Because they flip-flop on what tastes "good" and "bad" all the time.

Yes, but if they hadn't instinctively been pre-wired to differentiate between "good" and "bad" and also pre-wired to think some things taste "good" and some things "bad" they wouldn't have been able to flip-flop.

 

[ArtieE]

Imagine that first taste of carrot--with no basis for judgement, it is neither good nor bad. It just is.

If the carrot tasted similar to a taste the child was "pre-programmed" to avoid, it might turn away from it. If it tasted similar to a taste the child was "pre-programmed" to like it would eat it. That's where we get "good" and "bad" from. Of course the "pre-programming" might not include the specific taste of carrots.

 

[Gambit]

That didn't answer my question. What good is being sought in the particular scenario I mentioned? If everyone seeks the good, then the question must have an answer.

The good that is being sought in any particular example is what the agent believes it to be.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So how do you make those early calls? Before you can use the qualitative statement, you've grasped the basis for comparison.

Based on the perceived benefit/detriment of the item in question. Through, again, hundreds of thousands into the millions of experiences our mind creates a referential, memory-based store of "good" and "bad" - each of us, independent of one another. Is it so hard to believe that 99.9% of us will develop much the same level of quantifying our like/distaste for things like "murder" once we understand the concept? Not at all. "Bad" by the time you have come to that level of comprehension is comprised of all the pain and suffering learned from literally thousands of trial-and-error encounters with the world - some of those even dealt to you by others. Given all that is deemed "bad", of course it is extremely likely that you will come to the conclusion that murder is bad. You already have TONS of things to compare the concept to. That's what I don't get about everyone harping on there being some ultimate source for "good". We're not talking about you, unadulterated, examining the abstract concept of "murder" and then making an unbiased decision one way or the other. This is like a scenario in which the "jury" is already tainted by pre-disposed information through media and the like. Your mind is already geared up with plenty of information for you to be COMPLETELY biased on all sorts of topics.

Objective truth is another topic for another time. Imagine that first taste of carrot--with no basis for judgement, it is neither good nor bad. It just is. We learn, " This is good," the same way that we learn, " This is carrot," when we garner that quality.

Agreed. "Carrot" is not good nor bad. But what I was trying to point out is that something like "carrot" can go from "good" to "bad", based on one's interpretation and level of exposure to other things. Carrot slides over toward "bad" the moment you have something you like better than carrot.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is the whole point. You start off with a baby who instinctively can differentiate between "good" and "bad". The foundation for "good" and "bad" is instinctive no matter how much we evolve and change.Yes, but if they hadn't instinctively been pre-wired to differentiate between "good" and "bad" and also pre-wired to think some things taste "good" and some things "bad" they wouldn't have been able to flip-flop.

But you have to admit that there are things in the world that do not adhere to instinctive protocols. I was only using the carrot vs.applesauce scenario as an example - to explain the gradation of "good" and "bad", and even that the relative differences between them can change - but I wasn't meaning for this concept to remain only applicable to the realm of physically implementable predispositions (instinct).

Take something like a person's thoughts on space travel. Tell me where an evolutionary instinct/drive plays any sort of part in what a person will ultimately decide is good/bad about space travel. How about whether or not cooking is an enjoyable activity? Where will you find instinct playing into this? I would argue that these have derivatives far deeper than instinct alone. You have to look at experiences, developed attitudes and trends in behavior. Memories and the light cast on them (positive vs. negative). The benefit/detriment the individual had experienced with like or related subject-matter.

 

[ArtieE]

Is it so hard to believe that 99.9% of us will develop much the same level of quantifying our like/distaste for things like "murder" once we understand the concept? Not at all.

I was pre-wired with a survival instinct and so were most of us so obviously we distaste "murder" and don't want to get murdered. Survival = good, murder = bad. That was true long before I was conceived and could understand the concept.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I was pre-wired with a survival instinct and so were most of us so obviously we distaste "murder" and don't want to get murdered. Survival = good, murder = bad. That was true long before I was conceived.

Half of that I'll accept - "Survival = good". And that's as far as it goes, honestly. Take the culture of the Spartans - or the many cultures who participated in ritual human sacrifice and tell me that 100% "murder = bad". You can't. You simply cannot.

 

[ArtieE]

Take something like a person's thoughts on space travel. Tell me where an evolutionary instinct/drive plays any sort of part in what a person will ultimately decide is good/bad about space travel.

Humans have always explored and expanded their horizons in the interest of the survival of the species. To find more space for the increasing number of humans, land to grow more food, more resources, to not have all our eggs in one basket, not to mention the more we know about our environment the better survival chances we have. So a person might see space travel as good for our survival. On the other hand, another person might see space travel as bad for our survival since he wants all the money and resources spent on the one planet we have. We simply don't know if space travel is beneficial or detrimental to the survival of mankind therefore the discussion.

 

[ArtieE]

Half of that I'll accept - "Survival = good". And that's as far as it goes, honestly. Take the culture of the Spartans - or the many cultures who participated in ritual human sacrifice and tell me that 100% "murder = bad". You can't. You simply cannot.

Was ritual sacrifice good for the survival of the Spartans or any other culture in the long run? How many prosperous societies today practice ritual sacrifice?

 

[thevoiceofgod]

How dreadfully boring. I build things. I've built sets for plays, I've done carpentry for many years, and I grew up with Legos and K'Nex. I enjoy throwing pots, I love creating fantasy worlds, and the process of building, of creating, is something that fulfills me.

Why would I want to be a part of an eternal illusion? I can enjoy the illusion of a book, a video game, or a movie for awhile, but illusions are fantasies, fantasies are not real, and unreal experiences are not fulfilling. The "Pleasure Machine" would be great for awhile, but really crappy if that was all you knew.

Don't worry. We will experience doing all sorts of things but we won't have to build anything. When we wake up in a dream with a flying machine next to us, all we have to do is learn how to fly it, not build it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Was ritual sacrifice good for the survival of the Spartans or any other culture in the long run? How many prosperous societies today practice ritual sacrifice?

However, there is no instinct that we have garnered from either culture's supposed "failure" - only knowledge of what the others before us have gone through to augment our knowledge and decision making processes now. I would argue that the human species stopped playing according to the "survival of the fittest" model long ago - ever since we put doctors/healers into practice to prolong the lives of those with genetic deficiencies allowing them to opportunity to survive and procreate (mind you, I am not saying this is "wrong" by any means - there is no right/wrong to be had there). Besides, even the idea of their having "failed" for those specific reasons is entirely moot. You'd never pin down their reasons for "not making the cut" to any one thing. I'd have you also realize that there are a fair number of apparently functioning cultures in present day that are far younger at the moment than some of the others who did practice ritual sacrifice in the past (the Mayans, for example).

And I'm not at all arguing that I think ritual sacrifice is "good" - not at all. I'm simply pointing out that "murder = bad" is not a valid equation for all humans. There may not even be instinctual governance of any kind on the murder of other human beings. Those in your immediate social circle? Certainly - because you came to care about them and trust them through experience. But a limit on the murder of those who threaten you? Historically? Not so much.

Ultimately this means that we are able to utilize our knowledge, experience and intellect in general to overcome our instinctual limits of even what is "right" vs. "wrong", beneficial vs. detrimental. We always have been - and those would all be examples of humans choosing "good" for themselves. More succinct examples:

1. A human woman likes men of a certain "type" - it could be argued that her instinctual desires for a male with good genes to procreate with are at work. However, she meets an amazing deaf man in a wheelchair who is nowhere near her "type" physically, but is emotionally and intellectually spot-on with what she's looking for, and she marries him. Choice for "good" made by the individual, despite any claims of what is supposedly "good" being made otherwise (through societal pressures, physical instincts, etc.)
2. A farmer raises livestock for years on end, building a massive farming empire, he's wealthy and life is "good". But over time he sees the effects his farms have on the environment, and on the animals - more and more of them in closer and closer quarters. Eventually he switches gears to become an avid force against large-scale farming operations like the one he had for years. The "good" changed through experience and gathering of knowledge. A decision was made as to what was the greater good.

So, if we have some sort of external force informing us that things are either good or bad from the start, then how do we end up in situations where our mind is changed? Where we have to make a choice as to what we feel is "good" for ourselves? Why would there be choice in the equation at all?

 

[ArtieE]

However, there is no instinct that we have garnered from either culture's supposed "failure" - only knowledge of what the others before us have gone through to augment our knowledge and decision making processes now. I would argue that the human species stopped playing according to the "survival of the fittest" model long ago - ever since we put doctors/healers into practice to prolong the lives of those with genetic deficiencies allowing them to opportunity to survive and procreate (mind you, I am not saying this is "wrong" by any means - there is no right/wrong to be had there).

All the work that goes into prolonging the lives of those with genetic deficiencies and all the knowledge gained from it is of enormous benefit for all of society. It also shows that we think survival and successful reproduction is of paramount importance even for those with genetic deficiencies.

Ultimately this means that we are able to utilize our knowledge, experience and intellect in general to overcome our instinctual limits of even what is "right" vs. "wrong", beneficial vs. detrimental. We always have been - and those would all be examples of humans choosing "good" for themselves.

You don't choose what is good or bad. You can choose whether to do good or bad. Big difference.

More succinct examples:1. A human woman likes men of a certain "type" - it could be argued that her instinctual desires for a male with good genes to procreate with are at work. However, she meets an amazing deaf man in a wheelchair who is nowhere near her "type" physically, but is emotionally and intellectually spot-on with what she's looking for, and she marries him. Choice for "good" made by the individual, despite any claims of what is supposedly "good" being made otherwise (through societal pressures, physical instincts, etc.)

He was good for her so she chose him.

2. A farmer raises livestock for years on end, building a massive farming empire, he's wealthy and life is "good". But over time he sees the effects his farms have on the environment, and on the animals - more and more of them in closer and closer quarters. Eventually he switches gears to become an avid force against large-scale farming operations like the one he had for years. The "good" changed through experience and gathering of knowledge. A decision was made as to what was the greater good.

What was actually good never changed. Only what he saw as good.

So, if we have some sort of external force informing us that things are either good or bad from the start, then how do we end up in situations where our mind is changed? Where we have to make a choice as to what we feel is "good" for ourselves? Why would there be choice in the equation at all?

What is actually good never changes. Just what people think is good.

You seem to have great difficulty understanding the difference between what is actually good, that which is beneficial to as many as possible and/or detrimental to as few as possible, and what people think is good. You always speak as if people determine what is good.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You seem to have great difficulty understanding the difference between what is actually good, that which is beneficial to as many as possible and/or detrimental to as few as possible, and what people think is good. You always speak as if people determine what is good.

You seem to be stuck in the mindset that what is beneficial to HUMAN BEINGS is definitive "good". This is inaccurate to say the least.

For instance take the Black Plague - "bad" right? Not for flies. They had a banner year for multiple years in a row. So which was it? Bad or good? Does the "good" shift with a change in perspective? The death of humans actually being a "positive" for something else? But how can this be? Isn't it death/detriment to humans always "bad"? The simple answer is "no" - it isn't.

And if "good" can change with a shift of perspective like that then you have no choice to admit that this happens all the time - and can even happen within the scope of like beings whose benefit/detriment is at hand. You lose your money in the stock market - someone else gained. Was the interaction good or bad? Bad for you, good for the other person... but the event as a whole? It ALL comes down to perspective. Not much in this universe is much more than energy being spent or gained - something benefiting to something else's detriment.

 

[Parsimony]

The good that is being sought in any particular example is what the agent believes it to be.

That still didn't answer my question. A child destroying their own toy so their sibling can't play with it isn't doing so because they think that action was the morally right thing to do, they are doing it because of emotional impulse. How many times do you think people give into emotional impulse on the spur of the moment (especially anger) only to realize later that what they did was in conflict with their own moral code? I know I most certainly have. People do not "seek the good" 24/7, not even by their own personal standards.

 

[Gambit]

That still didn't answer my question. A child destroying their own toy so their sibling can't play with it isn't doing so because they think that action was the morally right thing to do, they are doing it because of emotional impulse.

The child is seeking what he or she believes is in his or her best interest. That's why I said, the good that is being sought in any particular example is what the agent believes it to be.