drugs and prostitution

[ERICOPOLY]

I see no reason, assuming your worldview is correct, to no also conquer the other evolutionary instincts (like guilt) that put any of us in a worse position.

 

You're not listening to me properly if you think that's my worldview.

 

I believe that...

 

It's not possible for a social adjusted individual to experience an absence of guilt when hoarding his money/food rather than sharing some of it.  Or perhaps helping in some other way other than money.  Completely ignoring others and only serving yourself is going in violation of your social instincts, and thus you'll get guilt.

 

This is because he experiences both selfish instincts/needs as well as social/instincts needs.

 

Only if he lacked social instincts could he not experience any guilt whatsoever. 

 

This is why I keep using the term "nuanced".

 

Social instincts are not something to be "conquered".  You might ignore them, or act against them, but then you get some associated emotion like "guilt".  That's the mechanism by which instincts guide us to keep the social unit in mind.  It will just keep whipping you each time you act selfishly -- you cannot get around it.

 

[Guest]

I'll have to disagree with you again, Eric.

 

The human mind rationalizes a ton of stuff. For instance, "I cheated on my husband because I didn't feel he loved me."

 

"I stole from the store because my kids needed food." In fact, many, many times people ignore guilt by just not thinking about it.

 

We rationalize bad things all the time. The human mind has a great ability to changes itself.

 

And I'm not denying that we would feel guilt, at least at first. Eventually though, you can control it. I somehow (and I could certainly be mistaken here) doubt that a hitman feels a whole lot of guilt after he kills the next person. Sure, the first couple are tough, I'm sure.

[ERICOPOLY]

It took some time, but I've conquered (for the most part) the fat and sugar desire.

 

Right, but you have not conquered the instinct to eat.  You have merely made a substitution of certain foods for others.

 

This is very different from conquering the instinct to eat.

 

Similarly, I assert that it's not possible to abandon your social instincts without your brain punishing you (with a negative emotion, like guilt).

[Guest]

Eric, the brain can do all sorts of things.

 

According to most scientists, stigmata is caused by the brain. If we can make our hands bleed profusely simply by thinking about it enough and with enough passion, I fail to see why we can't rationalize a bit of guilt away - especially once we realize the trigger of it.

[ERICOPOLY]

I somehow (and I could certainly be mistaken here) doubt that a hitman feels a whole lot of guilt after he kills the next person.

 

I keep using the term "social group".

 

You can have an easier time killing a person outside of one's social group versus within.

 

There are also varying levels of attachment that a person feels to a social group, and can belong to more than one social group at the same time, with varying levels of loyalty to each.

 

A "hitman" is serving the needs of one social group (the mafia).  He might feel guilt at betraying a member of his own group, but may not experience guilt at carrying out hits on another social group.  Social groups have their own rules and when you know the rules, you know what it takes to remain a part of the social group.  If you need the group, you will feel bad about letting them down.  Your skills as a hitman fulfill your social instincts as a member of the mafia group -- you will feel some manner of "good" by living up to the group's expectations of you... even if those expectations are to carry out a "mafia hit".

 

It's all very nuanced, but we have social instincts that drive us to belong to various social groups.

 

They have different rules.

 

You can't say that a hitman is only going to belong to a group with "churchy" rules.  So you can't use the hitman as a counterexample.

[Guest]

My example of the hitman is that we can do some of the most immoral acts and rationalize it so that we don't have guilt.

 

I suppose that's why I think there is objective morality (I can sense Liberty's blood boiling here!). That, even if our social group suggests otherwise, there is a real right and wrong in life and that goes above our evolutionary instincts. I think most of us know this but we choose to ignore it (ie being honest, charitable, loving, etc).

 

[ERICOPOLY]

My example of the hitman is that we can do some of the most immoral acts and rationalize it so that we don't have guilt.

 

I suppose that's why I think there is objective morality (I can sense Liberty's blood boiling here!). That, even if our social group suggests otherwise, there is a real right and wrong in life and that goes above our evolutionary instincts. I think most of us know this but we choose to ignore it (ie being honest, charitable, loving, etc).

 

Your church is beneficial as a social group to which millions belong.  Your church has a core set of moral-based rules... things like fidelity, charity, etc...

 

Because you feel a strong attachment to this group, you feel guilty about these things when you violate them.  It's your instincts punishing you for letting down your social group (in this case, your church).

 

Finally, the church also tells you that it's God himself that made up the churches morals/rules -- but that's just what they say, and it doesn't necessarily make it so.  It does however reinforce your sense of belonging to the group, because of the hook-in that comes with wanting to be with the group that God favors.  That only makes you feel all the more guilty of violating their rules (because you feel motivated to belong to God's protected group), so when they pass the hat... you then give generously (one of the social group's rules is charity).  Then, they've got you.

 

But I think it's all manipulation of your social instincts.  It's very clever.  It's also largely harmless so I don't care.

[cemadh]

If I had a "God lever" that I could pull to eliminate people with bad morals, there would be nobody left on Earth.

First I would start with the child molesters, then murderers, then ... all the way down to people who don't wash their hands after using the toilet, spit on national monuments ... :-)

 

I could go on but I find it difficult to make a case for objective morality or an "absolute set" of morals.

 

Just my two cents...

[ERICOPOLY]

My example of the hitman is that we can do some of the most immoral acts and rationalize it so that we don't have guilt.

 

You don't have to rationalize what already fits within the rules of a social group (your social group, the mafia, wants you to carry out the hit).  You aim to please the group in order to belong (driven by social instinct).  You only have to rationalize things that go against what the group wants.

 

The church creates a rule against murder -- you now feel guilty if you commit murder because you are putting yourself in a position of going against what the social unit wants.

 

The church could arbitrarily create more rules and you would feel guilty about violating them too -- but not until they make rules against it. 

 

For example they could say that something pleasing like masturbation is immoral... and then you would feel guilty about that too!  Oh wait, excuse me, they already did that.  My bad.

 

Think about it... any rule they make... anything they deem to be "immoral" will make you feel guilty.  Your sense of belonging to this group called the church is so firmly entrenched that you take these rules as what you call "objective morality".  However, that's due to your firm sense of belonging and how highly you value your membership to this group -- and thus your respect for it's laws/rules.

[ERICOPOLY]

My wife has something to add...

 

"Happy wife, happy life".

 

There's morality that will make you happy  :)

 

Her "rules" are pretty easy -- so belonging to her social "marriage" group isn't hard.  Find a cool wife and you'll have a happy life.  That's my advice.

[Guest]

Let's not confuse the church and God, Eric.

 

In my view, our conscience is influenced by God - not man-made dogma.

 

If our conscience is not from God, it is simply an evolutionary instinct that holds us back from our full potential - by controlling our emotions. It's almost like the investment game. Evolution makes most people terrible investors. By knowing the trigger points and doing one's best to control it, results can look a whole lot better.

 

To be fair, my issue with a lot of the stuff in religions (and why I can't claim to really belong to any of the them) is that there are pretty crazy things with no evidence in the books (Tower of Babel, for instance). But, also some really valid arguments for their respective origins (why would the original apostles die for something they knew was false - after all, they created it?).

 

However, God's existence makes a lot of sense, though it is far from certain. It explains why humans are dramatically different than any other known forms of life, morality, humanity's innate desire for life, fine tuning of the universe and indeed life itself. The latter two science hasn't really cracked open yet. There are some valid arguments for the first two (scientifically) and some unconvincing ones for the desire aspect.

 

It really gets interesting when we start looking at things on the quantum level. From what I've read/heard, everything is connected on some quantum level. We may all be star dust but we're still connected to the universe - in ways we don't fully understand. I think deep down inside, Eric, you know this is true. You are probably the most rational guy I know and you still wouldn't take the "love machine" option.  You live as though you don't believe what you think is true. Something deep inside (perhaps simply a chemical reaction, perhaps not - you seemed to tame the others pretty well though) causes you to long for your family. In fact, I'd guess you'd be willing to give up all of your financial resources to save your family - evolutionary instincts bring a man down...or the trait of a "good" - objectively so - husband and father? I'm thinking the latter.  ;)

 

 

[writser]

Please don't pollute your arguments for religion with gibberish about quantum physics. Pseudo-science doesn't help explaining your case to rational people - it only makes it more convoluted, like creationists trying to explain how we lived together with dinosaurs.

 

However, God's existence makes a lot of sense, though it is far from certain. It explains why humans are dramatically different than any other known forms of life, morality, humanity's innate desire for life, fine tuning of the universe and indeed life itself. The latter two science hasn't really cracked open yet. There are some valid arguments for the first two (scientifically) and some unconvincing ones for the desire aspect.

 

Again you demonstrate nicely why people tend to believe in arbitrary supernatural stuff. It's hard to accept that maybe the universe makes no 'sense' and there is no 'explanation' for everything. Back in the days we needed an explanation for lightning (Thor, Zeus) and the sun (Ra, Helios). In 2014 people still need an explanation for life itself and the morality of humans (God, Allah, Buddha).

[Guest]

Okay, tell me why it doesn't make sense there, writser, rather than petty insults.

 

I've studied a lot of religion but here's the Biblical take (I'm most familiar with this one).

 

God created man in His image (that's why man is dramatically different than any other sentient life form).

 

God gave us the ability to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (free will). We can choose to do good or evil. By doing evil, we are rejecting God. God's essence, our conscience (in my opinion) gives us the ability to discern good and evil. Now, we could argue that all our morality is based simply on those evolutionary instincts. If so, we should reject the instincts when it puts us in a less than optimal position.

 

As far as the desire for a deity go, I can not do better than C.S. Lewis so here is his quote:

 

“The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that country and to help others to do the same.”

 

Science has yet, again in my opinion, even came close to satisfying the fine tuning argument or creation of life. Perhaps it will someday, and on that day, perhaps my opinion will change. However, cognitive dissonance isn't really a fun exercise.

 

So, I had two options: accept God and find that relationships, people, morals are bigger than evolution - and as a result, really are of value and worth dying for. Or reject it and live as though God doesn't exist and that we are all stardust. In which case, I would have to accept that "love machine" that I wrote about earlier. So tell me, writser, would you take the option of the "love machine" if you had it?

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

You are probably the most rational guy I know and you still wouldn't take the "love machine" option.  You live as though you don't believe what you think is true.

 

The thing is, I believe I try to live rationally, knowing that sometime seemingly irrational choices are rational given my known limitations (given what I know about myself).

 

For example, if I believe that it's in my nature to feel regret, I will rationally make choices that will spare me from regret.  Or if I believe that it's in my nature to feel guilty, I will position myself with actions that will minimize my guilt.

 

A snowboarder, for example, wants to pull off some amazing stunts... but ultimately he hedges a bit and keeps the stunts within the bounds of what he believes he can control, and part of that is based on what he understands about his own flexibility and mass, and his relationship to the Earth and it's gravity.  He takes other things into consideration, such as the quality of the snow, etc...

 

My expectation of guilt is my gravity.  I know it's in my nature just as much as the gravity of the Earth guides the snowboarder.  So I just look for a way to "shred", keeping within my own psychological gravity.

 

Over time, you learn not to stick your finger in an electrical socket -- guilt works the same way.  The rational thing is to anticipate the pain and figure out another activity instead.

 

[writser]

I think you are already hooked up to that machine. It's called: 'religion'. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside & provides an answer to all difficult questions as long as you have it on. I prefer the real life.

 

Frankly I am not that interested in discussing your imaginary constructs, I was just pointing out that quantum physics have nothing to do with religion. You are not even making a point here, it's just mumbo-jumbo and a disgrace to people who actually study in the field. For some reason believers in the Christian god have a tendency to turn to science to validate their beliefs. Why? Your arguments for the existence of one or more gods do not become extra convincing because you read something about quantum physics in reader's digest and incorporate that into your posts. Just keep science and faith separated. It's bad for both.

 

It really gets interesting when we start looking at things on the quantum level. From what I've read/heard, everything is connected on some quantum level. We may all be star dust but we're still connected to the universe - in ways we don't fully understand.

[ERICOPOLY]

There could also be an anchoring bias at work here.

 

You believe there is a God/Supernatural that explains your feelings of love for your family.

 

That might be hard to reject (due to anchoring bias) when a chemical-electrical based alternative is presented.  I admit, the former is far more romantic and that belief in itself might bring you more enjoyment... so you would feel a bit depressed to give up that drug.  A bit like being anchored to a wonderful outcome, adjusting to those beliefs, and later on not finding it a happy thing to accept a more sober reality even if the observable evidence tends to favor it.

[rkbabang]

Wow, there's been a lot of posts since I've last been here.  I just read through them all.  One thing I think stahleyp is missing is that some people do have no empathy and feel no guilt, but they aren't necessarily better off than we suckers who do.  Humans are social animals, the group is important for our survival.  You might get away with screwing people over now and again, but for the most part you are going to give yourself a reputation of someone who can not be trusted and someone who others do not want to deal with.  Maybe you feel no guilt and sleep with every woman you meet, but your wife is going to divorce you and take half of your assets.  Maybe you screw over your customers, but you will shortly be without customers.  Maybe you never go out of your way to help your neighbors, but when you need help you will be out of luck.  Etc, etc, etc....  One of the most important assets a person has is his reputation.  Yes, Warren Buffet is talented (and probably a little lucky), but his reputation also plays a large role in his success. Contrast this with, say Sardar Biglari, who may be also be talented, but will have a much more difficult time achieving massive wealth because of his reputation.  Our ingrained sense of 'morality' may be just evolution's way to get us to 'want' to do what is in our long term best interest, as well as what is in the best interest of the group as a whole.  Just as we have nerve endings so that our brain can cause us misery to prevent us from sticking our hands in the fire (how long would a human born without the ability to feel pain survive?), we have morals to prevent us from isolating ourselves from other humans.

[Borgesian]

I think you are already hooked up to that machine. It's called: 'religion'. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside & provides an answer to all difficult questions as long as you have it on. I prefer the real life.

 

Frankly I am not that interested in discussing your imaginary constructs, I was just pointing out that quantum physics have nothing to do with religion. You are not even making a point here, it's just mumbo-jumbo and a disgrace to people who actually study in the field. For some reason believers in the Christian god have a tendency to turn to science to validate their beliefs. Why? Your arguments for the existence of one or more gods do not become extra convincing because you read something about quantum physics in reader's digest and incorporate that into your posts. Just keep science and faith separated. It's bad for both.

 

It really gets interesting when we start looking at things on the quantum level. From what I've read/heard, everything is connected on some quantum level. We may all be star dust but we're still connected to the universe - in ways we don't fully understand.

 

+1

 

This is a fun conversation to follow and all but please lets keep our quantum physics and religion separate. There's enough misinformation out there regarding science as it is.

[Guest]

I think you are already hooked up to that machine. It's called: 'religion'. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside & provides an answer to all difficult questions as long as you have it on. I prefer the real life.

 

Frankly I am not that interested in discussing your imaginary constructs, I was just pointing out that quantum physics have nothing to do with religion. You are not even making a point here, it's just mumbo-jumbo and a disgrace to people who actually study in the field. For some reason believers in the Christian god have a tendency to turn to science to validate their beliefs. Why? Your arguments for the existence of one or more gods do not become extra convincing because you read something about quantum physics in reader's digest and incorporate that into your posts. Just keep science and faith separated. It's bad for both.

 

It really gets interesting when we start looking at things on the quantum level. From what I've read/heard, everything is connected on some quantum level. We may all be star dust but we're still connected to the universe - in ways we don't fully understand.

 

writser, I'm willing to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) but it seems you've done almost no research on theism. I also since a bit of anger about it. Ya know, will all the insults. At least Eric gives well thought out explanations for his beliefs.

[Guest]

You are probably the most rational guy I know and you still wouldn't take the "love machine" option.  You live as though you don't believe what you think is true.

 

 

 

Over time, you learn not to stick your finger in an electrical socket -- guilt works the same way.  The rational thing is to anticipate the pain and figure out another activity instead.

 

And my line of thinking goes like this (not to beat a dead horse but here it goes). A truly rational person realizes that guilt is simply an evolutionary instinct. He (or she!) then rationalizes it away to increase material happiness (in whatever that does that makes them happy). It's like being plug into the machine. That is the ideal life if we could measure it. All happiness/love etc. However, I doubt any of us would jack into the machine.

 

Another fun thought exercise. Is charity really moral?

 

[Guest]

One of the most important assets a person has is his reputation.  Yes, Warren Buffet is talented (and probably a little lucky), but his reputation also plays a large role in his success. Contrast this with, say Sardar Biglari, who may be also be talented, but will have a much more difficult time achieving massive wealth because of his reputation.  Our ingrained sense of 'morality' may be just evolution's way to get us to 'want' to do what is in our long term best interest, as well as what is in the best interest of the group as a whole.  Just as we have nerve endings so that our brain can cause us misery to prevent us from sticking our hands in the fire (how long would a human born without the ability to feel pain survive?), we have morals to prevent us from isolating ourselves from other humans.

 

rk, I don't know about that. I think Munger himself said that Buffett would have been worth many, many billions more if he didn't have Berkshire and instead went the hedge fund route.

[writser]

That's my style. But I'll admit that I'm a bit annoyed that you try to include quantum physics in your supernatural theories. You start by asserting that you feel prostitution is 'wrong'. To defend that you bring up religion. And to defend your religion you start talking about quantum physics. Your whole line of reasoning gets more and more convoluted as you get pushed into a corner. Quantum physics have nothing to do with the ethics of visiting a hooker. It's just math. And particles / waves / cats in boxes. And I think it's a pity that you have to mix that into the discussion to try to make a point. Why don't you just admit that you don't have a logical explanation for the things you believe in? That would be completely fine with me. Instead you are trying to rationalize your beliefs in (what I think is) a shaky way. Why? It's pointless. That's why they are called 'beliefs'.

 

Please note that I try not to argue about the validity of your beliefs, just about the way you try to defend them. All arguments you brought up so far for 'your god' can equally be used by the ISIS crazies in Iraq to defend their beheadings of children yet you feel morally superior to us non-believers.

 

What aspects of theism do you think I need to know more about? I hope you won't force me to read Quantum Faith :) .

 

How does quantum physics relate to the Bible?

Can words move mountains?

How did Jesus supersede the laws of physics?

 

There are amazing similarities between the teachings of Jesus and the discoveries of the new physics, quantum theory. The concept of speaking to mountains and trees may not be religious metaphor, but laws of a new physics that have not been fully understood.

[rkbabang]

One of the most important assets a person has is his reputation.  Yes, Warren Buffet is talented (and probably a little lucky), but his reputation also plays a large role in his success. Contrast this with, say Sardar Biglari, who may be also be talented, but will have a much more difficult time achieving massive wealth because of his reputation.  Our ingrained sense of 'morality' may be just evolution's way to get us to 'want' to do what is in our long term best interest, as well as what is in the best interest of the group as a whole.  Just as we have nerve endings so that our brain can cause us misery to prevent us from sticking our hands in the fire (how long would a human born without the ability to feel pain survive?), we have morals to prevent us from isolating ourselves from other humans.

 

rk, I don't know about that. I think Munger himself said that Buffett would have been worth many, many billions more if he didn't have Berkshire and instead went the hedge fund route.

 

Munger isn't always correct.  The fact that the richest few men on the planet all own large portions of public companies and are not hedge fund managers makes me doubt that theory.  Anyway even if it is true, being a hedge fund manager does not make you immoral and his reputation could have also have helped him in that endeavor as well.  My point was that contrary to what many believe being an immoral crook and a jerk doesn't give you a long term advantage in life.  Yes, morality is just something evolution put into our brains to help us survive, yes we can ignore those instincts if we wish, but that doesn't mean we are better off if we do.    You keep asking why you shouldn't ignore your moral instincts to make yourself better off, I'm saying that if you do ignore your moral instincts for some short term gain you will not be better off which is why most people don't ignore them.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

A truly rational person realizes that guilt is simply an evolutionary instinct. He (or she!) then rationalizes it away to increase material happiness (in whatever that does that makes them happy).

 

Are you talking about a character from a Marvel comic?

 

Were it to be possible to have such mastery of rationalization, guilt would never be experienced.

 

However, back to the real world.  We anticipate guilt and adjust behavior to avoid it.  Just like physical pain.

[Guest]

That's my style. But I'll admit that I'm a bit annoyed that you try to include quantum physics in your supernatural theories. You start by asserting that you feel prostitution is 'wrong'. To defend that you bring up religion. And to defend your religion you start talking about quantum physics. Your whole line of reasoning gets more and more convoluted as you get pushed into a corner. Quantum physics have nothing to do with the ethics of visiting a hooker. It's just math. And particles / waves / cats in boxes. And I think it's a pity that you have to mix that into the discussion to try to make a point. Why don't you just admit that you don't have a logical explanation for the things you believe in? That would be completely fine with me. Instead you are trying to rationalize your beliefs in (what I think is) a shaky way. Why? It's pointless. That's why they are called 'beliefs'.

 

Please note that I try not to argue about the validity of your beliefs, just about the way you try to defend them. All arguments you brought up so far for 'your god' can equally be used by the ISIS crazies in Iraq to defend their beheadings of children yet you feel morally superior to us non-believers.

 

What aspects of theism do you think I need to know more about? I hope you won't force me to read Quantum Faith :) .

 

How does quantum physics relate to the Bible?

Can words move mountains?

How did Jesus supersede the laws of physics?

 

There are amazing similarities between the teachings of Jesus and the discoveries of the new physics, quantum theory. The concept of speaking to mountains and trees may not be religious metaphor, but laws of a new physics that have not been fully understood.

 

Well, I suppose you've done little research on theistic arguments since avoided the topic. Further, I fail to see why quantum mechanics invalidates my argument. For instance, if God created everything and if we really are all connected (as quantum mechanics suggests), it fits quite well as to why we have all of these emotions, a sense of needing to belong, etc. Keep in mind I never came out an mentioned a particular deity as the one to follow. It's more of a philosophical topic at the core.

 

What I'm saying is that's okay to put people in a less than ideal position (like the doctor topic from before) if you get proper credit for it). You get more money, patients are happy (though they would have been happier with Drug A) and the hospital is happy (more revenue) - if God doesn't exist. Again, it's one evolutionary instinct vs another - they are both on the same playing field. If God does, exist, it's not okay (you're being selfish and virtually every religion preaches against that). I think most of us agree, though, that the first doctor Ted, really is the better of the two.

 

rk, I think we can both agree that Munger has a better understanding of Buffett's potential than any of us do. Those values most of us like about Buffet..guess what, he grew up in a pretty religious home. Where do most of us learn values? From home. And really, you don't think Buffett would have more than $58 billion or so if he ran a hedge fund over the past 40+ years (and didn't give to charity)?