Thread: Practical/ethical value of metaphysics

Assuming that ethics is ultimately about improving consciousness, what metaphysical issues are important and which are not?

the origin of the universe and whether there is an uncaused cause doesn't seem to important. It seems like a math puzzle.

Free will, defining the self, the turing test, whether or not there is life after death seem to be important questions.

Also, a lot of people speak of enlightenment and transcendence as transcending language and 3 dimensions, but I'm not quite sure if a knowledge of quantum physics is a pre-requisite for enlightenment (pre-req makes it sound like something you get a credit or certificate for). Also, since QM is relatively new, it would mean ancient mystics weren't really enlightened.

ethics is the philosophy of morals, which is not nearly the same as improving consciousness IMHO.

if you look at metaphysical issues from an evolutionary / existence perspective then none of them are that important, barring motivation that they generate.

based on your definition of enlightenment, knowledge of quantum mechanics is not a pre-requisite. if i drop an apple without knowledge of gravity, it will still fall. just because i dont have a name for it and use the current model for it doesnt mean i dont know its going to fall.

You mean ancient mystics that worshiped the sun as a god? I wouldn't call them enlightened. Though I wonder if anyone can ever really reach true enlightenment. No one ever really knows all things or understand all things. They just understand a great deal, in limited areas.

Originally Posted by Alric

You mean ancient mystics that worshiped the sun as a god? I wouldn't call them enlightened. Though I wonder if anyone can ever really reach true enlightenment. No one ever really knows all things or understand all things. They just understand a great deal, in limited areas.

Why wouldn't you call them enlightened? That's actually kind of ironic, considering sun = light. Ok, that was more of a joke really, but I am serious, don't you believe people could attain any degree of enlightenment in ancient times, and if not then why?

Ah - I think your last statement clears that up. So, to you enlightenment means knowing everything? That sounds more like omniscience to me. Did the Buddha know everything? Generally the wisest people freely admit that the more they learn, the more they begin to understand that they know nothing. To me enlightenment has nothing at all to do with conscious knowledge and everything to do with attitude and acceptance and love.

You're not being very imaginative.

If this is metaphysics, there may be some sort of travel possible through these dimensions. Besides, who says we're the first society in human history to understand technology?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You're not being very imaginative.

If this is metaphysics, there may be some sort of travel possible through these dimensions. Besides, who says we're the first society in human history to understand technology?

I think you're going to have to elaborate on this post if I am going to have any chance of understanding it.

I'm just wondering, why would you say that ethics is ultimately about improving consciousness? Where does that idea come from? Are baboons unethical?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I'm just wondering, why would you say that ethics is ultimately about improving consciousness? Where does that idea come from? Are baboons unethical?

I would say that's what utilitarianism is about. Improving our consciousness and making ourselves happier. I realize that there are certainly flaws with utilitarianism, but I see it as the most valid ethical theory.

Some of the flaws with utilitarianism:
1. defining happiness. There seem to be many different positive states such as laughter, accomplishment, pleasure, etc and it seems hard to quantify which one is "better".
2. measuring happiness.
3. valuing future happiness versus present happiness.
4. Valuing the large happiness of the few or the small happiness of many.
5. Valuing the happiness of different species (the more genetically similar the more we value them) more than that of other species
6. What to do when people don't want what will make them happy. Should we let people with addictions do something that even they know that they will regret later? If there is someone wise than us, should we let them make decisions that will maximize our own happiness rather than make our own mistakes? http://lesswrong.com/lw/4z7/the_neuroscience_of_desire/

7. And most importantly, knowing what will make us happy.

Sorry, I don't want to turn this into an ethics discussion which is not the intention of this thread, but if I'm going to participate properly and filter metaphysics through my ethical theory, I have to state it first.

I think most attempts at ethics are bs, including utilitarianism. They mostly seem to me to be attempts at offering up plausible alternatives to natural selection as the law of life, with the new criteria of somehow enshrining anthropocentrism. Most ethical systems try to bureaucratize human morality, which is really just a highly situational feeling.

All the problems you listed that make up the body of criticism against utilitarianism stem from the inevitable shortcomings of bureaucratizing again the highly situational phenomena of pain and pleasure, both of which evolved for important reasons.

edit: wow an interesting thought just occurred to me. I may have arrived at your conclusion via a different route.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Sorry, I don't want to turn this into an ethics discussion which is not the intention of this thread, but if I'm going to participate properly and filter metaphysics through my ethical theory, I have to state it first.

I think most attempts at ethics are bs, including utilitarianism. They mostly seem to me to be attempts at offering up plausible alternatives to natural selection as the law of life, with the new criteria of somehow enshrining anthropocentrism. Most ethical systems try to bureaucratize human morality, which is really just a highly situational feeling.

All the problems you listed that make up the body of criticism against utilitarianism stem from the inevitable shortcomings of bureaucratizing again the highly situational phenomena of pain and pleasure, both of which evolved for important reasons.

edit: wow an interesting thought just occurred to me. I may have arrived at your conclusion via a different route.

Which conclusion is that?

Also, I just realized that with all the leeway that is inherent in my utilitarianism, it's practically relativism. (This is the conclusion I reached in my other thread transhumanist ethical relativism). However, it's not completely relative. I think that things like torture and war are obviously bad and things like love and meditation are pretty obviously good.

I think you're committing what philosophers call the is-ought fallacy. You are describing how things are. I'm describing how they should be.

I agree that situational influences often influence our decisions (what we want) as well as our tastes (what we like). Most people have a hard time seeing the difference between wanting and liking something so I posted that link to lesswrong.com to make sense of it neurologically.

But yes, let's tie this back to the OP. I don't think things like the origin of the universe have any practical application. Figuring it out won't change your life (unless you're a professional physicist or philosopher who would get paid for it). Whereas something like whether or not we have free will can definitely affect our ethical decisions.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

Which conclusion is that?

It's hard to explain coherently, but basically that maybe one of the logical conclusions of my "should" thinking is development of consciousness (not that it's a "should" in itself.) I don't get there via utilitarianism, hmmmm. Needs more analysis.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

I think you're committing what philosophers call the is-ought fallacy. You are describing how things are. I'm describing how they should be.

Good call, that's also due some consideration on my part.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

But yes, let's tie this back to the OP. I don't think things like the origin of the universe have any practical application. Figuring it out won't change your life (unless you're a professional physicist or philosopher who would get paid for it). Whereas something like whether or not we have free will can definitely affect our ethical decisions.

Was it Marx who said something to the effect that apolitical philosophy, including most metaphysics, amounted to irrelevant mysticism? I guess that's the point of this thread, to sort those things out.

on another note, I agree with zhineTech's gravity example. Enlightenment has always been obtainable without a precise understanding of the physics involved, as it is only observation of a fundamental quality of life. If anything, it's harder to obtain now because so much distracting information is available. Think of it like this... maybe even reptiles "get it" on the only level that matters. (I like to attempt impossible tasks like imagining reptilian consciousness.)