Philosophy in the Den

[beejazz]

You know, in the original paladin legends, at least one of them (Malagigi, I think) summoned demon(s). Huzzah Ashtaroth!

[SDragon]

If first part of aligment is Law - Chaos, it would point towards society's perception of such things. I claim that societies are not chaotic (they can not be called societies if they are truly in chaos). Even in anarchy, there is an order of some sort be it only 'might makes it right' or ganging up as a looting groups. Simply, humans don't know how to function in chaos, but they always set up groups and those groups always operate with some social rule-set, often unwritten.

This would suggest that Lawful person would infact follow the rules of society, what ever they might be, while chaotic would discard these rules. This would mean, that in society in anarchy, orderly monk practicing self-meditation is actually a chaotic character, not ready to give in the rules of society.

The second part seems to be more personal part. Good - Evil. It would seem to be as personal choice, but when inspected more closely, it turns out to be reflection towards the same social taboos and rules. Your 'Goodness or Evilness' is always determined by other people and the ruleset they they use, are rules and taboos of the society. You can not be nothing but Good, if you follow the rules and same time you can not be anything that Lawful, while following the rules and vice versa. After all, greed, selfsatisfaction and altruism don't come to play here, only how accurately you match the societies rules and taboos.

Thus I submit that there is only two aligments: Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil and they tell you absolutely nothing about personality until you examine the society that set the rules and guidelines in first place.

according to this, then, all animals would qualify as lawful. im not very well-versed on the subject (certainly not enough to hold up against argument for very long, unfortunately), but my understanding is that animals follow a system thats been dubbed "erratic retaliator". i also understand that this sysem was adapted by almost all tribal human cultures in real life (im not entirely sure how that would translate to any given fantasy setting, but i imagine that "humanoid" could replace "human").

although, it could be argued that, since the human(oid) cultures developed deeper then just the Erratic Retaliator system, there was more room for them to break from the cultural standatds. i dont think this aegument could apply to animals, however.

[snakefing]

So how about free will or [insert fancy name for free will-ism] instead of predestiny/determinism?

How about compatibilist pseudo-desteriminism?

[beejazz]

compati-what now?!
I've half a mind to wash your mouth out with soap!

[snakefing]

Sorry, you're right, that should have been compatibilist pseudo-predesteriminism.

What was I thinking?

[beejazz]

*facepalm*
although I have to admit I've got no room to talk after my post on how quantum physics=magic.

[CYMRO]

*facepalm*
although I have to admit I've got no room to talk after my post on how quantum physics=magic.

No, sometimes quantum buggers even magic.
See Terry Pratchett's Pyramids, Thief of Time, etc.

[SA]

So how about free will or (insert fancy name for free will-ism) instead of predestiny/determinism?

probabilistic[/i] universe, which combines elements of both order and chaos.  Alas, adopting a middle-ground between the two does not achieve the elusive and sought-after self-determinism, it merely presents us with the limitations of both systems.

So for me, it is no longer a question of whether such a thing as free will exists.  Now, it is a matter of determining that which, in the absence of free will, motivates us to act.

[beejazz]

There is free will. Electrons exist in all possible positions until they (or their effects) are observed, at which time they collapse into a single position. Random number generator experiments show that the single position of the observed electron *is* affected by intent. This has certain implications in the brain's neural electrical impulses... namely that we control them and not the other way around.

[SA]

But what instigates our intent and subsequent control?  My point is that that which is without cause is acted without meditation - without any reason whatsoever for having done it.  Without a reason, it is not an act of the autonomy, but of uncoordinated spontaneity.  The fact that we control said electrons does not detract from the fact that something determines our intention to observe; if not, then our observation is random and therefore not an act of the free (as chaos is fundamentally limited by its basic nature).

If I can be supplied an alternative to the caused/uncaused dichotomy, then I may be persuaded otherwise, but as it stands... free will doesn't seem to have any legs to stand on.

Rebuttal?

[beejazz]

Let's see... between a caused/uncaused dichotomy?
Let's see... and the fact that real life functions simultaneously on both and niether doesn't bother you? The distinction of phenomena (and all their consequences) is just a part of the subjective way we view the universe. Let's divide people into men and women. On this criteria, I am exactly the opposite of my sister, and we have nothing in common. Now let's divide people into my family and those outside. Suddenly, my sister and I are identical! But how can this be? Just two seconds ago, we were opposite! When and why and how you divide concepts is preceded by what questions you ask. For example, who is a member of this family? Who is a member of this gender? And so on and so forth. The reality that there is no binary divide between that with precedent and that without precedent shows only that you are asking the wrong question.

The question is not whether a phenomenon is preceded, but by what it is preceded by. The question is not whether there is a logical progression, but what that logical progression is. The question is not whether things are... you get the idea.

My point is that consciousness transcends dichotomy in and of itself. It is the thing that collapses those things that are collapsible into a dichotomy to begin with.

I've got to go look up the hommunculus logic before I can go any further with this line of thought, but believe me: No amount of logic will hit any "source" for logic, and no amount of randomness would ever be able to find itself random. Consciousness has niether beginning nor end... like the snake swallowing its own tail... it is the paradox of self-awareness that trumps "precedent". Consciousness is its own precedent, encompasses all possibilities within itself, and can therefore decide which of all possibilities it allows to happen.

I'm having a hard time finding the words I am looking for to describe the phenomenon.

I'll be back with more, though.

[brainface]

Random number generator experiments show that the single position of the observed electron *is* affected by intent.

what[/i]?? Do you have a link or reference for this?

[beejazz]

Let's see...
No links.
I've read it in a couple of books, but...
There's also a movie called "What the (bleep) do we know?"
Some of it is crap, but some of it is some really freaking trippy science.

[beejazz]

Let's see...
No links.
I've read it in a couple of books, but...
There's also a movie called "What the (bleep) do we know?"
Some of it is crap, but some of it is some really freaking trippy science.

[brainface]

i've heard of that, but i can't trust anything that mixes crap with trippy science. it makes it really hard to tell the two apart. i guess i'll google search it.

do you have the titles to the books? i mean, if it's encoded into the universe that personal intent affects subatomic particles, i'll buy the book that explains how.