4 ms·

There's no Buddhism in the gut, though; at least not full-on nirvana Buddhism. Nor is their any orthodox Judaism, hardcore utilitarianism, or pauline Christiani

There's no Buddhism in the gut, though; at least not full-on nirvana Buddhism. Nor is their any orthodox Judaism, hardcore utilitarianism, or pauline Christianity. I'm talking about our ancient, shared core of self-preservation and empathy. The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. So no, to answer your question, I don't know much about Buddhism. I don't know much about mathematics, either, at least not when compared to how much there is to be known. And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). The same is true of a subset of philosophers (these particular Buddhist monks) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. I'm sure they've thought a lot about it; certainly a lot more than I have! But there's a thing that sometimes happens when you think about a problem too much, to the point of obsession: You can end up even further from the truth than you started. Just look at the hardcore utilitarians. Look at Ayn Rand. All of them know more about ethics and philosphy in general than I do. Doesn't mean I can't dismiss them with a heuristic, which I do. Why is there reverence for suicidal Buddhist monks in this arena, but not the equally-kooky Western utilitarians?

msm_ 3y ago
> And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). I don't want to derail the conversation, but there are many pretty weird and diverse ideas in mathematics, including finitism and ultrafinitism (where people just don't believe in some very large numbers), various subsets of peano axioms (where 1 != 0 may not be provable), or modular arithmetics (where 0 = 2 may be true). > The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. I'm not convinced I should listen the Things absolutely. The Things often tell me to hit someone annoying in the face, eat exclusively very caloric and fat food, and seek sexual gratification with every female of age around me. I don't think the Things are as smart as you give them the credit for. > (...) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. What about: - Medieval old people, who just left for the woods when they felt they're getting old and are a burden on the family. - Mothers sacrificing their life for their children - Strong and healthy males on Titanic who, despite their physical superiority, decided to let women and children first - People fighting in war/guerilla for their country or their beliefs
- rcoveson 3y ago
  > I don't want to derail the conversation, but there are many pretty weird and diverse ideas in mathematics, including finitism and ultrafinitism (where people just don't believe in some very large numbers), various subsets of peano axioms (where 1 != 0 may not be provable), or modular arithmetics (where 0 = 2 may be true). That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm imagining somebody who is so sure of their own mathematical reasoning skills that upon proving to themselves that the number one, in its simplest sense, was equal to the number zero, they started behaving as though this were the case. Perhaps going mad and (in good service of the analogy I'm making) killing themselves. > I'm not convinced I should listen the Things absolutely. The Things often tell me to hit someone annoying in the face, eat exclusively very caloric and fat food, and seek sexual gratification with every female of age around me. I don't think the Things are as smart as you give them the credit for. FWIW I think everything you're listing has some amount of instinctive conflict. Violence requires you to disable empathy. Chronic gluttony eventually requires you to turn off your ego and hate yourself. These are conflicts that (apologies for leaning heavily on this point, but it's kind of central) pretty much everybody, from a very young age, learns about and has to work through. The red flag is when you arrive through cold reasoning alone at a conclusion that makes no sense to any of your instincts, as evidenced by the fact that the average person off the street is completely bewildered by your conclusion. Like the idea that you should starve yourself for no other reason than that you have freed your spirit of all desire. > What about... [four moral case studies] Moral conflicts are still moral conflicts. Killing to avoid killing, violence to avoid violence. In the more difficult cases, perhaps even killing to avoid non-lethal violence (e.g. slavery), or even suicide to avoid extreme pain or the moral paralysis of your family members. Yet again, the sorts of decisions that people actually have to make with some regularity. The sorts of things we feel we need to teach children about, as they become adults. Suicide for purely ascetic reasons is not a moral conflict. From an unlearned perspective, it's just wasteful and bizarre. It seems to be the ethical equivalent of the mathematician going mad after incorrectly proving to himself that one apple was equivalent to zero apples.

msm_ 3y ago

> And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). I don't want to derail the conversation, but there are many pretty weird and diverse ideas in mathematics, including finitism and ultrafinitism (where people just don't believe in some very large numbers), various subsets of peano axioms (where 1 != 0 may not be provable), or modular arithmetics (where 0 = 2 may be true). > The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. I'm not convinced I should listen the Things absolutely. The Things often tell me to hit someone annoying in the face, eat exclusively very caloric and fat food, and seek sexual gratification with every female of age around me. I don't think the Things are as smart as you give them the credit for. > (...) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. What about: - Medieval old people, who just left for the woods when they felt they're getting old and are a burden on the family. - Mothers sacrificing their life for their children - Strong and healthy males on Titanic who, despite their physical superiority, decided to let women and children first - People fighting in war/guerilla for their country or their beliefs

rcoveson 3y ago
> I don't want to derail the conversation, but there are many pretty weird and diverse ideas in mathematics, including finitism and ultrafinitism (where people just don't believe in some very large numbers), various subsets of peano axioms (where 1 != 0 may not be provable), or modular arithmetics (where 0 = 2 may be true). That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm imagining somebody who is so sure of their own mathematical reasoning skills that upon proving to themselves that the number one, in its simplest sense, was equal to the number zero, they started behaving as though this were the case. Perhaps going mad and (in good service of the analogy I'm making) killing themselves. > I'm not convinced I should listen the Things absolutely. The Things often tell me to hit someone annoying in the face, eat exclusively very caloric and fat food, and seek sexual gratification with every female of age around me. I don't think the Things are as smart as you give them the credit for. FWIW I think everything you're listing has some amount of instinctive conflict. Violence requires you to disable empathy. Chronic gluttony eventually requires you to turn off your ego and hate yourself. These are conflicts that (apologies for leaning heavily on this point, but it's kind of central) pretty much everybody, from a very young age, learns about and has to work through. The red flag is when you arrive through cold reasoning alone at a conclusion that makes no sense to any of your instincts, as evidenced by the fact that the average person off the street is completely bewildered by your conclusion. Like the idea that you should starve yourself for no other reason than that you have freed your spirit of all desire. > What about... [four moral case studies] Moral conflicts are still moral conflicts. Killing to avoid killing, violence to avoid violence. In the more difficult cases, perhaps even killing to avoid non-lethal violence (e.g. slavery), or even suicide to avoid extreme pain or the moral paralysis of your family members. Yet again, the sorts of decisions that people actually have to make with some regularity. The sorts of things we feel we need to teach children about, as they become adults. Suicide for purely ascetic reasons is not a moral conflict. From an unlearned perspective, it's just wasteful and bizarre. It seems to be the ethical equivalent of the mathematician going mad after incorrectly proving to himself that one apple was equivalent to zero apples.