Films
Sci Fi & The Meaning of Life
Shai Tubali sees how non-human minds mirror our condition back to us
Come on, to compare the enormous gap between what our own species is both capable of remembering and then reconfiguring back into the behaviors we choose in the “here and now”, to what other animals – and plants? – do seems to narrow that gap far, far more than I ever would.
And the memories of replicants [as I recall] are still basically programed by those flesh and blood folks who have memories derived from actual experiences. Instead, the main bone of contention revolved not around the past but the future…that four year life span.
Here’s what I’m waiting for: An A.I. themed film in which there unfolds a discussion between the flesh and blood programmer and his or her A.I. creation in which the discussion gets around to, say, the morality of abortion. Not loneliness and romance but the sort of things I probe here in regard to connecting the dots between morality here and now and immorality there and then. A.I. and the meaning of life…or the meaning of death? In Blade Runner the replicants were all about sticking around. Not to do good deeds, but merely to survive beyond their expiration date.
Or is death itself merely “programmed” out of this new consciousness:
Ah, the role that dasein might play here! Nature programming us biologically, us programming A.I. technologically. The “self”/Self given all of the many, many convoluted permutations that might be beyond our even imagining now.
Again, if that is ever likely to be pinned down, it will eventually come down to the reaction of an A.I. “self”/Self when confronting conflicting goods. How is “I” here not the embodiment of dasein when so much of what constitutes experience/memory is merely programmed by a flesh and blood mind bursting at the seams with the implications of dasein.
Films
Sci Fi & The Meaning of Life
Shai Tubali sees how non-human minds mirror our condition back to us
Well, you all know how far I take this: to “the gap” and to “Rummy’s Rule”. And, of course, to the part that revolves around whether we have free will at all here.
It’s just that, in the is/ought world, I bring it in a lot closer to the lives that we live from day to day. You can experience any number things in which your behaviors will be challenged by others. What then are the limitations of what you are conscious of?
Of course, some might fantasize about not having a body at all. And that is because for all the body provides us in the way of pleasure, it is more than capable of pummeling us with all manner of pain. And our sense of identity is often in a tug of war between one or the other. Let them crave the “friction” between consciousness and body when the body is making what one is conscious of a living hell.
Also, what is “pure consciousness” anyway? And how would having one impact on the arguments I make in regard to dasein, conflicting goods and political power? For now, this can only be imagined in the sci-fi world. In a “world of words”.
Only, once again, what can be an ineffable gap between what that means to me, and what that means to you. Whose dreams? And what happens when, in achieving your dreams, others are prevented from achieving theirs? Others, in fact, are harmed, even destroyed, when you achieve yours.
Films
Sci Fi & The Meaning of Life
Shai Tubali sees how non-human minds mirror our condition back to us
The Spock Syndrome let’s call it. Although he was supposedly half-human you would never know it in most of the episodes. It was all logic, logic, logic.
Or, as I once encompassed it…
Whenever I come upon this sort of [brain/heart/spirit] quandary, I am reminded of a particular scene from the Star Trek IV movie.
One of the sub-plots in the film revolved around the perennial squabble between Kirk and Spock over the role of emotion in human interaction. I say human interaction because, again, as those who enjoy immersing themselves in the Star Trek universe know, Spock was half human and half Vulcan. The Vulcan half was basically bereft of emotional reactions. A Vulcan’s reaction to the world was always logical, supremely rational. Thus the human half of Spock was, apparently, something he kept buried deep down in his psyche.
In the course of the movie, the Kirk [emotional], Spock [rational] conflict ebbed and flowed. But in a climactic scene near the end, the crew of the Enterprise are in a jam. One of their comrades, Chekov, is isolated from the rest of them. He is in a primitive 20th century hospital sure to die if not rescued. But if the crew goes after him they risk the possibility of not completing their mission. And if they don’t complete their mission every man, woman and child on earth will die.
Spock’s initial reaction is purely calculated: It is clearly more important – more rational and thus more ethical? – to save the lives of all planet earth’s inhabitants than to risk these lives in the effort to save just one man.
But Kirk intervenes emotionally and reminds everyone that Chekov is one of them. So, naturally, this being a Hollywood movie, Spock ends up agreeing that saving Chekov is now the #1 priority. And, naturally, this being a Hollywood film, they still have time to rescue planet earth from the whale-probe. Barely.
But think about the ethical dilemma posed in the film. Is it more rational [ethical] to save Chekov, if it means possibly the destruction of all human life on earth?
What are the limits of ethical inquiry here in deciding this? Can it even be decided ethically?
Consider it in two ways:
In the first, we can rescue our beloved friend knowing there might still be time to rescue everyone else.
In the second, we can rescue our beloved friend knowing that, if we do, there is no time left to rescue everyone else.
Maybe someday we will actually come upon an intelligent species more along the lines of Vulcans. Until then though we’re stuck being us: a subjunctive species ever forced to reconcile what we think and what we feel. And [as I see it] philosophy can never be “serious” until it acknowledges the implications and the consequences of that “out in the world” of actual human interactions in conflict.
So, the human heart. As with most things, it depends on the context. But with the heart comes that aspect of “I” more in sync with the primitive parts of the brain: instinct, drives, libido.
Are the logical aliens, perhaps, better off not going there? After all, the human “spirit” might find a “point” to life. But what happens when those points come into conflict?
Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website
In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be “there” and not “here”. To be “here” or “there” now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.
What could possibly be more obvious? And yet, clearly, depending on the individual, some will explore this in depth while others will barely consider it at all. At least not philosophically. In fact, most leave all that to the ecclesiastics. It becomes a religious matter and there may be any number of Scripts “out there” in their own particular world to choose from.
Again, does one have to be a philosopher to come to conclusions of this sort? Human beings not only exist but in a free will world it is going to dawn on most that they “exist here”, they “exist now”. And then, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, individuals may or may not ask themselves the sort of questions that philosophers do. They may or may not come to the conclusions that I do regarding the distinction between I in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world.
What is relevant or irrelevant to us not in regard to erupting volcanoes so much as in regard to erupting pandemics or wars or civil strife.
Or holocausts. Heidegger’s Dasein and my own dasein then.
Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website
Tell me that we don’t need a few actual existential contexts here in order to make this effable.
And it’s peculiar to human beings only in the sense that no other species on Earth has evolved to the point where they are able to invent such things as philosophy and computers and the internet. And though often described as a “social being”, historically and culturally, the emphasis has often shifted back and forth between “I” and “we” and “them”.
As for the “a priori structures that make possible particular modes of Being”, you tell me. Given a set of circumstances that will allow you to “illustrate the text”.
Instead…
How is an assessment of this sort not perhaps an important reason why so few have an interest in philosophy? If, after noting something like this, an author then went on to examine how it is applicable to human interactions from day to day…how it pertains to his or her own personal experiences out in the world with others…it might at the very least allow others to grasp how it is applicable “for all practical purposes” to the “human condition” they encounter in the course of living their lives.
A “thing in itself” may actually be beyond the reach of both philosophers and scientists. It may instead only be grasped by what may or may not be an existing God. For mere mortals on this planet there are always going to be “lens”. Philosophy being just one of them. And, even here, grasped through the lens of free will. An assumption derived wholly through the lens of a mechanical nature.
Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website
And why might that be?
Because with human beings, being is ever and always a sojourn…an existential trajectory embodied in the act of becoming from the cradle to the grave. We are not a “Being-in-the-world” so much as a being that is ever and always evolving out in a particular world. And, depending on when and where you were “thrown” at birth, how you come to connect the dots between “in my head” and “out in the world with others” can be profoundly different.
As for destiny, that is no less problematic. Being or becoming, your life might literally be destined if everything you think and feel and say and do is wholly determined by nature. But even given some measure of autonomy there are any number of factors in our lives that predispose us to go in directions that are not either fully understood or within our control.
But in order “establish” the “essential characteristic of Dasein”, Heidegger seems more inclined to define it into existence given an “a-priori structure” that others can then draw their own conclusions about regarding, among other things, Nazis.
Well, for starters, rocks, plants and other animals don’t engage in philosophical discussions about the nature of Being. They don’t interact in an “is/ought” world. They don’t dwell on dasein in the manner in which “I” do in that world.
Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website
An ontological being. Then, of course, for me, how far back one is then inclined to take this. After all, you can take it back so far that you are forced to admit you don’t really have a clue as to where “I” fits into what reality may or may not be. Where does your own particular “I” fit into the world around us today? Where does that fit into the “human condition”? Where does the human condition fit going all the way back to a comprehensive understanding of Existence itself?
Is it any wonder then that some scoff at philosophers who don’t simply get on with the far more pressing business of just living their lives and coming up with the least dysfunctional manner in which to interact with others.
“Mineness”. But first for years and years you are indoctrinated to be but another replication of “theirness”. And even here wholly dependent on the particular time and place in which you just happened to be born. Philosophers are no exception to that profoundly existential manifestation of human identity. The questions you come to ask may or may not be the questions others ask. The answers you give may or may not be entirely in conflict with theirs.
Isn’t this the most important issue by far? Exploring not “mineness”, but the profound limitations of philosophy in explicating what that means at all.
For example, connecting the dots between Heidegger’s own philosophical assessment of “mineness” and…fascism?
Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website
Of course, in regard to “care or concern” as they pertain to my own existential rendition of dasein, each of us as individuals comes to care about those things that unfold in our lives as they do and not as they might otherwise have given very different experiences. And, as a result of this, what some care about others could not care less regarding. Then the endless squabbles over what we ought to care about in a rational world. Or in the best of all possible worlds.
For example, there’s what Vladimir Putin cares about in Ukraine. And not just “technically”.
So, what do these words mean to you? Technically or otherwise. Given the manner in which you care about what is unfolding now in Ukraine.
Something perhaps along the lines of Sartre’s “existence is prior to essence”? No Gods around to ground one’s individual existence in. Doing and pointing in your own particular world understood in your own particular way?
So, anyone here then interested, given a particular set of circumstances in which we might care about very different things in very different ways, in exploring Heidegger’s Dasein and my own dasein?
With respect to what, philosophically, it means to us to “strive towards authenticity”?
What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly
Really, try to wrap your head around what on Earth, given your day to day interactions with others from the cradle to the grave, “the pre-personal, ontological ‘layer’ preceding the ego” can ever actually be!!
If this isn’t an exercise in constructing “intellectual contraptions” in a “world of words”, it’ll do until one comes along.
And, as always, what I am more interested in is in exploring “theoretical gains” insofar as they might be relevant to my own understanding of dasein pertaining to the world of actual human interactions. In particular interactions that precipitate conflicts revolving around moral and political value judgments.
But, sure, that’s just “me”.
What I strive to avoid at all cost in regard to dasein are truly obtuse analytical contraptions like this:
Analyze this yourself and then bring it to out into the world that we live and interact in. I’m curious to ascertain the extent to which others are convinced that thinking of this sort really is pertinent to the “human condition” that we all participate in from day to day.
What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly
Anyone here every aimed at the Sum…and hit it? Anyone here ever hit it in regard to that which I think most about: How ought one to live on this side of the grave in order to attain the optimal fate for “I” on the other side?
If so, let’s hear it.
As for “methodological mistakes”, note one of those too while you are at it.
I think, therefore I am. But even here Descartes has to assume that his is not in a sim world or a dream world or a reality as construed by the folks who brought us the Matrix.
Whatever, given a particular context, that means?
Of course, establishing metaphysical positions up in the intellectual clouds is one thing, intertwining them in the lives that we live down here another thing altogether. Up there the “beings that we are” may as well be what the Christians among us here say that God is. You “study” God by reading the Bible. So, does someone who embrace Heidegger’s conclusions about Dasein “study” us by reading Being and Time?
How wide or narrow will the conclusions be given, say, a particular newspaper headline.
What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly
The Cartesian ego…
The “phantom self”? The “ghost in the machine”? The “homunculus”?
In other words, whatever one wants to call the gap between what he or she thinks “I” is and what in fact it actually is instead.
And how many of us here will go to the grave before science or philosophy pins that down? My guess: all of us.
On the other hand, we can merely presume that what we think it is is in fact what it is. Call it, say, your “soul”.
Yes, Dasein in the either/or world. Where there actually is an objective reality that never changes from day to day to day. And then those who think – delude? – themselves into believing that in the is/ought world Dasein just carries on per usual. As though the Self in both worlds are interchangeable. Why? Because God or His secular equivalent is there to fall back on to make everything either this or that. The crucial “transcending font” that “I” can be anchored to.
Which, it seems, is completely irrelevant here:
Got that?
Okay then take this point down out of the intellectual clouds and note its applicability to “I” in the is/ought world. Not “scaling the north face of Mt Everest and being launched to the moon” but into discussions that shift the focus to whether men and women ought to pursue these things. Is it necessarily rationally to send astronauts to the Moon, or is it more necessarily rational to spend those billions and billions of dollars to solve problems down here on Earth?
And how ridiculous might it perhaps be construed to speak of someone “just being”, without a context in which they are being this when others insist they ought to be being that instead. What of Dasein here?
What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly
In other words, Dasein the intellectual contraption. Occasionally in reference to the either/or world but almost never in reference to the is/ought world.
Unless there are those here familiar with Being and Time who can note such instances.
Some animals pass, the vast majority fail. But none that pass, pass anywhere near as broadly as we do. Indifference is not the word most of us would come up with in describing our own reaction to our own being/Being.
But, again, being as an issue for us in the either/or world and in the is/ought world. Not that it isn’t an issue for all of us in both worlds but how our communication often breaks down when it becomes an issue for us in the world of conflicting moral and political value judgments.
Its essence. The essential issues for it? Don’t fire me into the Sun. But the main issue here is the conflict between the reasons someone might want to and the reasons I don’t think that they ought to. What is the essential truth here?
Or: Don’t send me packing to the death camp. The fact of it and the morality of it. What is Dasein here? How are they distinguished?
