Checksum Values

One argument that keeps coming up against me in conversation against my line of thought is that we have some biological imperative. To address this, I'm going to respond directly to hundun's comments on one of my posts.

The argument summarizes thus:

• The mammalian brain is imperfect due to the lack of refinement form evolution
• Our minds are "like a crapware-saddled virus-ridden Vista-running laptop brought back in time to 1973"
• Human cognition is fundamentally irrational
• Biological drives (survival, reproduction, etc) constitute our basic impulses
• The human mind is not unified
• We are no different from other mammals

Okay, great, I agree with all of this except for the irrational part (to some degree). But I would argue that this model is incomplete. While I am a determinist, I still think that we have the illusion of free will (the experience of the processors chugging away). We have biological drives, but we also effectively (though not actually) have choice. In the words of Sartre, "[people] are condemned to be free." I can choose to rebel against all of my biological drives, stop eating, isolate myself, or commit suicide. I can die for a cause, or make huge sacrifices for the sake of an idea.

Yes, we absolutely have irrational biological drives, but we also have a rational cogito. Our mind is divided, hence why we can feel so divided. The pull of all these parts determines action, as if on a voting system. Your Freudian superego was installed (experimentally and by accident via evolution) to make you a social animal, but went haywire and now you can possess values that are counterproductive to evolutionary reproduction.

You do have choices over your biological drives. You can madly lust after someone, yet never act on your desire, even if given the opportunity to get away with it. Yet another person would take advantage of the situation. Why is that? The cogito portion of the democracy that is your mind can have a pretty strong say in your actions. Often these cogito functions are programmed by the indoctrination of children by their caregivers. This tends to lend itself to the realm of ethics on a social scale. However, as individuals, how can we justify wanting this or that, or valuing what we've learned through authority. Taking authority at face-value can be a very dangerous thing.

My existential crisis was born out of a number of factors that led me to recognize the value nihilism of nature: that existence precedes essence. My body gives me biological rewards by making me feel pleasure when I do certain things that I am programmed biologically to do. But is feeling good the point? Are we mere slaves to our passions? Clearly not, or at least not all of us.

Values essentially sweep through as a diagnostic of our actions. "Is this right?" is what our drives are always asking. It performs a checksum on each part of our being. But when you turn the diagnostic against itself, it can't checksum because it has nothing to check against. All the other people have different values. Our OS was installed without the ability to check if our diagnostic tool is functioning, and everyone is running different plug-ins, so we can't compare to each other.

I think there's a good chance that Douglas Adams was right, and the checksum is 42.

Schrödinger's Ethic

Nihilism is a funny thing. Simply put, life has no inherent meaning. But that fact in itself has no inherent meaning if it is to be true. So when people are upset by the lack of inherent meaning in the world, they should just as easily be happy about it. It's no justification to go kill yourself. It's no justification to keep living either. You just remain a ghost. I sometimes feel like Schrödinger's cat, simultaneously alive and dead, living in contradiction. Yay for cognitive dissonance.

I continue live my life as I otherwise would, as a way to hedge my bets. If I find a good reason to live, I'll want to have a job and an eduction. If I find reason to die, then I have nothing anyway. It's as close to win-win as you can get in this situation, it just means that I have to put in effort and invest in the possibility that I will find justification for living.

The problem is assumption

I'm in the midst of an existential crisis. I have been for years, and I keep distracting myself away from it, but it keeps returning, and it keeps getting stronger each time. This time I've decided to face it and actually do the heavy lifting in hopes that I can find some basis for my life.

The Polish psychologist Dąbrowski came up with a theory to help explain the stages and outcomes of such dilemmas. Like myself, he felt that existential crisis could be a constructed as a positive thing: as a way of personal development. He calls this "Positive Disintegration." I sure hope that his theory is right, or else I'm on my way to the madhouse >.> I've been getting distracted these past few years, and collapsing back to Dąbrowski's "Level 1", but I keep popping back up to "Level 2" as if by some internal need.

The core of my dilemma is that I cannot find any basis for meaning in my life that is sufficiently solid. I'll start with the fact that I'm a staunch atheist, so a nonexistent god can't give me meaning. Most people build their meaning on a foundation that really is just a pile of assumptions hanging midair with no ground, and most people absolutely refuse to question it. I can understand why. Life is comfortable for them. They typically have no motivation to look further.

Let's take an example: "it's better to be happy than unhappy." This reduces down to the pleasure principle, and that in pure form leads to hedonism, which most people would disagree with being ideal. Furthermore, the pleasure principle is nothing but happy chemicals running through your brain. Why not take ecstasy all day? Most people would argue that this is because it's not "real" happiness, by which they mean it wasn't earned. But there are plenty of situations of people enjoying things that they haven't earned, and it also looks at happiness as a form of fixed commodity, which it clearly is not because you can often become happier by changing your perspective on something. Plus, what about a sociopath that finds joy in causing suffering in others?

Ethics in themselves make sense to me: they are what produces a functioning society. But why do we want a functioning society? To improve the quality of life? Why is that better? Is life somehow innately better than non-living things?

Meaning reduces down to value, which is by its nature hierarchal. So what do we value? And further, why do we value the things that we value? Why do we value life over death? The problem in this analysis is that you cannot place value before itself. You are applying the function "value hierarchy" to itself, and thus altering the function that is acting on itself in an infinite loop. The school of analytic philosophy puts it another way: you cannot ask "what is the meaning of existence" because that places put meaning before existence, but meaning has to exists too, so existence is actually prior to meaning!