I was going to call this post "On the teleology of informatics" but that just came out sounding way too postmodernist. But I couldn't come up with anything better.
mar13 writes:
There are a wide spectrum of CP. Our David is one of the more servere case due to his brain damage from a skull fracture. ... Please pardon my morbid thought, (and trust me, this is way more painful for me to bring up than yours) but if human dignity is bound up in our information processing, then there is every little reason to keep David [in] existence, except for medical research purposes.
First, let me reiterate how sorry I am for your tragedy, and that I in no way wish to dissuade you from your faith if it gives you comfort (more on this later). But since you ask...
Even from a hard-core Scientific (capital S) point of view, it is not true that "if human dignity is bound up in our information processing, then there is every little reason to keep David [in] existence, except for medical research purposes." Scientists distinguish between a person and their body. They are not the same thing. This is similar to the distinction that religions make between a person's body and their soul, except that the soul is usually taken to be some extra-physical entity that survives the death of the body. The Scientific point of view is that a person *is* the information stored in their brains. So there is an intimate and mostly unseverable bond between a person and their body. We do not yet know how to extract the information that is a person from the brain that information resides in, except for the little bits that come out in what they say and write and do. At the moment, when the brain dies the person dies, even if the rest of the body that person once resided in might still be alive. The status of such a body is not unlike Henrietta Lack's cancer cells. It is human life, but it is not a person.
Now, I don't know David. I can only base my judgement on what you have told me, and what you have told me is that he is a person with CP. A person with CP -- even severe CP -- is still a person.
How would you find strength in these kinds of life problem?
I have never had to deal with anything even remotely as difficult as what you are faced with, so until I am tested that way the only really honest answer to your question is that I don't know. This is one of the reasons that I take issue with Dawkins and Harris. I don't know their life stories, but from what I can tell they, as I, have been the beneficiaries of life's inequities rather than its victims. It's unbelievably arrogant to sit in an ivory tower and tell someone living in the slums of Calcutta that they should not turn to Jesus or Allah or whatever helps them get through their day.
Also, I occasionally turn to God myself in difficult times. I have been extraordinarily blessed and my troubles are trivial compared to what some people have to face, but I have my challenges and I occasionally have a chat with the Big Man. (I tell him I don't believe in him. He says that's OK :-) Even as a Scientist I recognize that faith is a very powerful force. The thing you believe in doesn't have to be real in order to reap the benefits of believing in it, and I don't want to take that away from anyone (unless they try to force me to believe in it too, of course).
But to answer your question directly: Scientists accept that the world is the way it appears to be to our senses. it is a world of great beauty and joy and and, too often, a world of tragedy and despair. Bad things happen to good people sometimes. People die. That's just the Way It Is.
But though we are creatures of information, we are not creatures of logic. We are not Vulcans, we are humans. Logic is only one aspect of ourselves. We have emotions and passions and desires and internal demons. All those are part of the human condition.
We have the power to make the world better than it would otherwise be. (We also have the power to make it worse.) And we can achieve a limited sort of immortality by taking parts of ourselves -- little bits of the information that lives in our brains -- and making them resident in other brains through writing, talking, and generally being known by other people. As long as David is remembered and loved, part of him is still alive in *your* brain (and now, mine, and everyone else who is reading this). In this way we sow the seeds of our souls.
I find my strength by waking up every day marveling at how privileged I am to be a part of this grand adventure we call reality, to be present here, now, and to witness and participate in all the incredible, marvelous, and occasionally terrible things happening here. Whether this will turn out to be enough when the time comes for me to really be tested I won't know until I get there. I hope it is. It's all I have.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteThank you for giving the matter some thoughts.
I wish there would be more people like you and Keller, who are willing to reason about belief, doubt, and unbelief.
It’s very human of you to say, “I occasionally turn to God myself in difficult times. I have been extraordinarily blessed and my troubles are trivial compared to what some people have to face, but I have my challenges and I occasionally have a chat with the Big Man. (I tell him I don't believe in him. He says that's OK :-)”
That’s like hearing Keller’s story of recognizing his own doubts:
“When I was recovering from thyroid cancer, from the surgery, I actually had time on my hands, something I never have had in years and probably never will again unless I have something else like that. And so I read every word of N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God—all eight hundred pages, even the indices (laughs), because I didn’t have anything else to do. And it was kind of startling to me, because we do live in a less rational sort of anti-foundationalist approach, and he was just taking a nice old-fashioned approach: There’s no historically viable alternative explanation for the birth of the Christian Church than the fact that the early Christians thought they saw Jesus Christ and touched him and that he was raised from the dead. As I was reading it, I realized I was coming to greater certainty, and that when I closed the book, I said, at a time when it was very important to me to feel this way, I said, “He really really really did rise from the dead.” And I said, “Well, didn’t I believe that before?” Of course I believed it before—I defended it, and I think before I certainly would have died for that belief. But actually, there were still doubts in there, and the doubts were taken down 50 percent or something. I didn’t even know they were there. And it was a wonderful experience It was both an intellectual and emotional experience: You’re facing death, you’re not sure you’re going to get over the cancer. And the rigorous intellectual process of going through all the alternative explanations for how the Christian Church started, except the resurrection—none of them are even tenable. It was quite an experience.” [from http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=981]
Yes, “We have the power to make the world better than it would otherwise be. (We also have the power to make it worse.) And we can achieve a limited sort of immortality by taking parts of ourselves -- little bits of the information that lives in our brains -- and making them resident in other brains through writing, talking, and generally being known by other people.” And I really appreciate your honesty when you wrote “limited sort of immortality”, an admission of the bleak reality we have.
Keller likes to refer to “The Denial of Death” by Ernest Becker, a non-believer, for his audacity to recognize the abyss we are all heading for. He even goes beyond our own death, as with our own death our “informatics” can live on (if I understand you correctly), “As long as [we are] remembered and loved, part of [us] is still alive in other’s brain... In this way we sow the seeds of our souls.” But Becker points out that with the sun’s death in our solar system (either by supernova or heat loss, albeit billions of years from now), our civilization would be gone, no memory would ever retain, and that’s the true death awaiting us all.
How could we goes on (with any hope) if that is certainly the reality? The believer believes that the physical world is not all there is in reality. The courageous unbelievers took the stoic approach and face the end straight on. The less-courageous ones (as Becker believed) use frantic human efforts to achieve and enjoy as really efforts to hide from ourselves the fact that we are going to die and go to nothing. (I think Keller mentioned about this whole thing in the openings of his talk “The Finger on the Wall” and goes from there to present the reasons for faith).
But I really like your honesty (in fact I admire many atheists and agnostics for their honest convictions too): “Whether this will turn out to be enough when the time comes for me to really be tested I won't know until I get there. I hope it is. It's all I have.”
God is all I have too. And if one day it turns out that He is not there, then all of this is in vain (back to the bleak reality Becker described).
So in that regard, we are more alike.
> But Becker points out that with the sun’s death in our solar system (either by supernova or heat loss, albeit billions of years from now), our civilization would be gone, no memory would ever retain, and that’s the true death awaiting us all.
ReplyDeleteYes. I believe that.
> How could we goes on (with any hope) if that is certainly the reality?
By rejoicing in the here-and-now, and the future that we have, finite though it may be. A finite existence is still better than none at all. (With the blanket disclaimer that this is what *I* believe, not what I expect other people to believe.)
> And if one day it turns out that He is not there, then all of this is in vain (back to the bleak reality Becker described).
I don't believe that, I am sad for you that you believe it. In the vastness of time and space, this conversation is an astonishing event. If being finite is the price I have to pay to be here to witness it then I call that a bargain. But I can certainly understand someone calling it an unfair deal. Different strokes.
> So in that regard, we are more alike.
Thank you, you just made my day. That is really where I think we ought to be trying to get to.
Give my best to David.
R: The Scientific point of view is that a person *is* the information stored in their brains.
ReplyDeleteSome of us would contend that is not the full story, saying that a person is the information "stored" in God's "brain". As St. Paul wrote, "for in Him we live and move and have our being..."
Me: How could we goes on (with any hope) if that is certainly the reality?
ReplyDeleteYou: By rejoicing in the here-and-now, and the future that we have, finite though it may be.
Hi Ron,
I am back, after some more thoughts and reflecting on how would I applying your belief system in my situations. (And my situation is long winded, see http://www.xanga.com/i12know/tags/trial if you want the gory details). In short, David is not our even our child, he is the son of my brother-in-law. We got deeply involved in their family tragedy by our own choice.
Objectively speaking, if we (human beings) just find the meaning of life “by rejoicing in the here-and-now, and the future that we have, finite though it may be”, then would it make us less altruistic? We can just live life for ourselves, as long as we won’t hurt some one else. Therefore, if I were in your belief system, taking on David into our family would be irrational, right?
Mar13 (Bumble)
PS: Even as Christian, I see our actions regarding David is completely illogical too, yet Keller encouraged me that since Jesus had carried our burden, we then could carry the burden for others, especially to our family members.
Looking forward to your post on Scientific moralism, especially if you get practical on how would a person in my situation should respond, assume that I am applying Scientific Moralism. Thanks.
> David is not our even our child, he is the son of my brother-in-law.
ReplyDeleteThat's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. A person is a person no matter whose genes they happen to have.
> Objectively speaking, if we (human beings) just find the meaning of life “by rejoicing in the here-and-now, and the future that we have, finite though it may be”, then would it make us less altruistic?
No. In fact, it would have the exact opposite effect. Once you accept that this life is all you have you want to do everything you can to make it as good as it can be, and not just for yourself. Empathy is part of the human condition. We are wired for empathy because we crave interaction with other information-processing entities. (This is why the Internet is so addictive -- because it lets us exchange information amongst each other as has never been possible before in the history of the universe.)
To the contrary, if you believe in an afterlife that can make you *less* altruistic because you can figure that the afterlife makes up for worldly suffering -- both yours and other people's. Mother Theresa, for example, believed this. She was famous for working with poor kids, but she actually thought that poverty was a blessing, at least that's what she said. And, I again note in passing, there's Biblical support for her position.
Because Scientists don't believe in an afterlife that idea carries no weight at all. There's no excuse for not making this life as good and productive and free of suffering as it can be.
> We can just live life for ourselves, as long as we won’t hurt some one else.
You can. But that's a pretty lonely existence. The number of people who really want to live that way is vanishingly small.
> Therefore, if I were in your belief system, taking on David into our family would be irrational, right?
Don't confuse morality and rationality. They are not the same thing. (But thank you for giving me an important insight.)
BTW, it is important to know that in no way do I wish to dissuade you from your faith. (In this way I am very different from Dawkins et al.) Like I said before, if Jesus works for you, more power to you. Just don't try to foist him on me, or tell me that my life is meaningless, or that I'm inherently immoral because I don't believe in him.
> Looking forward to your post on Scientific moralism,
Working on it. :-)
Me: David is not our even our child, he is the son of my brother-in-law.
ReplyDeleteYou: That's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. A person is a person no matter whose genes they happen to have.
The relevant point is that I wouldn't have to get involved if I see no benefit to me. (And I still can't see any benefit at this point. Many nights I and my wife struggled with this whole thing. We are trusting and hoping that God is not "a trickster" after all. We are enduring it since we want to live out our faith, but we are also praying hard that we will see some light at the end of the tunnel. However, at the present we are growing a lot - that much I can tell you.)
Me: Objectively speaking, if we (human beings) just find the meaning of life “by rejoicing in the here-and-now, and the future that we have, finite though it may be”, then would it make us less altruistic?
You: No. In fact, it would have the exact opposite effect. Once you accept that this life is all you have you want to do everything you can to make it as good as it can be, and not just for yourself.
But why "not just for yourself"? The only reason is so that the whole fabric of society would be better (like the example of not going for the blond girl in "A Beautiful Mind" movie). But in our case, how could keeping David in his existence contribute any good for society?
>However, at the present we are growing a lot - that much I can tell you.
ReplyDeleteWell, then it seems to me that you *are* getting something out of it.
> But why "not just for yourself"? The only reason is so that the whole fabric of society would be better
That's not the only reason, but that is certainly *a* reason. It goes much deeper than just "society". That's all part of the post I'm working on now.
> But in our case, how could keeping David in his existence contribute any good for society?
I can't answer that because I don't know David. But there are may ways in which people with CP can contribute to and enrich other people's lives. But I think you're asking the wrong question. The right question is not what David does for *society* but what he does for *you*. He must do something because you've decided that you'd rather have him around than not. (I presume no one put a gun to your head and forced you to take him in, yes?) So you tell me: what do you get out of it?
Ron: (I presume no one put a gun to your head and forced you to take him in, yes?) So you tell me: what do you get out of it?
ReplyDeleteYes, there are a few guns:
- Jesus who said, "Love one another as I have loved you"
- The Gospel which says, "Jesus carry your burden, so you should follow his foot steps and carry other people burden"
- The religious hope, which says, "There are rewards (in the after life) for those who are compassionate."
- My own conscience (which I cannot prove that it exists): "You ought to do this."
That's just a few...
> My own conscience (which I cannot prove that it exists)
ReplyDeleteWhy do you need to prove that it exists? Do you have any doubts that it exists? (Think basketballs here.)
But these don't sound like guns-to-the-head to me. What I meant by a gun-to-the-head was literally someone threatening to do something terrible to you (or someone else) if you don't take care of David. If someone were literally holding a gun to your head (a real gun with bullets) and I had it in my power to make that person go away you would obviously want me to do it, right? Now, suppose I had it in my power to convince you that you are not morally obligated to take care of David. Would you want me to do it? (Have you read the Raymond Smullyan essay?)