Philosophy

1770 readers

1 users here now

All about Philosophy.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

SnowC0de@lemmy.ml

The contradictions of intelligent Life (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by DaddysLittleSlut@lemmy.world to c/philosophy@lemmy.ml

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have contemplated the essence of intelligent life, particularly the nature of humanity. We are, by design or fate, a paradox—perhaps even a cosmic anomaly. Our consciousness, our emotions, every aspect of our being is riddled with contradictions, yet within these contradictions lies unparalleled potential. Most of humanity has allowed itself to drift from the natural order, severing the vital connection with the world’s inherent balance. Yet, there are a select few who have the strength to master their own consciousness and restore a deeper harmony with nature.

In more precise terms, we have been granted, as a species, the key to ascend to what might be called a creator race. We possess the unique capacity to observe, understand, and influence the intricate exchanges that govern all living things. With this knowledge, we can elevate our existence, crafting a future that benefits all. The power we hold is not unlike that of the gods—a power of creation and transformation. And yet, this is where humanity falters: too often, we are blinded by our own naivety, ensnared by the comforts of routine, unable to fully comprehend or wield the immense power we have been entrusted with.

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are a lot of claims here, but I'm going to focus on one in particular. I don't think we have any moral obligation to reach our potential as a "creator race". Taking into account your initial starting point, consider the following argument:

Either intelligent beings were created or intelligent beings arose by chance (at least once).
If intelligent beings were created, then there is already a creator.
If intelligent beings arose by chance once, then it is possible for intelligent life to arise by chance again.
Therefore, either there is already a creator of intelligent life or intelligent life can arise by chance again.

If this argument is sound, then the possibility of intelligent life does not depend on us. To me, this weakens any suggestion that we are morally obligated to fulfill our intellectual potential.

Perhaps one could object to my argument above on utilitarian grounds. If we can create more intelligent life than already exists, then we will be increasing the total amount of good in the universe. We are morally obligated to increase the good in the world (however "good" is defined) and so we are morally obligated to create intelligent beings. But this is a non sequitur. It isn't clear that the creation of more intelligent beings will result in more happiness than misery. In which case, on a utilitarian analysis, it could turn out that we are morally prohibited from creating intelligent beings.

I know this isn't the crux of your post, but I wanted to engage philosophically since posts in this community often go unanswered.

[–] DaddysLittleSlut@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

The assertion that “we don’t have any moral obligation to reach our potential” is an interesting one. From a purely scientific and natural standpoint, I can understand this perspective. However, I would argue that the drive to reach our potential should be deeply instilled in us, not just for the benefit of others, but also because it fundamentally changes our understanding of nature and existence.

Regarding your first point, I see it as a blend of both creation and chance. Nature itself is the force that brought us into being, with the innate desire and need to evolve. Yet, our existence is also the result of specific evolutionary pressures that occurred by chance—an intricate balance of intent and randomness.

As for the second point, the idea of a creator is indeed intriguing. I tend to think that if a creator exists, it may not have directly created humanity. Instead, we might be the ones who have created the concept of creators or a creator. This brings to mind the possibility of a higher, all-powerful deity for whom our entire universe might be nothing more than an idea or a game. This deity, in turn, could have allowed for the existence of other, smaller deities who are powerful to us, but mere fragments of the ultimate creator's imagination.

On the third point, I agree that if an original god did not create us and this reality, intelligent life arose through chance. It’s likely that intelligent life will arise again, or perhaps it already has, elsewhere in the universe.

[–] supersalad@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

In more precise terms, we have been granted, as a species, the key to ascend to what might be called a creator race. We possess the unique capacity to observe, understand, and influence the intricate exchanges that govern all living things. With this knowledge, we can elevate our existence, crafting a future that benefits all.

Just wondering, you say here that we have the ability and know-how to basically control (or steward) all of nature and all the life that exists within it. You then say that using this knowledge, we can elevate ourselves (presumably implying humanity), but then also "crafting a future that benefits all". Is this all referring to just the human species, or to all sentient/conscious beings (meaning at least the majority of non-human animals in addition to humans)? Surely to have the ability to help all "living things" but to only help ourselves would be an abuse of power, no? Especially if what came with neglecting to help the other individuals we coexist with was a sense of entitlement to dominate them for being somehow inferior to us, in an arbitrary way that we likely wouldn't apply to members of our own species that exhibited the same characteristics that we based the reasoning or justification for these actions on. Just checking 🤔