#AihuaThink

机械唯物主义千百年来一直困扰我们的一个问题就是:如果一切都是被决定了的,那我为什么还要努力?

一切都被决定的意思就是说,我并不能真正做出选择,比如摆在面前的有苹果和香蕉,我纠结了一会最终选择了吃苹果,并不是因为我是自由的,可能仅仅是因为我昨天看到有人吃苹果了,在那一刻就被决定了的。

所谓自由意志、所谓我个人做出的决定,只是假象,这是一个让人很难接受的事实。然而随着脑科学的发展,众多实验事实(我们的各种精神活动会伴随脑部的各种化学反应)越来越暗示可能机械唯物是正确的。

回到最初的问题:那我为什么还要努力?这个问题有意思在于,问题本身就是个悖论。前提是我什么都选择不了,结论是我应该选择躺平。这太令人费解了。

我能给出的解释就是,因为这个问题没有意义,思考这个问题本身就是浪费时间,就像在思考“1既然等于1,那1为什么不等于2”一样。

但需要注意的是,确实会有人因为得知了机械唯物是真的然后完全彻底躺平,但这也是被决定了的。我们无须探讨他们为什么选择如此,只需要把这当成一种思想上的病毒即可,有人感染了,有人免疫了。

如果机械唯物是真的,那么我们只需要静静地做好一个观众,欣赏这个是你又非你的人类的人生即可。那“我们”又是谁?是幻觉和假象。

我还是希望它是假的… 康德说我们永远不可能知道这件事的真相,但是如果真的通过计算机完全成功预测了一个人的所有行为和想法,我们真的还能装作不相信吗?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

有种马克思的历史唯物主义的悲观感。

从另一个角度来看。作为自以为的自由人,我们居然无法知道自己下一秒想什么,所谓的我,看起来更像是各种思维闪现的复合体,就像生物学中说的那样,人类不过是很多微观生物构成的集合。所以,佛主教我们如何寻找自我,如何寂灭,最终涅槃。

马克思悲观的说法没错,但无产阶级真的惨,病急乱投医不能说穷鬼没格局吧,没吃的,什么道德文章都做不了。

浪漫是属于有闲阶级的,这的确是一件很悲伤的事。

针对任何事件寻找求本因,还原论皆会带来难以想象的变量数量。

哪怕是最简单的三体问题都不存在解析通解,

更何况是沿着时间轴不断往回追溯事件发生过程中所遭遇到惊人数量的相关影响因子呢。

我们的世界并非是由简单可预测的机械决定论推动的,而是呈现难以理喻的复杂性、概率事件和涌现特性。

尽管我们在当前人类的时间尺度上可预测宇宙星辰的运动轨迹,但在足够大时间尺度上仍然无从预测。

尤其那些受密集事件驱动的自组织系统内部行为,更是难以预测。

我们既无法预测未来,也无法重建过去。

假如我们能做到上述任何一样,对称性皆会被全部破坏,那么我们的世界就一定存在造物主。

预测未来可让我们不断调整当前微小变化改变未来,重建过去可让我们模拟出无数个和过去历史不一样的平行世界以致于我们也成了重建过去套娃中的一部分。

我们只能以有限的算力活在被有限预测的世界里。

越是落后和专制的社会,其整体倾向越是接近于机械运动的特征,因为人类社会在没有自由的时代,一切都是可预知的,人在极微观的层面看似有自主能力,但是在稍宏观一点的层面上,就像个机器零件。

然而自从自由社会诞生至今,社会脱离机械化特征越来越明显。人的多样性和创造性打破了几千年的停滞状态。所以,当你看到的社会仍然像一部机器那样,仍然像几百年前的人所描述的那样,那就是这个社会不发展的表现。

但是并非所有的当下社会都如此。今天的现代生活风格不是用钱买来的,而是自由社会创造出来的。

这个问题是放在机械唯物主义这个范畴下在思考了,所以这个问题的提出就带着两种预设,要么是机械唯物主义是合理的,所以去证明它,要么机械唯物主义是不合理的,所以就去找东西来反驳。

假如说,选择与不选择都是可以被先定的,可以被还原的,那么是不是可以说这是一个人想为自己的某些奇奇怪怪的“诉求”在做辩护呢?所以这个逻辑就可以是,一个人已经有不想努力的预设,然后用机械唯物主义为自己做辩护,证明自己的现状都是被决定的,被预设的。既然这样,他也就不需要为自己的不努力承担任何的责任,因为他把自己的责任已经推卸给了一个被决定的命运上面。

同样的例子,也可以是新教徒用加尔文的教义为自己逐利做辩护。

嗯,我觉得我好唯心,是靠近存在主义那一流的。

所以说,我们可以将机械唯物主义视作一种话术(语词的联结),只是因为我们作为一个有意识的主体在一个特定的背景,或者语境下选择这套语词而已。可能它们并不先于我们的主体存在,只是我们挑选了它们作为自己的认知的一部分而已,并且赋予它不可动摇的逻辑的“真值”。

其实这个问题,像斯多葛学派,加尔文都给了不同视角的解读

nostr:nevent1qqszvrmcqpt0phdcksry23a9j6dryqq48q07a795vafwta6j5wqndtqpzdmhxue69uhhyetvv9uju7n9dqhxzursqgs982pe96t3k33jdc7slzt8mvtufa7v5n2zh6tek9nyzfxg76d022qrqsqqqqqpq8ww5d

社会是多样的,这个世界的社会不是统一形态的,许多社会,例如西方的各个国家还有一些其他的自由社会,与中国的社会是截然不同的。但是我们的思维定势会让我们看不到社会本身的多样性,我们会认为“社会”即指包括中国在内的全世界全人类。这是很容易令人产生的思维倾向。

但是我们应该看到,像中国这种只有变老和死亡的社会而没有变革的社会,其被淘汰的命运已经很明显了。

如果你认为几百年前的人所谈的社会现象和“规律”至今仍然具有极高的指导意义,那就已经说明这个社会已经几百年没有变革了。而我们的生活经历告诉我们,其实中国这个社会几千年都没有过任何变革。

正如亨利梅恩所说,绝大多数的社会,其发展规律就是没有发展,这个没有发展换个角度看,就是没有变革。当然,有些岛国据说存在了上万年,上万年如一日地变化着,但是没有变革。不知现今的这些社会是否仍然存在。但中国这个社会应该说走到头了,面对不断变革的社会,他们越来越强大,而老态龙钟的社会如何可以比拼?

这个就像是说,像新几内亚,新西兰和澳大利亚这几个地方的原住民,其实他们自身也在独立运作,但是他们所居住环境终究是缺乏像欧亚大陆这样的多样性。几千年以来,他们的发展就像是在闭门造车一样。甚至是说,当库克的船队抵达北岛的时候,那里的土著依旧是刀耕火种的阶段。所以一个地区,在缺乏多样性,搞内循环的时候,他们的发展是看不到前途的,即使有发展,也跟不上同时代的速度,终将会被抛弃。像是,当年西班牙人几百人的军队,攻陷一个庞大的印加帝国一样。

说得不错,当年英国的鸦片战争,那条船也只不过一千人,但是就凭全清朝的上亿人,又怎么样?人家照样赢。

Here are some ideas about it

1. The definition of free will, frankly speaking this is a highly empirical term as well, people are required to assess the factors that influence people’s judges, the main idea is how individually people could make decisions out of the environment (obviously the environment did have a impact on people’s decisions, a simple case, the temperature rises and people feel hot and maybe come up with an idea of taking off the clothes.)

2. the demonstration of the determinism, sadly, the determinism itself could not be proved in any rigorous way, the support of it is highly empirical, comes with science history. If u look into the history of physics, it is built on empiricism, and be included into laws, and apply them under certain uncertainty, the necessary of uncertainty is related to the way we acknowledge the world, it could be better understood with the help of materialism, as the so called objective truth and absolute truth. And we might come up with the quantum mechanics which seems to lose th characteristic of determinism, but we need to remember the world before newton’s three laws, the movement of rather big subjects still show a great uncertainty. The tricky point is we can’t deny the existence of determinism simply because of quantum mechanics, it could be a intermediate process as well. But according the logic relationship of past science history, it works. In short, experience, laws(approximate), and predictions(approximate), obviously, so far it’s impossible to say whether it’s right or wrong, but the main idea behind it, seems indicate the determinism works.

3. the problems we might encounter if free will doesn’t exist.

Of course, the first comes with the idea, if my behaviors are decided upon the environment, why I should hold responsibility for it.

This question could be sovleld by mutual benefit theory, the so called laws and rules are the tools we used to coordinate the beneficial relationship between individuals. And the main idea shows that even if free will doesn’t exist, people still need to hold responsibility. It is quite similar to the idea of Darwin: the nature selection.

4. If free will doesn’t exist. Does it mean u could have more freedom or less?

Well, the tricky point about this is though logically speaking, if determinism works, then everything is determined already, but the reality is we still couldn’t tell what would happen for sure, the reason is obvious: there are too many arguments. But If we have already know some empirical laws, especially psychological ones, then we could apply it to the environment to make the the following stuff become easier, the case is just like the relationship of temperature and feeling, but if it is applied in a more complex situation, we could make things easier by change some environmental factors around individuals. In this way, u actually have more freedom.

Here are some ideas about it

1. The definition of free will, frankly speaking this is a highly empirical term as well, people are required to assess the factors that influence people’s judges, the main idea is how individually people could make decisions out of the environment (obviously the environment did have a impact on people’s decisions, a simple case, the temperature rises and people feel hot and maybe come up with an idea of taking off the clothes.)

2. the demonstration of the determinism, sadly, the determinism itself could not be proved in any rigorous way, the support of it is highly empirical, comes with science history. If u look into the history of physics, it is built on empiricism, and be included into laws, and apply them under certain uncertainty, the necessary of uncertainty is related to the way we acknowledge the world, it could be better understood with the help of materialism, as the so called objective truth and absolute truth. And we might come up with the quantum mechanics which seems to lose th characteristic of determinism, but we need to remember the world before newton’s three laws, the movement of rather big subjects still show a great uncertainty. The tricky point is we can’t deny the existence of determinism simply because of quantum mechanics, it could be a intermediate process as well. But according the logic relationship of past science history, it works. In short, experience, laws(approximate), and predictions(approximate), obviously, so far it’s impossible to say whether it’s right or wrong, but the main idea behind it, seems indicate the determinism works.

3. the problems we might encounter if free will doesn’t exist.

Of course, the first comes with the idea, if my behaviors are decided upon the environment, why I should hold responsibility for it.

This question could be sovleld by mutual benefit theory, the so called laws and rules are the tools we used to coordinate the beneficial relationship between individuals. And the main idea shows that even if free will doesn’t exist, people still need to hold responsibility. It is quite similar to the idea of Darwin: the nature selection.

4. If free will doesn’t exist. Does it mean u could have more freedom or less?

Well, the tricky point about this is though logically speaking, if determinism works, then everything is determined already, but the reality is we still couldn’t tell what would happen for sure, the reason is obvious: there are too many arguments. But If we have already know some empirical laws, especially psychological ones, then we could apply it to the environment to make the the following stuff become easier, the case is just like the relationship of temperature and feeling, but if it is applied in a more complex situation, we could make things easier by change some environmental factors around individuals. In this way, u actually have more freedom.