Necessity for Longevity in Metaphysical Knowledge
The desire to know the answers to ultimate metaphysical questions like Who am I?, What is reality?, and What is the mind? has been haunting me throughout my life. To me, it surpasses other common aspects of a utility function. I cannot say much about the reason for that, as the curiosity seems natural and inherent to me, and precise attribution does not seem possible. I do feel bored and even disgusted by the fact that many human behaviors, including mine, are often driven by flawed/trivial motives, such as selfishness, the sense of superiority, and so on, from a very early age.
From my understanding, current philosophy and science cannot adequately explain these questions. In fact, I think even articulating some of these ultimate questions is extremely challenging for human language (as discussed here). Therefore, it seems to me that it will likely take a very long timepossibly even beyond my lifetimeto find answers, if ever. AI appears to be developing rapidly, which might unexpectedly accelerate our progress.
If ones life goal is to understand these ultimate questions and their solutions, should they first focus on longevity in order to wait for humanity to develop the necessary technology, philosophy, or language? The reason one might avoid directly researching these topics themselves is that the risk of accidental death remains high, and individual contributions to cutting-edge research are often minor (and slow). Furthermore, the truth, if discovered by some community, might be concealed by people with power and malicious intentions for ethical or political reasons.
Therefore, to maximize the chance of eventually knowing the answers, waiting could be more effective than directly tackling these questionsassuming that the answers, rather than the pursuit of knowledge itself, are what matter most to them.
To achieve longevity, one might need to accumulate wealth to access the best medical resources, or even longevity technology if it becomes available. They might even want to develop political power to stay informed and ensure their safety. From an ethical standpoint, the above approach could be seen as quite selfish, aggressive, or even evil. However, from a practical standpoint, does it seem reasonable and actionable?
P.S. I understand that the assumption that future knowledge will be better and that ultimate answers exist might be wrong. However, it just seems to me that, at present, its unlikely to understand metaphysics to a satisfactory degree (perhaps within ones lifetime), and more time to develop and think seems necessary.
From my understanding, current philosophy and science cannot adequately explain these questions. In fact, I think even articulating some of these ultimate questions is extremely challenging for human language (as discussed here). Therefore, it seems to me that it will likely take a very long timepossibly even beyond my lifetimeto find answers, if ever. AI appears to be developing rapidly, which might unexpectedly accelerate our progress.
If ones life goal is to understand these ultimate questions and their solutions, should they first focus on longevity in order to wait for humanity to develop the necessary technology, philosophy, or language? The reason one might avoid directly researching these topics themselves is that the risk of accidental death remains high, and individual contributions to cutting-edge research are often minor (and slow). Furthermore, the truth, if discovered by some community, might be concealed by people with power and malicious intentions for ethical or political reasons.
Therefore, to maximize the chance of eventually knowing the answers, waiting could be more effective than directly tackling these questionsassuming that the answers, rather than the pursuit of knowledge itself, are what matter most to them.
To achieve longevity, one might need to accumulate wealth to access the best medical resources, or even longevity technology if it becomes available. They might even want to develop political power to stay informed and ensure their safety. From an ethical standpoint, the above approach could be seen as quite selfish, aggressive, or even evil. However, from a practical standpoint, does it seem reasonable and actionable?
P.S. I understand that the assumption that future knowledge will be better and that ultimate answers exist might be wrong. However, it just seems to me that, at present, its unlikely to understand metaphysics to a satisfactory degree (perhaps within ones lifetime), and more time to develop and think seems necessary.
Comments (7)
Welcome to the forum. This is an interesting, thoughtful, and well-written post. Perhaps also a bit over-ambitious. I have some thoughts.
Quoting LaymanThinker
Someday I'll give you my lecture on metaphysics. Thankfully not today. One aspect of metaphysical questions is that they never get answered. People have already been thinking about them for at least 3,000 years with no sign of progress. As I see it, they are unanswerable. That doesn't mean they aren't worth thinking about. There are aspects of the questions you identify that are not metaphysical at all. As you suggest, physics and psychology, i.e. science, have a lot to say about each of them.
Quoting LaymanThinker
You're right that language is a large part of the problem with philosophical questions. If you hang around the forum for a while, you'll find that a lot of the disagreements are caused by differences in our understanding of the words we use. "Metaphysics" is a good example. Almost all of the conflicts about metaphysics here on the forum are caused by differences in understanding of what that word means.
This is from the article you linked.
I strongly disagree. As I understand it, if you can't explain your question in words that a normal, intelligent, interested adult can understand, you don't understand it yourself. Use of jargon; highfalutin language; and making up new, unnecessary words leads to dense, difficult, and often meaningless discussions. Your OP (original post) in particular is a good example of use of natural language. It's straightforward and clear.
Quoting LaymanThinker
As I see it, life extension is not a solution to your problem, whatever it's value otherwise. There certainly will be technological advances, but the metaphysical questions will remain. For me, the point of philosophy is not answering questions, but becoming more self-aware - not the end goal but the journey.
:fire:
Everyone is different. I don't think I have asked the quesion "Who am I?" It doesn't engage me, not does it seem answerable. Consciousness is indeed interesting but it requires significant expertise to understand, so I'm out. Reality? I'm not sure what that word refers to, apart from poetically. The notion of "reality" seems to me to be a secular equivalent of god - a fabled place for the buck to stop. I tend to think of philosophy as developing better quesions and more dynamic ways of conceptualizing human experience. One thing I do hold is whatever your philosophical beliefs and no matter how intricate your metaphysics is, on the ground nothing much changes. You still need to eat and piss and have meaningful relationships and open a door before walking into a room...
Might that be because of the materialist underpinnings of current philosophy and science? After all, according to its populist advocates, h.sapiens is simply another species, albeit a very clever one, but driven by the same basic instincts as everything else in the natural world, to survive and reproduce. The origin of life is a kind of biochemical fluke, maybe even a one-off, happening in a vast, indifferent universe which neither knows nor cares about humanity. Any conception of reason is a human invention and //apart from its instrumental value// a mere vanity.
Quoting LaymanThinker
Like waiting for Godot. If we don't understand the question, then how what kind of answer can we expect? How can artificial intelligence be expected to answer a question which real intelligence can only dimly pose?
By George, hes got it!
I approach philosophy as an "ongoing" debate/discussion over the nature of reality. The notion that there are final answers to some central issues is in and of itself a central issue. I suspect there are no final answers.
This is very well put, and a good response to some of your thoughts, @LaymanThinker. Note that @Arne isn't scoffing at the idea of "final answers," but nor is he/she claiming to know any. Whether they exist, and how we might know them, is one of the very questions to which we don't have a final answer. Welcome to philosophy as self-reflexivity!