פרסומים אחרונים במדור "דת והעידן החדש"

QT: Hello, I am Quantum Theory and I have a nondeterminism problem.
group: We love you QT, it’s not you, it’s us.

http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d95-aeh/lifeeng.html

Enjoy.

I remember reading about this in a small
booklet by Yeshayahu Leibovitz, about the
PsychoPhysical problem.
It seems quite clear that our conception of the color red, or any other ense for that matter, is quite a different thing from the wavelength of light. no one questions the fact that the light waves are the cause of the sensation, but it is nevertheless a different thing. that "color red" conception is also not electrical activity in neurons, for that can be measured and quantified, and surely it is a different thing from the color sensation.
I remember that the theory I liked most suggested that all our feelings and sensations are merely illusions created by the actual physical mechanisms, very similar to the illusion of characters and landscapes we see in the movies, when obviously it is just various lights on the blank screen, and not real people. following that logic, we are not getting angry because someone insulted us, exactly like the person on the movie screen is not really angry because he was insulted. he looks angry after he was insulted because that is how the dots on the film are ordered, and the cause and effect are physical - the way the atoms are ordered on the film. the "being insulted" and "being angry" are simply illusions, and they give us the illusion of cause and effect, because the first is the illusion of the real cause, and the second is the illusion of the real effect.

However, even with this agreeable theory there was one problem. if the feelings and sensations are indeed illusions, like in the movies, who exactly are the viewers? on whom does the illusion "work"?

"Neither life nor happines can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment – so he is free to seek his happines in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any mindless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences."
(The Objectivist Etics, Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness, pg.28,29)

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality

avnery@gush-shalom.org

mailto:avnery@gush-shalom.org