Discussion in 'Human Science' started by gamelord, Jul 3, 2018.
It's a "common denominator" in all disciplines.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
In a dynamic universe the state of equilibrium is never attained perfectly, until all energy dissipates and the universe will attain a state of perfect non-dynamical equilibrium.
The law of termodynamics explains that.
Of course we can ask what happens to all that expended energy, where did it go?
A false premise. To an individual the subjective feeling that death is more desirable than intolerable suffering can well be explained by the law of movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction.
You've got it all mixed up. The universe is constantly tending towards the most highly probable state, which is a state of dynamic equilibrium represented by the highest physically attainable entropy. The energy of the universe does not dissipate, it becomes uniformly distributed.
I don't get what you're trying to say here. It's obvious that any human, given the free choice, will choose whatever state satisfies them the most, because by definition they are satisfied when they're able to follow and impose their own will. There's no scientific determination for what's supposed to satisfy a person, other than the sum total of their upbringing and genetic programming, which is unique for every individual. Beyond threats to the safety of other members of society, it's not up to psychiatrists to decide what consitutes a given individual's acceptable level of suffering, or a satisfactory life or acceptable responses and behaviour, because there's no such thing as right or wrong behaviour in science, only patterns and laws.
If that is obvious, then what is wrong with the argument?
We can argue about details, the point is that in principle you seem to agree that there is an underlying movement (tendency) to attain a state of equilibrium (comfort, satisfaction).
A state of "necessity and sufficiency". Both evolution and natural selection function by that transcendent law.
Nor did I say or even imply that. I did not even bring it up in context of psychiatry. But your own posit, people do answer to that law, though if that is from "free will" is a debatable point.
The state of "comfort/satisfaction" you allude to is one in which the stars have all burnt out, there's no temperature gradients in the universe and basically everything has trasmuted into iron or been swallowed up by black holes, at least based on our present understanding. So are you trying to say that the laws of physics actually justify suicide, or what?
No actually, evolution represents the ability of small subsystems to become more organized (temporarily) despite the system as a whole growing more chaotic.
I don't know, it sounded a lot like a physics argument concocted by a literature professor based on a 30 minute Discovery Channel documentary, in defense of psychiatric interventions to impose a certain set of subjective morals.
I believe the term "free will" is an oxymoron, but I also believe that each of us is programmed by the wiring in our brains to do certain things, and the motivation to do those things is what I would call one's "will". Clearly one ought to be considered happiest and most satisfied when their actions and experiences are in line with what they are willed to be.
Separate names with a comma.