The point of view of the universe

[@huhnhl7740]

I watch your videos alot, in the gym, while cleaning dishes, and sometimes the moment I wake up. I just love your videos.

[@panosmakris2885]

I would say in simple words,that thinking about the universe makes me a philanthropist.We are all together in this vastness.It motivates me to think much more about the others :)

[@huhnhl7740]

Man I just love your channel

[@forbesbeckum4209]

This sort of relates to Nagel’s paper on The Absurd. I only mention this bc I just re-read it today and this popped up in my feed from the algorithm. Trippy lol

[@justus4684]

3:20 Yeah that's just the other persons attitude If there is no stance-independent criterion it can't be shown to be a "better" choice of morally relevant traits 4:35 That's the crux People just have non-egoist attitudes and are projecting objective criteria

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

It is that one should know why one feels pleasure, pain, anguish, ecstasy, etc. One has minimal access to other people's pain through empathy. But personal pain is something that has no equivalent. Personal pain warns of physical destruction or destruction of social ties. If the intention is to find a universal moral guide, it seems to me that the point of view of the universe will not be of much use. Taken to its logical conclusion, the universal point of view indicates that it is not possible to assign different importance to things or events. The universe is like an infinite and eternal kaleidoscope where no pattern deserves special attention. Meanings can only be personal because "meaning" indicates a kind of personal experience. The importance that an event has regarding our physical and psychological reactions. Some meanings are positive (resources, social ties, etc.) and others are negative (loss of physical or social integrity). The possibility of our physical destruction has a personal "meaning" (inevitably) and a very high priority. But from the point of view of the universe, our destruction is irrelevant. My impression is that personal moral evaluations are irrelevant unless you try to generalize them within society. Society determines what is moral and that determination only refers to socially harmful behaviors. But perhaps you consider that the universal point of view would be the synthesis of all the moral criteria of humans or a projection that generalizes your moral criteria. It is not possible to synthesize human moral criteria. Different groups have different criteria and these in turn are contradictory. In addition, moral criteria are constantly evolving.

[@Gamercat01]

Wow! I think that was one of the most interesting things I've ever read. Thank you for sharing! This really gives me things to think about, and at the same time I think I agree with some really interesting points you've made as well.

[@nialv22]

Every "step back" rationally undermines commitment to the values one has stepped back from. It shows that these values are not special as compared competing values at the same "level," that one's commitment to them is arbitrary. One can step back from one's own idiosyncratic values, those of one's group(s), of one's species. These have been urged by ethical philosophers looking to support ever more egalitarian viewpoints. But one can even step back from all values whatsoever, and adopt the "point of view of the universe," and thus undermine commitment to evaluation per se. This step is not different in kind, though; I see the two uses of this "stepping back" idea that you mention as being a matter of degree.

[@forbesbeckum4209]

Have you read Nagel’s paper on The Absurd? I think you would like it since your comment is about this “stepping back” we take in our lives in relation to the commitments we may have.

[@nialv22]

@@forbesbeckum4209 yes, it's a classic!

[@Bubba17644]

With regards to your comment about ethical egoism at the start of the video: have you read about Santideva's anatman argument for altruism?

[@KaneB]

Is this the Buddhist non-self argument? I've not read much about it. My initial inclination is that this doesn't entail anything about how to act or what to care about. I only judge particular experiences to be good or bad insofar as particular individuals desire or resist them. So what makes Verity's toothache bad is that Verity desires not to have toothache. If you were to persuade me that there are no selves, I wouldn't have any preferences about what experiences occur in the world. I suppose I wouldn't be egoistic in case, but nor would I think or behave in an altruistic way either. Altruism, as I see, involves concern for other selves.

[@KaneB]

@@Thermalsquid360 Do you think this would lead to altruism though? I find it hard to see how. Presumably, I wouldn't be thinking in an altruistic way, since I wouldn't recognize any independent persons that I could have concern for. In the same way, when I act in ways that bring pleasure to myself, such as listening to music, we wouldn't think of that as altruism. Also, I wouldn't necessarily behave in ways that would be considered altruistic by others, since I might decide to impose suffering on some aspect of myself (i.e. what I would conventionally class as another person) in order to achieve pleasure for some other aspect of myself (i.e. what I would conventionally class as my self). Beating up a passerby and taking their money in order to have the money at a different location, so that there's pain in one place and pleasure in another place, would be analogous to how I might subject myself to the pain of exercise in order to experience pleasure later.

[@KaneB]

@@Thermalsquid360 No. I don't really know anything about these topics.

[@KaneB]

​@@Thermalsquid360 >> The idea is that because everyone is an expression of the ultimate non-dual reality(Brahman), acting in the interests of others is really acting in the interest of yourself It seems to me that if there are no selves, or if there is only one "super self", then strictly speaking there's no such thing as the "interests of others". There would just be a bunch of independent experiences and interests. But then it's hard for me to see how this provides any guidance at all with respect to action. As I said in response to gavagai, what makes Verity's toothache bad for her is that Verity desires not to have toothache. You seem to agree with this when you point out that people can learn to enjoy pain or to loathe pleasure. Once Verity as an independent self drops out of the picture, I don't see why I would be motivated to do anything about the toothache. Even if I were, I don't see why would we would count this as either altruistic or egoistic. The altruistic/egoistic distinction only seems to me to make any sense if we're postulating that there are people independent from me who I might be concerned about.

[@fantafan02]

I mean I think the pov of the universe makes sense as the conditional argument against the moral egoist since it is predicated upon the need for a rational justification of why you matter more than others-once you already care and are already going to determine your actions based upon the principle of egoism, you have to justify what makes you exceptional in contrast to all the other things that care about themselves and put their lives as purpose. To draw the skeptical conclusion (something like: the pov of the universe shows the insignificance of all value) is theoretically easy, but (in contrast to the humanistic conclusion of singer and co.) I don’t see how it can be incorporated as a practical maxim since there the true question is: can we, as things that put themselves as purpose, draw any practical conclusions from understanding the cosmic insignificance of purpose? Would that not be self-contradictory in a way? idk

[@darcyone6291]

How about questioning the value we give to the "point of view of the universe"? I remember reading Bertrand Russell's 'my philosophical development' in which he described how he used to think of things from the point of view of the universe and how that for him made us seem insignificant , until he read a philosopher (who I don't remember) who wrote that he didn't care about the senseless mindless universe, it's humans who hold the capacity to reflect and feel, and Russell said that this perspective reduced for him the power of the perspective that he held. After all, determining our value based on the state of the universe is determining an "ought" from an "is", isn't it? I think you've pointed that out in the video. That being said, I think it is rational to put our place in the universe in consideration, but not as the sole source of the value we give to ourselves.

[@KaneB]

>> After all, determining our value based on the state of the universe is determining an "ought" from an "is", isn't it? Yeah. To be clear, I don't see either the Sidgwickian or the Zhuangzian "point of the view of the universe" as being arguments. It's rather that we can consider how things are from other perspectives, or we can consider things on a cosmic scale, and then we might have various different affective responses to that. It might prompt a sense of concern for other beings that have feelings and interests, or it might prompt a sense of meaninglessness and skepticism of all value. There is no "point of the view of the universe", just lots of human points of view on the place of humans in the universe. It's interesting to me how this same metaphor has been used in different ways.

[@darcyone6291]

@tkwtg In general, I think this is a matter of values, not facts. So, like you, I think no fact about gods or the universe would dictate the value we attach to ourselves or to whatever. That being said, I still think it's of rationality to have facts in consideration when forming our values, not as a sole guide, just to put them in consideration. That's, of course, if one values "truth" in the first place!

[@darcyone6291]

@tkwtg It depends on what it means! So, how did the turtle come to play that rule? Did a god place it there because they care about us and therefore we are special? Or is the earth just one rock amongst various and equally un-special rock? Maybe this is not the only important fact of the matter, but I think you could see how it could at least play a role in influencing how some people would think about our value. Of course, I still think this is subjected to the fact-value distinction and the is-ought gap, but many people won't psychologically care. I don't intend to defend them, I'm trying to describe the situation.

[@darcyone6291]

@tkwtg Yes, I agree with that 👍and I think people aren't usually rational anyway

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

What do you think of Putnam's book "The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy"? How plausible is this project (to refute fact/value dichotomy) in your view?

[@johnholmes9435]

Subjectively, I want exist in an objective frame of reference. Every human being occupies a particular subjective frame of reference. The objective value of a person's subjective frame of reference is the complete set of values of all of the person's physical properties, i.e., the states of the person's atoms. Some of these properties are things like location, orientation and state of motion. These properties define the person's physical frame of reference as a whole. Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that the relations between events that occur outside of the person's body have values that are objectively dependent on the person's inertial frame of reference. Because of this dependence on the observer's frame of reference, I consider such relations between events to be subjective relations by definition. The relations between the events are subjective relative to the person's inertial frame of reference. Other properties of objects outside the person's body, such as object's apparent size and the object's visible surface are relative to the object's physical position relative to the person's physical position. Other properties of external objects are relative to the person's emotional state, or the person's ethnic, religious, racial, or national identity. Such properties of external objects are even 'more' subjective than are the object's apparent size and the object's visible surface. Einstein says that there can be no objectively special inertial frame of reference that I could possibly get all of my atoms into together. So long as I am made of atoms, those atoms must be in some arbitrary inertial frame of reference. That is the inertial frame of reference of my body as a whole. As long as my atoms maintain their same relative positions and states of motion with respect to each other, I remain in the same subjective frame of reference over time. My beliefs and experience will not charge as long as my atoms remain in a consistent coherent configuration together. Therefore, my subjective frame of reference will not change under these conditions. But my subjective frame of reference depends on the precise relative arrangement of my atoms, i.e, my internal physical state relative to my overall inertial frame of reference. This includes things like my beliefs, memories, and behavioral dispositions. It also includes my sense of personal and group identity.To the extent I have no group identity, my experience is necessarily independent of my group identity ( or of my social role within the group). As long as I do not identify with any group more specific than the human species as a whole, my personal identity is objective: independent of my social context. I then exist in an objective social frame of reference. My physical frame of reference remains subjective. I can't do anything about that, but subjectively I can put myself into an objective frame of reference by not taking my social context seriously when interpreting my experience or when making decisions. Subjectively, I want to exist in an objective frame of reference, at least with respect to my social identity. This ideal of existing subjectively in an objective frame of reference is close to Spinoza’s concept of sub specie aeternitatis .

[@justus4684]

5:06 Actually probably not You can't get out of your own head In your head only ideas exist So the pleasures and pains of others only effect you in the form of an abstract thought So you can't care bout others, only your thoughts about them 5:27 How do you understand the phrase "egoistic values", if you contrast the phrase with moral values? Egoistic values can be moral values So I don't get what you are saying

[@justus4684]

2:18 How is it more arbitrary than non-egoist positions? It's just their attitude which egoism isn't conforming to and they are projecting some kinda objective criterion on it Lets suppose it is more or the only arbitrary position: What's the problem with being arbitrary? 2:38 But that is trivially easy The difference is: I am myself Others aren't myself If they wonna claim: But that's not a REAL difference What's the stance-independent criterion? 3:10 It's either no more arbitrary than any other position (since there is no stance-independent criterion of arbitrariness) or its more or the only arbitrary position, but the question is, what's the problem here?

[@GoldenMan-Gaming]

I'm inclined to think the nihilistic reading is just mistaken. Since we are a part of the universe, to take things from the point of view of the universe is in part to take things from every person's view. So, it might be true that "the universe" doesn't care about what we care about if what you mean by "the universe" is something independent of human perspectives, but obviously the actual universe includes us and our perspectives, so what matters to us matters to part of the universe. However, none of us is a more important part of the universe than any other, or so the humanistic reading (reasonably, I think) says, so it's unreasonable to take your interests to be more important than others' from the point of view of the universe. Now, the Sagan quote doesn't suggest that nothing matters from the point of the universe, just that it only matters very little because of how small the stuff we care about is relative to the rest of the universe. I think it's a mistake to conclude that just because something is a small part of the totality of everything it isn't very important. However, it's a very human way of thinking. Nietzsche, I think, provides a good remedy to this way of thinking by invoking the eternal return: "What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence-even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!' Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, 'Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?' would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life?" In my reading of Nietzsche, Nietzsche isn't claiming that anything he is saying is objectively true (he is a perspectivist who denies that his truth and yours are the same). So, he's not claiming that you really will have to live over and over again the same life you always have an infinite number of times. His point is just that if you did have to live such a life, the weight (i.e. the importance) of all of your decisions would be infinite. Yet, you can't get an infinite importance by multiplying something of no importance by infinity: zero times infinity is still zero. So, we must acknowledge that all of our decisions are important. Nietzsche thinks this will lead you to agree with this part of his perspective (the part which says what we do is important), even if most of your perspective is vastly different from other parts of his perspective. Similarly, let's imagine that the rivers of blood and controlling that small spot on the pale blue dot repeats infinitely. Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who allowed all those people to die over and over? And, if you cared about controlling some landmass and could control even but a small amount of land over and over, would you not think it divine if you could repeat that accomplishment once more and innumerable times after? But again, if neither the river of blood nor the small spot on the pale blue dot were important to begin with, then repeating them infinite times would not somehow make them important. They are important from our own perspective to begin with, and we shouldn't forget that simply because they can seem small from some other perspective. Moving away from Nietzsche and helpful metaphors, obviously the physical size of things does not determine their importance. Even a small germ could be hugely important if it caused enough damage. And, if we are the only sentient beings in the universe, or the only ones deserving of rights, or the only ones who can take things to be important to them, or whatever else you think makes it so that some stuff is important from our perspective, then it might turn out that even some small stuff happening on a pale blue dot is the most important stuff in the universe...even from the perspective of that very universe (because, again, that perspective includes our perspectives).

[@WebHackmd]

nonsense

[@frasertierney7044]

I took Sidgwick/Singer to be appealing to a sort of way that we can view ethics objectively with 'point of view of the universe'. That we attempt to give equal consideration to others when we take this point of view, as you point out with the pain comparisons example. I'm not sure where I heard this story, it may be Singer. But you are to imagine that you and a friend rob a store and each steal a television of equal value. Let's also say, for the sake of argument, that you are both in roughly the same financial circumstances and whatnot. As you are unloading the televisions into the back of the van, your friend says "you know what you did just now was wrong?" to which you reply "well, we both robbed televisions. So, if what I did was wrong, then, it was also wrong of you". He then turns to you and says "no, what you did was wrong, because you are you whereas it was acceptable for me because I am me." That strikes me as a bit ridiculous for a similar reason that you identify in the video. What is the relevant difference between you and your friend such that it is permissible for him to steal the television and not for you? A difference in identity doesn't really seem like a satisfactory explanation. That's really what I see 'the point of view of the universe as getting at, what is the relevant difference? Maybe there is something there about objective justifications. I'm not sure what to make of the Zhuangzi stuff. I'm not familiar with it at all, but it seems like there is a difference between this idea of cosmic insignificance and identifying relevant differences. Maybe I could bite the bullet and say something like "even though we are cosmically insignificant, our experiences still matter." At least in some sense, that seems right. But I'm not entirely happy with this conclusion. Great video Kane, as usual, you've given me plenty to think about and doubt.

[@godot5643]

What do you think about Object oriented ontology?

[@KaneB]

nothing because I don't know what it is

[@Xob_Driesestig]

How about this; any point of view is arbitrary, considering only me is as arbitrary as considering everyone as considering me, Natalie Portman and Neal Stephenson. But that means that if we count up all possible viewpoints (all possible combination of perspectives) everyone is in an equal amount of all the possible viewpoints, aka everyone is equally important from the view of all possible viewpoints.

[@KaneB]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that everyone is "in" 50% of all possible viewpoints. Whether I take up an egoistic point of view, or a humanist point of view, or a sentientist point of view, I will accept that you exist. I will just have different attitudes about how much your welfare matters.

[@Youshallbeeatenbyme]

All possible viewpoints would encapsulate things we can't even understand, so how would you quantify such a claim as 50%? If you're saying only viewpoints of other humans, then still I have no idea where you're getting 50%.

[@Xob_Driesestig]

​@@KaneB I mean "in" as "in consideration", so the point of view of the universe is concerned with the wellbeing/values/preferences of everyone while an egoistic point of view is only concerned with the wellbeing/values of the ego.

[@Xob_Driesestig]

​@@Youshallbeeatenbyme The exact percentage depends on the amount of viewpoints (I said 50% for simplicity but it won't be that exactly) the important point for the argument is that it would be an equal amount for all possible viewpoints. But if it's distracting I will edit the comment to remove the 50%.

[@nihilitas0]

The pointless driven life...

[@tonyburton419]

Evolve and survive. End of. 3 stages of life 1)Born 2) "What's this shit? " 3) Death. Its froma Meme that a dying friend once sent me. He had to live with various illnesses. Thought, that was funny, especially in having some affinity for Schopenhauers world view.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

Worth mentioning that Zen is as much Taoism as it is Buddhism. Zhuangzi's "point of view of the universe" is exactly what I was trying to get across to you about philosophy being the wrong tool to access reality. Because the idea is if you take Zhuangzi's idea and throw something like philosophy on the cosmic timescale humans and their philosophy project just get obliterated because the scale of reality across all time and its vastness just totally outstrips anything we could meaningfully call "the human philosophical project". But luckily 5-MeO and Zen meditation exist so you can actually empirically access the view from nowhere and realize that Zhuangzi' was correct and from the heavenly perspective to be "philosophically well thought out" is as meaningless as it gets when considered on the universal scale

[@KaneB]

I'm not sure why apprehending the cosmic timescale would make the philosophical project misguided or meaningless. If I think that e.g. physicalism is the correct theory of metaphysics, why would the vastness of the universe make any difference to that judgment? Having said that, this notion of "the point of view of the universe" also doesn't in any way affect my commitment to my own values and concerns. My own view on this is that the notion of a point of view of the universe is incoherent, and even if it did make sense, I don't see why I should care about it. After all, I'm me. I'm not the universe. What matters to me is what matters from my point of view! Interestingly, the other context in which philosophers talk about a "view from nowhere" is as an account of objectivity. The correct theory of the world is one that provides a description of the world independently of human values and concerns -- and this is something that we are increasingly approximating in the sciences. A cloud might look different from different vantage points, and it might mean different things to different people, but science can in principle give a complete description of the independent object, e.g. as a collection of H2O molecules. That's the object as viewed from nowhere. Of course, Zhuangzi uses the view from nowhere to encourage a more general skepticism. Don't all our claims to knowledge, and all our ways of carving up reality, seem absurd when comparing our limited experience and poor cognitive capacities to the full sweep of space and time? So in the factual domain also there are two points of view of the universe: one exemplified in realism and scientific objectivity, the other exemplified in radical skepticism.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

@@KaneB When you say "After all I'm me I'm not the universe and what matters to me is what matters from my point of view" if you paid closer attention you'd realize not only do you have no point of view at all but you actually are the entire universe (or I'd prefer to say 'total reality') - But you never learned how to pay really really really really close attention. If you did you'd find you're not there and what's left is a non-vantage point (And since the universe is everywhere all at once it can't have a vantage point or a particular scale since it is all scales at once) If you paid really really really close attention you'd find out that you also have no scale and no vantage point. But you'll never put the effort into paying attention that closely so I hope (cause I like you!) that it will either accidentally happen or you take 5-MeO or something. And if this is too hard to grasp just remember that solipsism is never off the table and if that's true even conventional Kane is the point of view of the universe/total reality (cause you're all that there is) I'm the only one who will ever tell you that I'm just a character in your dream, everyone else will lie to you and say they're real haha.

[@justus4684]

Besides of the point that the universe has no point of view, it is also nonsensical to say that something is of no more importance from that viewpoint, if "importance" is prescriptive grammar It is also not very convincing, to me at least So let's suppose it is the case that from the point of view of the universe I don't matter anymore than anyone else So what? It's just the opinion of the universe I don't feel like that

[@DeadEndFrog]

I assumed this was an egoist joke video- where the point of view of the universe is my own kinda like those 'this is objectivly good, because i like it'- type of comments.

[@chronic_washere]

sup

[@Junksaint]

We're simply filtration systems, created through diffusion and surface tension ✊ I stand with Ukraine also ❤️🇺🇦

[@John-lf3xf]

Has no POV because it has no consciousness or sensation or ability to direct those senses at something.