I suppose I must be such an envelope worshiper myself. I’ve actually over time semi-consciously striven to modify my epistemology and ontology in such a way as to force my ethical or spiritual views to be absolutely coherent with the visible state of the world, rather than letting go of moral realism.
I have felt since childhood that there is some unknown thing which I called the Mysteria which is the true object of all desire, and like light it shines through each thing that we think we desire. They are lenses for it, refracting the white Mysteria-light into endless colors, each necessary in order to glimpse the source, like facets of a diamond, but no finite set of such things is sufficient to recreate the original light.
All our strivings, all our values, are proxies for the intrinsically unknowable Mysteria which is the true source of all meaning. I don’t ascribe personality to it, so it’s not exactly a god. And I don’t require it to “actually exist” or even be definable except simply as ultimate value. I merely consider it to not be isomorphic with any specific extant phenomenon.
However, you claim that it is actually freeing to be without such a thing, to just live your life and follow your moral intuitions without ascribing objectivity to them, and I can’t personally grasp that idea. To me, the idea of life without such a belief in transcendent meaning seems hollow and without purpose. If you ask, “What would I do differently if I knew for certain that there is no Mysteria?” the answer is nothing, because I already know it to be nonexistent for certain. I believe in it anyway. Classical logic has no place in weird spiritualistic woo—I take refuge in dialetheism. :)
To clarify, it seems to me as if falsehood is that which it is harmful to believe, and truth is the opposite. What is true is simply that which sophont beings can get away with believing—or to put it another way, a meme is true to the extent that it is not selected against by any ambient environmental pressures. This is obviously a local, relative concept, but it can be extended to the entire universe throughout space and time by considering all sophont beings who will ever have existed. The majority opinion among them, to my mind, is the closest thing to “objective truth” that can be said to exist. It is too early to say what proportion of them will have believed in something like my Mysteria, of course.
From this perspective, it is beneficial for me to believe that no nonphysical phenomena can influence the physical world. It is also (subjectively) beneficial for me to believe that there is need for some nonphysical source of meaning or value, which “shines through” everything I see as valuable—by virtue of which it is valuable. There is no conceivable situation in which either of these beliefs could actually get in the other’s way except for a Newcomb-like problem in which an Omega-type being penalizes me for one or the other view, which doesn’t seem to me like an argument against either, since such a being could arbitrarily penalize any given belief. So, from my perspective, despite seeming subtly to disagree, these two beliefs are both true, as they are both beneficial or at least non-harmful.
(Note: I have a strong suspicion that wireheading is closely related to this Mysteria concept. I have felt its presence most thoroughly in those moments which seemed most like heightened states—not necessarily happiness, but whatever quality it is that makes one wish for a moment and associated state of mind to continue. This implies that whatever circuit in the brain is active during such a state is the true source of this Mysteria-sense in me, and that given the chance, I would probably be tempted to wirehead it so that the Mystery which always leaves and makes everything seem grey and empty again, though nothing physical has changed, would no longer go away. Perhaps it’s the “God Spot.” Or perhaps it’s what happiness feels like to someone with chronic depression—an unknown, inexplicable alien intruder whose coming and going cannot be comprehended.)
I suppose I must be such an envelope worshiper myself. I’ve actually over time semi-consciously striven to modify my epistemology and ontology in such a way as to force my ethical or spiritual views to be absolutely coherent with the visible state of the world, rather than letting go of moral realism.
I have felt since childhood that there is some unknown thing which I called the Mysteria which is the true object of all desire, and like light it shines through each thing that we think we desire. They are lenses for it, refracting the white Mysteria-light into endless colors, each necessary in order to glimpse the source, like facets of a diamond, but no finite set of such things is sufficient to recreate the original light.
All our strivings, all our values, are proxies for the intrinsically unknowable Mysteria which is the true source of all meaning. I don’t ascribe personality to it, so it’s not exactly a god. And I don’t require it to “actually exist” or even be definable except simply as ultimate value. I merely consider it to not be isomorphic with any specific extant phenomenon.
However, you claim that it is actually freeing to be without such a thing, to just live your life and follow your moral intuitions without ascribing objectivity to them, and I can’t personally grasp that idea. To me, the idea of life without such a belief in transcendent meaning seems hollow and without purpose. If you ask, “What would I do differently if I knew for certain that there is no Mysteria?” the answer is nothing, because I already know it to be nonexistent for certain. I believe in it anyway. Classical logic has no place in weird spiritualistic woo—I take refuge in dialetheism. :)
To clarify, it seems to me as if falsehood is that which it is harmful to believe, and truth is the opposite. What is true is simply that which sophont beings can get away with believing—or to put it another way, a meme is true to the extent that it is not selected against by any ambient environmental pressures. This is obviously a local, relative concept, but it can be extended to the entire universe throughout space and time by considering all sophont beings who will ever have existed. The majority opinion among them, to my mind, is the closest thing to “objective truth” that can be said to exist. It is too early to say what proportion of them will have believed in something like my Mysteria, of course.
From this perspective, it is beneficial for me to believe that no nonphysical phenomena can influence the physical world. It is also (subjectively) beneficial for me to believe that there is need for some nonphysical source of meaning or value, which “shines through” everything I see as valuable—by virtue of which it is valuable. There is no conceivable situation in which either of these beliefs could actually get in the other’s way except for a Newcomb-like problem in which an Omega-type being penalizes me for one or the other view, which doesn’t seem to me like an argument against either, since such a being could arbitrarily penalize any given belief. So, from my perspective, despite seeming subtly to disagree, these two beliefs are both true, as they are both beneficial or at least non-harmful.
(Note: I have a strong suspicion that wireheading is closely related to this Mysteria concept. I have felt its presence most thoroughly in those moments which seemed most like heightened states—not necessarily happiness, but whatever quality it is that makes one wish for a moment and associated state of mind to continue. This implies that whatever circuit in the brain is active during such a state is the true source of this Mysteria-sense in me, and that given the chance, I would probably be tempted to wirehead it so that the Mystery which always leaves and makes everything seem grey and empty again, though nothing physical has changed, would no longer go away. Perhaps it’s the “God Spot.” Or perhaps it’s what happiness feels like to someone with chronic depression—an unknown, inexplicable alien intruder whose coming and going cannot be comprehended.)