A dynamic value system—revisited

It is interesting to note that a world view that is based upon a dynamic value system is similar to a Bayesian reasoner. This is a model for designing algorithms that must make decisions based upon incomplete information. Once more data is received, the degrees of plausibility that certain propositions are true are recalculated by the reasoner.

A world view based upon dynamic values changes its conclusions and outlook when its values change, and these change with experience (similar to acquiring new data in the Bayesian model).

This brings to mind a curious question: if two individuals share the exact same life experiences, are they necessarily the same person?

And to further explore this question: will differences in their physiology cause them to adopt different personalities and world views? Is it impossible to impose the exact same events in the two lives, making the question unanswerable? Because Bayesian reasoning, if it can even be correctly applied to human reasoning, is still based upon probabilities, is it actually only a question of how likely the two individuals will be more or less the same?

These thoughts have been fueled by E. T. Jaynes's "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science."

Addendum: I think the question above is only relevant within the context considering a Bayesian reasoner, i.e. not an actual human. Actual human thought is driven by more than reasonable analysis of propositions, such as physiology and emotion.

Where does happiness fall within a world view?

In my first post I concluded with a paragraph that began as follows:

The grander purpose [of this blog] is that I wish to create my own philosophy upon which I can base my actions, thoughts, and conclusions. I've come to believe that people give meaning to their own lives and for me it is in analyzing and placing this world in a context with which I can admire its beauty and complexity. But this can only be done once I wrestle from it the essential facts and shape them into some meaningful form, as humans are meant to do.

The other night while reading in a coffee shop I realized that this statement is a bit naive. I think that the statement is in general true; I believe that it is worth our while to take some control of the factors that influence our lives, such as our relationships to others and our general outlook, rather than play the part of the passive observer. There's a certain nobility to reducing life to its basis. Doing so provides us the intellectual materials that are required to place us in the position to be masters of our own existence. However, a singular intellectual pursuit of translating our realities into a coherent framework leaves little room for spontaneous joy. This is because of the enormous complexity of reality--it may simply be too much for any individual to fully understand. And the rejection of happiness for a synthetic, mindful pursuit smacks a bit too much of piousness for my own taste.

So how can happiness fit into one's world view, especially one whose aim is to critically examine every piece of information that it is presented? If I were to fully understand my life through contemplation, would I be happy? If I gave up entirely upon philosophy to focus my energies on more tangible sources of enjoyment such as my friends and going out every night, would this provide me with contentment? My opinion is that neither extreme can give me the most satisfaction. As usual, a balance between the two seems to be the best option. But these concerns raise more fundamental and interesting questions.

Is happiness an end to be achieved by the meaning and goals we set for ourselves, or does the pursuit of these goals fill us with contentment, regardless of whether they are achieved? Maybe happiness is obtained independently of how we choose to run our lives, but I doubt it. Furthermore, I know that I find happiness in both the satisfaction of the mind and in the body. Does this mean that there exist two forms of happiness, or are they one in the same?

To be fair to myself, I think I understood that the statement that I began this piece with was naive when I originally wrote it, hence the conclusion:

Intellect was not bestowed upon us to simply reflect on reality; we were meant to transform a piece of it into something that we can claim as our own, even if it be the tiniest fraction of what we know of as existence.

Perhaps we who possess philosophical tendencies should be content with just taming "the tiniest fraction" and cease our metaphysical exertions lest we be consumed by our own minds.