Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 21 2017 22:46. Posts 3093
On June 21 2017 21:17 Loco wrote:
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the hard determinism mindset is on the whole more negative to mental health, prosocial behavior and productivity. (The question of whether it is sound or not is another one.)
"Researchers recorded the brain activity of participants who had been told to press a button whenever they wanted. This showed that people whose belief in free will had taken a battering thanks to reading Crick's views showed a weaker signal in areas of the brain involved in preparing to move. In another study by the same team, volunteers carried out a series of on-screen tasks designed to test their reaction times, self control and judgement. Those told free will didn't exist were slower, and more likely to go for easier and more automatic courses of action."
I know there is an argument to be made (à la Harris) that the lack of belief in free will leads to compassion because you understand that people couldn't have acted differently, but this seems to be predicated on the fact that there is mindfulness practice involved too (?). While that's intuitive to me I'm not aware of studies done on it. Anyway, compatibilism seems to solve a lot of these problems and only involves a fairly straight-forward reframing of the discussion around free will.
I really think both sides are correct at the same time, in a way. Lack of belief in free will generally makes people more likely to be passive observers of their own lives, to fail to act in a way that betters their own situation. But I also think it makes people more willing to accept the flaws of others. In general I think accepting the flaws of others is a positive trait because there's usually very little you can do to change them (sure, there are exceptions, but they're few and far between), but accepting flaws in yourself is the antithesis of self-improvement. And my understanding is that a more deterministic mindset is likely to make you more accepting of flaws, both in yourself and in others.
Anecdotally, I've seen this in myself, and it definitely isn't purely positive. It's been probably close to 15 years since I concluded that free will, the way people commonly speak of it, isn't really a thing. (That the atlantic article does a fantastic job summing up all my thoughts on the subject). During that period of time, I've become very zen-like in how I deal with other people, which I think is great. But I've also neglected improving myself, often due to misguided ideas like 'this is how I am' rather than 'this is how I want to be' dictating my life choices. Now, I do think that my understanding of free will, now that I am less content with how I am and where I am than what I used to be, can still inspire me towards future self-improvement, but I do think that having what I perceive as a less correct understanding of what free will entails would have enabled me to make better choices at an earlier time, which would have been positive.
On June 21 2017 21:17 Loco wrote:
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the hard determinism mindset is on the whole more negative to mental health, prosocial behavior and productivity. (The question of whether it is sound or not is another one.)
"Researchers recorded the brain activity of participants who had been told to press a button whenever they wanted. This showed that people whose belief in free will had taken a battering thanks to reading Crick's views showed a weaker signal in areas of the brain involved in preparing to move. In another study by the same team, volunteers carried out a series of on-screen tasks designed to test their reaction times, self control and judgement. Those told free will didn't exist were slower, and more likely to go for easier and more automatic courses of action."
I know there is an argument to be made (à la Harris) that the lack of belief in free will leads to compassion because you understand that people couldn't have acted differently, but this seems to be predicated on the fact that there is mindfulness practice involved too (?). While that's intuitive to me I'm not aware of studies done on it. Anyway, compatibilism seems to solve a lot of these problems and only involves a fairly straight-forward reframing of the discussion around free will. The vast majority of philosophy professors/PhDs lean towards or accept this view. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
That is kind of what I was asking in another question. Are we better off believing that we are self-controlling autonomous adults? It looks like from your opening sentence and browsing the article titles there is a lot of evidence that we are better off. It is like I can be biased by that. Today I was driving in my car and would turn the wheel a little bit to the left and then turn the wheel a little bit to the right. I wanted to prove I had free will in that moment and it seems like I did. Sam Harris likes to talk about the free will we think we have does not exist. The slight turns I was making felt like free will. On the other hand something in my brain is authoring these actions that I have no control over. Is it me? Is it not me? What is it?
I think I still have "Denial of Death" on the brain. Should I believe in God because it makes people happy and less scared of death? I mean it even goes back to Peterson. He is basically telling all his drones to take on more responsibility ie take on more immortality projects. I am more on the side of Becker that it may work but man it is kind of bullshit. It is false. The fact that I know it's false I shouldn't go looking for god projects and god people to latch on to. What I need is transcendence.
So, I am jumping around because we have been talking about all this stuff. I am not saying I think compatibilism is bullshit because from what I have seen so far Dennett makes some strong arguments. I have just not heard enough to take that side even if 59% of philosophy wizards have and even if I could potentially be more mentally healthy, helpful, and productive. I am more mentally healthy and helpful than I have ever been. "Productivity" is overrated. Obsession with productivity is such a bloated grinder mentality. Grind away and have a heart attack at 50. Win all the moniez for when you are 65? For what?
Peterson is not a hero by the way. I was wrong. That just came into my head and I felt I should say it. There are so many people latching on to so many immortality projects. Ignorance is bliss. If I could only live in a delusion that lasts forever. I don't think I ever caught why exactly Peterson thinks Becker is wrong. His view is that it is a great book but Becker is wrong. Probably because JP's entire curriculum is based on god symbols, god stories, god narratives, responsibility, immortality projects, Christian morality. Everything is about immortality with him. I guess some people really can sail through most of their life on that stuff catching the right winds. I don't know. Fuck em. I'm not going to go find a hole and do heroin over it... yet but just fuck em. Oh well, not the time to get all resentful over ever aspect of society and existence. It's fucking absurd. So, I'll go sketch something in my notebook or just be happy in the fact my sister is in town and we can hang out tomorrow. I've got my dog too. We had fun at the beach today and he is exhausted sleeping in my bed. Life is absurd but life can be good and then we shit and then we die.
On June 21 2017 21:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think aristoteles still pretty much nailed everything, living life in adherence to most of his general principles would still have people consider you a virtuous, good man
Yeah I don't know what got me thinking about moral education. It deals with determinism and free will. How can we educate and condition the young to grow up in an ethical society. I think the Golden Rule is a start and then for the adults in the child's life to follow it. I know growing up I got into trouble plenty of times as most kids do but I remember the punishments always seemed relatively fair. My first run ins with actual courts the judges were reasonable.
religion is not still necessary but will continue to be important for people in all regions of the world for as long as any of us live. It is probably wise to just accept this - at least restrict combating religion to where it conflicts with the general direction of society or your own life in particular. If muslims don't want to eat pork, let them not eat pork. If they wanna pray 5 times a day, let them pray 5 times a day. Don't let either of these actions influence or provoke you. But if they start insisting that gays should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, or if christians start insisting that we shouldn't teach evolution in school, or if either group insists that abortions should be illegal, or whatever other stupid stuff members of either group insist on, then fight that. Then I guess it's possible to argue that societal influence in those dangerous areas coincides with prevalence of the non-dangerous stuff, but the pedagogue inside me insists that I've virtually never seen an atheist argue against religion in a way that to me looks particularly persuasive to religious people. Basically human thought evolves generationally, trying to force the issue is unlikely to work out.
I think religion is one of the big areas that we see immortality projects clashing for the worse. It is like I wish Christianity and Islam would just phase out. I can not deny that the actual story of Christ has some amazing principles in there but from my experiences most Christians are ignorant to that fact. Maybe I'm wrong. I've known a lot of amazing Christians just as long as they shut up about it and let me be godless.
I totally agree with the human thought evolves generationally. Our culture is the remnants of dead people. We have old people in power. They can be really stupid in a lot of ways.
There has never been an openly atheist person elected to congress in the USA. That has got to change. in 2014, atheists made up 3% of the USA population. Holy fuck. I didn't think it was that low. What the fuck? How is it that low? lol, maybe I should stop crying that I am the only atheist in an AA meeting in the South. Of course I am. Facts of life man. Facts of fucking life. 70% of the USA in 2014 identified as Christian. I am living in a Christian fucking nation and there is very little I can do about it. I need to move to Berlin or something. France at 40% atheist. I knew there was a reason I loved that country so much. I need to figure out a way to move there.
Laws should definitely have a deterministic mindset - but that does not mean we need to ignore the deterring and conditioning effects of laws. If anything, those particular aspects should be highlighted. The side of the penal system that punishes people because they 'deserve punishment' however, is an abomination that we should work to rid society of asap. Sadly I think the logic from the previous paragraph applies there as well; while in Norway, we've largely made this switch already, in the US, your older population isn't even close to accepting of a non-punitive penal system, and I don't see it change until millennials end up being more in charge.
Yeah, prison system is USA is probably the grossest in the world. I mean not quite. I am sure there are still parts of the world that run death camps but as far as developed countries the prison industrial complex is a disaster. I don't even really feel like getting into it. Yes, I agree millennials will work towards fixing it. It is one of many stains on the USA society and an area where again I say I need to move to Sweden, Germany, or France (or Norway or many others). Maybe I will do this international teaching thing after all.
On June 14 2017 04:00 Loco wrote:
I believe climbing dominance hierarchies is following the Borg's agenda. It's what we've always done: attempt to dominate others and compete over resources or objects of gratification so that we can maximize our chances to pass down our genes. I also don't think you can consciously pursue it, it's what drives you before you can even have a thought about it. It's a brutish life, and it doesn't serve us well (or humanity) in the long run. My conscious purpose in life, if I have one, is to outsmart the Borg. Plain and simple. So, I've given up competitive endeavors -- I've given up everything I could give up really -- in order to focus on understanding myself better and maximize my chances to experience pleasure and avoid suffering. The results have been good, but there's much more to give up still. "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee
Suffering is essential to achievement to pleasure. Do you even will to power brah? The only way to evolve is to compete it sounds like to me that you have given in to slave morality time to become a hero again and leave those feminine traits behind. You are a male nature makes males take risks that's what nature wants you either end up in the gutter or you elevate yourself but being a passive observer seems gay to me.
On June 14 2017 04:00 Loco wrote:
I believe climbing dominance hierarchies is following the Borg's agenda. It's what we've always done: attempt to dominate others and compete over resources or objects of gratification so that we can maximize our chances to pass down our genes. I also don't think you can consciously pursue it, it's what drives you before you can even have a thought about it. It's a brutish life, and it doesn't serve us well (or humanity) in the long run. My conscious purpose in life, if I have one, is to outsmart the Borg. Plain and simple. So, I've given up competitive endeavors -- I've given up everything I could give up really -- in order to focus on understanding myself better and maximize my chances to experience pleasure and avoid suffering. The results have been good, but there's much more to give up still. "It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential." - Bruce Lee
Suffering is essential to achievement to pleasure. Do you even will to power brah? The only way to evolve is to compete it sounds like to me that you have given in to slave morality time to become a hero again and leave those feminine traits behind. You are a male nature makes males take risks that's what nature wants you either end up in the gutter or you elevate yourself but being a passive observer seems gay to me.
Suffering is not "essential to achievement to pleasure". Under the right circumstances and with an abundance of resources you can easily go for long periods of time without suffering while having repeatable pleasurable experiences. The fact that suffering is an unavoidable part of life doesn't mean that pleasure depends upon it. There isn't a system of "oh you've experienced that much pleasure, time to experience this much pain because it's necessary if you want more pleasure." Those are just unsustainable pleasures. A simple enough quote for you to get the point: “Without pain, how could we know joy?' This is an old argument in the field of thinking about suffering and its stupidity and lack of sophistication could be plumbed for centuries but suffice it to say that the existence of broccoli does not, in any way, affect the taste of chocolate.”
Will to power doesn't mean what you think it does. I mean, isn't it patently obvious? Look at how Nietzsche lived his life. Was he being a clown who is trying to increase his testosterone levels, acquire a bunch of stuff and fuck a bunch of women? No. Well then, was his writing competing with other academics? No, he was an independent author. So, how was he competitive? He wasn't; he was isolated and spent virtually all of his time in nature and in his imagination. Why? Maybe because it's what wise men do? Maybe humans who have a high intellect lose interest in the games that you think are worth playing so they abandon them and move on to others that are worth playing for them.
"time to become a hero again and leave those feminine traits behind. You are a male nature makes males take risks that's what nature wants you either end up in the gutter or you elevate yourself but being a passive observer seems gay to me"
Silly traditional gender role speak; silly appeal to nature; silly false dichotomy. And just because someone doesn't want to compete with others doesn't mean they can't have any goals and take risks to achieve them. It's often risky to invest in some creative pursuit.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that hour long video about Hitler philosophy are you saying that you agree with radical eugenics and race purity?
My only fear with eugenics is unintentionally eradicating some form of creativity but eradicating genetic disease, increasing IQ, strength vitality of the populace all seem like positives to me. It's just the stigma associated with it that makes people have some reaction against it. It doesn't even have to be done forced but just with incentives if you wanna be a pussy about it. Why aren't people having this same reaction to the dysgenics practiced today in the western world the consequences of these will be far worse.
Complete racial purity is not really possible but races should be left to their own devices to evolve naturally. The only reason we see this mass migration is because of technology without it it all falls apart. Ultimately nature will correct it once the collapse of the kali yuga comes in the meantime we will see great conflict as is only natural between human tribes.
On June 21 2017 21:17 Loco wrote:
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the hard determinism mindset is on the whole more negative to mental health, prosocial behavior and productivity. (The question of whether it is sound or not is another one.)
"Researchers recorded the brain activity of participants who had been told to press a button whenever they wanted. This showed that people whose belief in free will had taken a battering thanks to reading Crick's views showed a weaker signal in areas of the brain involved in preparing to move. In another study by the same team, volunteers carried out a series of on-screen tasks designed to test their reaction times, self control and judgement. Those told free will didn't exist were slower, and more likely to go for easier and more automatic courses of action."
I know there is an argument to be made (à la Harris) that the lack of belief in free will leads to compassion because you understand that people couldn't have acted differently, but this seems to be predicated on the fact that there is mindfulness practice involved too (?). While that's intuitive to me I'm not aware of studies done on it. Anyway, compatibilism seems to solve a lot of these problems and only involves a fairly straight-forward reframing of the discussion around free will. The vast majority of philosophy professors/PhDs lean towards or accept this view. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
I could be wrong but doesn't Dennett simply change the meaning of free will to "running sims of the future in my brain to decide what to do next"? I'm guessing he's saying that this is the only "free will" that matters. Along with his remarks about blame and responsibility I don't see how he and Harris have actually different opinions, just different definitions for the term. I suppose the usefulness of Dennett's definition is that it encourages people not to let go of their future predicting mechanisms, as the studies you linked suggest about believing in hard determinism
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Right, they don't disagree on libertarian/superlative free will being unintelligible. They disagree on how we should frame the discussion around a nuanced view of free will and the implications of promoting free will as an illusion. Dennett's views seem like a cop-out to Harris (and others who are new to the topic) but it's actually just more refined and useful.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 27 2017 03:05 Mortensen8 wrote:
My only fear with eugenics is unintentionally eradicating some form of creativity but eradicating genetic disease, increasing IQ, strength vitality of the populace all seem like positives to me. It's just the stigma associated with it that makes people have some reaction against it. It doesn't even have to be done forced but just with incentives if you wanna be a pussy about it. Why aren't people having this same reaction to the dysgenics practiced today in the western world the consequences of these will be far worse.
Complete racial purity is not really possible but races should be left to their own devices to evolve naturally. The only reason we see this mass migration is because of technology without it it all falls apart. Ultimately nature will correct it once the collapse of the kali yuga comes in the meantime we will see great conflict as is only natural between human tribes.
You dont even consider suffering and empathy into your equation, you seem to me like a clinical psychopath.
I am all for preventing disease and increasing IQ, so long as it does not imposes suffering and does not infringe in meaningful liberties of people, those to me are far more important than genetic improvement.
Which is why I said if you wanna be a pussy about it you can simply offer money to high IQ people to have children while not helping anyone else they need to help themselves. What is happening today is the opposite high IQ people will have very few children very late especially women because of career feminism while the retards just pop out children and get money from welfare. If you are so concerned with suffering always trying to help people creates greater suffering in the end because it creates unnatural cycles. Take Africa for example extremely reliant on foreign aid and projected to reach 4 billion people in this century ultimately that will cause untold misery once the collapse occurs.
If by "being a pussy about it" you mean not commiting genocide then yes, I think I'll pick the pussy way. What are you, 16 years old or something?
I think welfare states are nearsighted and I am absolutely against them for practical reasons, and all the aid to africa has actually sunk them even further in poverty, thats why in general, thats why I'm very against for the state to redistribute money, because those ignorant bureaucrats who seek nothing but personal gain as most humans would, are the ones fucking with the fabric of society and their actions take to have ironical results in which they worsen most situations and even increase societal gaps.
Now under that same line I would also be against relocating funds to incentivize high IQ people into having children, in theory sounds logical, but in theory it also sounds good to help the poor but these things always causes vices and problems,I mean, you are for a Third-Reich-like government, a super authoritarian and totalitarian regime where the collective triumphs over the individual, where "social good" trumps over personal rights and freedom, the fact that not only you cannot see the huge faults with that ideology in the past, but in the future baffles me.
Will to power doesn't mean what you think it does. I mean, isn't it patently obvious? Look at how Nietzsche lived his life. Was he being a clown who is trying to increase his testosterone levels, acquire a bunch of stuff and fuck a bunch of women? No. Well then, was his writing competing with other academics? No, he was an independent author. So, how was he competitive? He wasn't; he was isolated and spent virtually all of his time in nature and in his imagination. Why? Maybe because it's what wise men do? Maybe humans who have a high intellect lose interest in the games that you think are worth playing so they abandon them and move on to others that are worth playing for them.
High school quarterback Brock Jockington goes to Big State University and joins a frat. He meets his sweet heart Suzie Sorority. They get married and have 3 kids. Brock loves working for his coach I mean god I mean boss and prays to his CEO I mean God I mean he prays to both. Sometimes it is questionable which team Brock is more loyal to. His multinational Christianity or his multinational corporation or his own multinational vanity (children, home, stuff)?
And then I look at a Monet and yearn to live amongst the gardens of Giverny. Travel to the South of Italy or Nice and write "The Gay Science" or "The Joyful Wisdom." OR EVEN BETTER CREATE MY OWN STORY. What will it be?
I have been caught in the middle all my life. What is one to do?
Playing in my own imagination has always been the most fruitful. Is this true?
But, I am a x Big 5 Personality score. Should I not be doing that?
I am responsible for my life. I could fashion myself after a modern day Sartre if I wanted. Except I wouldn't take on mistresses or lie. That is a start but I would like to travel to the south of France and Italy and write poetry and philosophy minus the migraines and other ailments of course. No. I have to be where I am at and tell my own story. Part of that story tonight was going to an AA meeting and making a friend. I don't think I have it in me to be as solitary as some of these great artists. I am going to be tempted by dominance hierarchies. The strong roar of modern day culture may bellow through out the halls. I don't have to listen. I don't quite have my work of art. Trials at poetry. A love for philosophy. Half of a Monet impersonation. I don't want to impersonate anyone. Maybe it is best to grab a new canvas and play with the paint as a 5 year old would. As a 33 year old me would. I can learn "classic" techniques later. I want my own voice. It has got to be this. This or do heroine and kill myself.
I do enjoy great film, philosophy, literature, poetry. 5th floor of MoMA is bliss on earth. I wanted to start that with just the idea that I enjoy watching film. It is a related activity. A beautiful film is completely transcending.
Well, I think I plowed through a lot here. I just want to be getting to the Truth of what we all should be doing (particularly me or as seen through me and my struggles). I don't know if it is in anyways inspiring or insightful. In just this moment I am thinking about others and what people are doing to get through life? I am not miserable but I just feel lacking in experience. I want the experience with out having to undermine my values which are not static so it is complicated. I don't know if something will undermine my values until I start doing it or I start doing it and the values change for the worse. I think I may be exaggerating this issue but it is an issue. I just want to stay away from Brock Jockingtons is all. I am cringing just thinking about those social hierarchies but am stuck wondering if engaging in all the immortality projects that I can is really a bad idea? Yes, it is. I want to be like Nietzsche. Stateless, crazy, beautiful. If that leads to no sex and rumors of being gay so be it.
Last edit: 29/06/2017 04:52
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 29 2017 16:14. Posts 3093
On June 29 2017 02:56 Baalim wrote:
If by "being a pussy about it" you mean not commiting genocide then yes, I think I'll pick the pussy way. What are you, 16 years old or something?
I think welfare states are nearsighted and I am absolutely against them for practical reasons, and all the aid to africa has actually sunk them even further in poverty, thats why in general, thats why I'm very against for the state to redistribute money, because those ignorant bureaucrats who seek nothing but personal gain as most humans would, are the ones fucking with the fabric of society and their actions take to have ironical results in which they worsen most situations and even increase societal gaps.
Now under that same line I would also be against relocating funds to incentivize high IQ people into having children, in theory sounds logical, but in theory it also sounds good to help the poor but these things always causes vices and problems,I mean, you are for a Third-Reich-like government, a super authoritarian and totalitarian regime where the collective triumphs over the individual, where "social good" trumps over personal rights and freedom, the fact that not only you cannot see the huge faults with that ideology in the past, but in the future baffles me.
How has africa been sunk further into poverty? I know that there are certainly (many) examples of foreign aid failing, but africa is actually doing better than ever and foreign aid has been absolutely instrumental in combating disease and providing education - and both of these have been essential to the positive development of african countries. The few african countries that are not significantly better off than they were in the 60s struggle with being war-torn, not with foreign aid having disincentivized them from positively developing.
Gapminder.org is a really awesome source for seeing how countries (and continents) have developed over time. And it showcases how the past 50 years have been really really good for most developing parts of the world, and good for africa as well. To be clear, I'm not advocating 'give african countries money' - that has generally been a big failure. But specific projects geared towards for example improving literacy rates, those have been massive successes.
On June 29 2017 02:56 Baalim wrote:
If by "being a pussy about it" you mean not commiting genocide then yes, I think I'll pick the pussy way. What are you, 16 years old or something?
I think welfare states are nearsighted and I am absolutely against them for practical reasons, and all the aid to africa has actually sunk them even further in poverty, thats why in general, thats why I'm very against for the state to redistribute money, because those ignorant bureaucrats who seek nothing but personal gain as most humans would, are the ones fucking with the fabric of society and their actions take to have ironical results in which they worsen most situations and even increase societal gaps.
Now under that same line I would also be against relocating funds to incentivize high IQ people into having children, in theory sounds logical, but in theory it also sounds good to help the poor but these things always causes vices and problems,I mean, you are for a Third-Reich-like government, a super authoritarian and totalitarian regime where the collective triumphs over the individual, where "social good" trumps over personal rights and freedom, the fact that not only you cannot see the huge faults with that ideology in the past, but in the future baffles me.
I'm not advocating 'give african countries money' - that has generally been a big failure. But specific projects geared towards for example improving literacy rates, those have been massive successes.
That is the kind of aid im talking about, financial and food aid have proved to not only be ineffective but often detrimental, for example in a lot of parts of Africa food-aid put farmers out of business making them dependent on aid.
I am all for aid that supports self-sustainability like literacy, key infrastructure and technology.
United States. Jun 22 2017 06:21. Posts 8522
