On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler +
omg that is too freaking funny good one man ... i love your humor
but to the person that is a determinist who believes in free will ( too funny) Heisenberg and that little thing called the uncertainty principle , not to mention the standard model of the universe would completely disagree ... but i do find it funny you adhere to both determinism and free will , as they contradict each other ,,, I am seriously trying to figure out if by saying that it is a big troll joke or you are being serious about believing two contrary points of view .......
we could get into Einstein saying god doesn't playing dice and Niels Borh's reply dont tell god what to do etc etc ... or hidden variables explaining why you cant know the two contrary values of electrons , but at the moment particles (i.e electrons ) to not appear to behave deterministically )
not to mention other such experiments .. action at a distance explain that one with determinism .... but in all actuality you cant have determinism and free will at the same time in your argument and expect anyone to take it seriously .. unless they deterministically do not have a choice in the matter lmao ..... if anything you labeled one such catalyst you were searching for , for the greater good of reality .. Why , because we are predetermined to . not saying i believe this , but i find it extremely funny you search for such a reality of greater good , then say several posts later you are a determinist
First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist.
i think you are missing the obvious point , we are all part of the same species .. i.e collective .. whether we like it or not ... this is the greater good ( survival of our species ) .. There is increasing evidence genes both hold and pass down some form of encoded memory becoming one such catalyst for instinct .. I bring up instinct because this is the greater good you deny to exist anywhere in reality ( the survival of the human species ) ... However human instinct has been evolving further and further away from its origins and becoming muddled ,, this is due to individualism IMO .. Also you say without individuals the collective doesn't exist .. i beg to differ without our SPECIES individuals would not exist ... example : as far as i know humans are not asexual ( not counting one of my favorite passtimes .. meaning one human being ( a single individual cannot perpetuate the human race ) it would take at least a small collective , one male one female to insure the survival of our species , and thus creating more individuals.. thus the individual is dependent on at least one other individual of the oposite sex to procreate . and thus insure human survival : thus making more individuals... id like to see you impregnate yourself ( being a male ) thus having a baby ... even though you individualistically want one . My point being certain individual wants are not even possible without even a small collective (2) not to mention instinctive wants ( survival of species) Whether you like it or not you are a human and part of a collective that governments and countries are mere subsets .. .. I will reiterate one more time .. without our species you a an individual would not exist ... BUT to argue you point for you i think you are talking more about synergy i.e the sum of the parts being greater than the whole
why is it that only because our genetic code is about 99.999% alike or something, that this fact binds us together? I could just as easily say whatever living beings with >90% genetic similarity have to band together or >50% heck, all living beings should hold hands and listen to me! I should be the lord of the universe!
...all the above assertions are equally meaningless without an individual to believe in them.
so, first be careful when shifting from descriptive statements (observations of reality), to prescriptive statements (norms that you think people should follow for a certain goal)
second, note that only a consciousness can have ends, and if consciousnesses only exist within individuals, then there can be no such thing as a group goal, or a greater good, or a certain species' ends. All of a species' goals lie within each individual's head.
On April 28 2010 05:39 fellcrow wrote: I am a little confused on the point of this. So you're saying that collectivism doesn't exist at all? And that everything is just A LOT of individual acts?
yes
thats alot of posts just to be sherlock holmes and state the obvious.
why is it that only because our genetic code is about 99.999% alike or something, that this fact binds us together? I could just as easily say whatever living beings with >90% genetic similarity have to band together or >50% heck, all living beings should hold hands and listen to me! I should be the lord of the universe!
...all the above assertions are equally meaningless without an individual to believe in them.
so, first be careful when shifting from descriptive statements (observations of reality), to prescriptive statements (norms that you think people should follow for a certain goal)
second, note that only a consciousness can have ends, and if consciousnesses only exist within individuals, then there can be no such thing as a group goal, or a greater good, or a certain species' ends. All of a species' goals lie within each individual's head.
your reply does nothing to answer my assertions of instinct as the catalyst of greater good you deny to exist .i am saying because we are all a part of the same freaking species we are a collective like it or not , and another thing DNA is passed down you have no control over it as an individual ( i.e your instinct)
.. also you do nothing to answer my point .. individuals would not exist without our species , it would come down to the last individual who could no longer bread you cannot continue to bread by your self ( this is a clear example of an individual goal ( that very well may parallel species survival ) that cannot be achieved with only an individual
On April 28 2010 06:28 fellcrow wrote: Do you believe that what you do after he puts a gun to your head is predetermined?
EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory.
Perhabs my take on determinism/free will can be of some help.
I also regularly use the terms free will and choices, because they make intuitive sense. If a talk of my choice the other day, or my belief that the government must seek to preserve the free will of the individual, I have given you meaningful information that would be more difficult to communicate without these terms. Still, I have some issues regarding the idea of free will - let me explain.
k
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote:
I believe that whenever we make a choice we are influenced by a huge range of factors contributing to our dicision in the very moment. The list includes current state of mind, the recent chain of events leading to this moment, the sum of past experiences, current physical level of arousal, overall physical condition, exterior conditions such as weather, and inputs from the immediate surroundings including interactions with other human beings. In other words, my choice will be based on who I am (as a result of everything I went through that shaped me to this day) in this very moment. That's a lot of things, most of them very hard to account for I agree, but nonetheless they are likewise results of a prelude of similar instances. I believe that my choice will be a direct result of the past that shaped me and the present in which is it made - and since it is a direct result of this, it is in the moment i chose, actually determined. Of course I have the notion of free will, as the process of chosing makes me go thourgh all sorts of considerations, but since the outcome is based on these (already induced) considerations/notions the result of my decision making is already given.
but if all those inputs are also determined by other chains of events, then virtually everything is determined so it's not just in the moment either. it's everything in reality.
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote: I may have repeated myself unnecessarily in that paragraph, forgive me. Now, if there is anything that influences my choice, which is not accounted for in the whole string of experiences leading to this moment, what could it be? If I am to maintain an idea of free will I will need some other factor apart from these. What could it be? Would would make it so that my choice in this very instance could have been different from the one I'm making? A random variable? If the outcome of my decision process is influenced by a truly random factor, it just makes exhibition of free will a die roll. I don't like to entertain that idea - and luckily it seems improbable to me. I would much rather my choices are made by me (that is: determined by who I am).
yes. there is the argument that determinism is not a curse but a gift, because since everything is determined, we can predict and play with outcomes to our benefit. very cute idea.
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote: So you see following this (possibly flawed, but please tell me how) flawed logic, even though we are autonome agents, our actions are still determined. At least in a sense. It doesn't change a thing however, because as all these actions are a consequence of the world they are working upon, and that world's responses as much a result of these, it gives no reason to do anything differently than we already does. If I chose to kill a man, the world should still react and lock me up, because such is the rules/conditions that our many choices have created (even when choices can't be said to be free in the normal sense). This also takes care of the "problem" presented in this post:
yeah ofc but you could still call yourself autonomous just by a slightly more tolerant definition.
On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler +
The way you talk sounds mighty inconsistent with your belief in determinism though, it's almost like you are trying to persuade people of something. But since they can't choose to agree with you are not, I don't see the point.
I know most of the philosophical arguments, and I agree that it's really hard to make the case for anything other than a deterministic worldview, but it's pretty dang inconsistent with common sense and trying to live an everyday life where for all intents and purposes you feel like you have choices. I just can't help feel this whole thread is an argument against itself, not about collectivism, but about determinism. It seems impossible for any determinist to live a life consistent with their beliefs, which in my view is a pretty damning arguments against its truth, even if that's not really a philosophical or scientific argument.
edit: oh, and I totally agree about psychology, it's very overrated. Statistical psychology has some limited utility, but until we get our own Hari Seldon, that field is going nowhere fast.
At least in my understanding of determinism, the OP should still create this post and LaughingTulkas should still reply to it, because the circumstances leading to all this prescribed it. We shall still have this discussion, and if I chose not to take anymore part of it, it is again a result of the circumstances leading to that particular choice.
In this notion of determinism, it doesn't quite make sense to say that "it doesn't matter what I do, because it's all just predetermined", because you always do what you do for a reason - as a result. Likewise, it has no moral implications, you are still responsible for your actions as much as with your free will.
yes. that is a very hard point to understand i think that people should use fatalism for what they mean when they talk bad about determinism. fatalism being that idea that no matter what u do the world sucks u have no choice etc. in determinism, its not so much of a matter of choice but that there is always a cause for everything.
them philosophers fucked with them terms 2 much
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote: Disclaimer: Not writing this to win anyone over to my point of view. What I presented is easily stated, and parts come close to being tautologies. I don't really believe in a concept like truth, I believe in perspectives. So I will welcome other perspectives on the matter - this doesn't mean I refrain from argueing of course. I'm especially interested if anyone can point out something that could preserve a notion of free will within the understanding of choice presented above. How can there be room for anything not accounted for by who we are, when making a choice?
there is nothing but you could define free will as the ability of a rational entity to act on its judgement without direct restraint by another rational entity or something like that
and direct restraint = violence and violence can mean a bunch of things depending on how homo u r.
i think the fact that he lists two contrary points of view as a proof to the same argument says it all .. hard to take it seriously .. if your not gonna reply to the points i am making then just ignore me directly .... A post filled with more empty rhetoric that doesn't in any way reply to the point i made is not needed . there is no need to deflect the issue just ignore it
On April 28 2010 07:53 chessmaster wrote: i think the fact that he lists two contrary points of view as a proof to the same argument says it all .. hard to take it seriously
Yeah it seems like he says yes to everything.
"free will is the ability ot act with rational judgment without the interference of another rational entity"
seriously? You don't see how many restrictions you just put on "free" will?
On April 27 2010 20:25 Tal wrote: What if he just believes it's right?
I believe if I see someone drowning and can save them with no risk, I should do that, even if I ruin my nice clothes, purely because of empathy. If I don't have some ulterior motive I'm stupid?
Bold = my comments
Our actions are made out of Ethical egoism (link). But this situation is not simply answered by this in the same fashion as to "Why am I writing this?". Because when you see a man drowning you will act on instinct. If you chose to save him. Was it a long subconscious discussion where your mind decided that you couldn't live with yourself if you didn't? Or was it pure instinct and you acted before this possibly could happen? A more obvious example is when a mother protects her child. This is a universal occurence, is usually put aside by philosophers in the discussion of altruistic/ Ethical egoism decisions.
before you jump in, ask yourself why is he drowning in the first place? will he drag you down with him?
This was answered above. The human acts of instinct are what should be discussed.
Survival comes first in most peoples mind and thus if there is no lifeline, safetly vest or a clothesline you can throw to this guy, hes fucked and if you jump in he will 90% of the time drag you down with him.
You just created a scenario which the person above most probably didn't consider but I'll answer it anyway. Yes the survival instinct "To fight or flee". It exists in all of us, in this situation you describe we magically know that there is no chance of us surviving it, therefore we might flee indeed. What I'd like you to put some thought into is wether how a empathic man can live with himself after leaving a man to die, not even trying to rescue him.
Think of Africa for a second, half its population would be dying of aids or malnourisment yet we help them for some reason. Is it because of the kindness in our hearts? NOOOOO during the 1960's the western civilisations where learning of the third world, a hopeful generation happy to live in a time of peace wanted a change. Solidarity, empathy and a new understanding of our responsibility was put into action with aid to the third world countries. Sadly this solidarity is rarely seen in our generation since we haven't seen a world were we don't help. With that said. Yes it started from the kindness in our hearts. Even though all of our actions are made egoistically we feel happines when helping others.
We are helping those who are dying so their country is put further behind in debt, so that they will have to pay up greater sums than what our government spends for food, clothes and medicine as time passes by. SO instead of a dying place where people struggle and life moves on where you basically let these people sort out their own problems and establish a way of life ON THEIR OWN. I can't deny that there's a possible subconscious thought in me that is behind my actions of giving money to the red cross. And I can't deny that I don't know the exact thoughts behind the politicians actions to aid other countries. But the same goes for you.
When it comes to how our help sometimes do more harm than good I agree. When we send milk to a village their own shop which sells milk will not be able to sell and it's our fault. When we send money to corrupt gouvernments loads of money are lost on the way.
But according to me we have a responsibility. A big effect in africa is that rivers are running dry and the ground some have lived on for generations is now impossible to farm on. All because of the western civilisations gas pollution, effects on the ozone layer. We can rationalise the problem and talk about how I'm just a person, no big effects comes from me not driving a car etc. But it's still a choice we have to make, we should all consider these effects. As for the thread title collectivism v. Individualism. Collectivism is a pretty good idea here in "the war on global warming" .
My point, Let those you see need a helping hand, help themselves because life moves on regardless and while i get your feminist point of view, i simply dont agree on it just like you might not agree on my point.
Where did feminism get in the picture?
The feminine, emotional, the social, desire to nest. Desire to shape your own habitat. You worry that some day you will become personally inconvenienced and thus you turn to collectiveism and i say it belongs with the rest of its ISMS, inside a book where people read to feel more clever than their peers when in reality the idea of collectiveism is as lucid as belief in god.
Want to talk about global warming?
A comedian puts everything in perspective and i agree.
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: You can't be individual, you live in a world with people and things. You must compromise.
so you don't have your own conscience then? that would be amazing imo
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: If you want to fly you can't just fly, you have to compromise with gravity. Individual means alone, without an environment. You can't take everything so out of context. You can act alone but even then all of your decisions are created/decided by your environment. You simply cannot live without compromise.
nope I think ur conflating individualism with isolationism or something
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: This also works with collectivism. There is no "one thing" "I can be conservative about crime, but liberal about prostitution"Chris Rock
What I'm saying that it is impossible to be one thing or another, you can be nothing you can point to/say.
No matter your philosophy or lifestyle you are both a collective as well as an individual. You are everything and therefore nothing specific.
well by this point I can tell we differ on definitions what you mean by an individual is "selfishness" right. that is not what I mean by individualism individualism means recognizing only individuals can have a consciousness, goals, perceived means, claims to rights, etc.... "collectives" have no such things by themselves because they have no consciousness consciousness can only exist within individuals and yes that is circular, but unless you want to claim that god exists or that you experienced a shared consciousness, it's hard to claim otherwise
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: Your body is not individual, you are composed of many different things. You have a history, you have experiences, you have genetics. These things compromise your decisions.
don't really matter history, experiences, DNA spirals have no consciousnesses. therefore, they cannot have goals. therefore, no "greater good" objective can be drawn from them.
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: To be individual you must be completely alone, which is impossible.
nope
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: It implies a completely unaffected consciousness that has no entity or history and resides in no environment, that exists only for a split second.
did I ever say that? and how does it imply that?
you have mentioned a chain of events that produce a consciousness. that is completely irrelevant to the question that collective entities don't exist.
if they do exist, tell me, tell me what its goals are, and how are they not your interpretation of history but something objectively outside of you? no such thing can exist. it is you. it is your interpretation of history, and it is your goals as you adopt them.
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: edit: a thought made by the above consciousness would be almost an individual thought.
what you think is not an individual thought? elaborate.
I'm sorry dude you just don't get it If you have honestly read what I wrote and are asking the questions above you just need to read more or read it again, no offense.
On April 28 2010 07:34 ShaperofDreams wrote: The words individual and collective are inventions of the mind and only serve as extremely vague, relative concepts.
edit: therefore we can really only talk about how "individual" and how "collective" we should be, but the thing is that the degree of collectivity/individuality always is as it should be because the entire universe created that circumstance. you cannot "decide" to have a different society or live a different way, the proper situation/universal happening has to exist prior to that.
Everything is a cause of everything else. One cannot be the cause for an effect, the entire universe has to cause an effect, and when it does the effect will be, with or without our consent because we have no real control of how our own decisions will be made.
there is no such dichotomy... everything you do is your decision alone... and I see that youre a determinist also so think about this. what binds you to other people? We are just atoms correct? Why is it that you as a human being is bound to obey a group of other human beings? Might makes right is what your argument comes down to? Then there is no such obligation. You do what you want and can.
and again, by collectivism I don't mean altruism. jesus, them collectivists made a good job of conflating the two terms...
On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler +
omg that is too freaking funny good one man ... i love your humor
but to the person that is a determinist who believes in free will ( too funny) Heisenberg and that little thing called the uncertainty principle , not to mention the standard model of the universe would completely disagree ... but i do find it funny you adhere to both determinism and free will , as they contradict each other ,,, I am seriously trying to figure out if by saying that it is a big troll joke or you are being serious about believing two contrary points of view .......
we could get into Einstein saying god doesn't playing dice and Niels Borh's reply dont tell god what to do etc etc ... or hidden variables explaining why you cant know the two contrary values of electrons , but at the moment particles (i.e electrons ) to not appear to behave deterministically )
not to mention other such experiments .. action at a distance explain that one with determinism .... but in all actuality you cant have determinism and free will at the same time in your argument and expect anyone to take it seriously .. unless they deterministically do not have a choice in the matter lmao ..... if anything you labeled one such catalyst you were searching for , for the greater good of reality .. Why , because we are predetermined to . not saying i believe this , but i find it extremely funny you search for such a reality of greater good , then say several posts later you are a determinist
have you read up on compatibilism yet? I think not its not the classical definition of free will, its a redefined one to allow for causation
On April 28 2010 07:58 chessmaster wrote: yeah either a troll or someone so ignorant he doesn't realize when he is contradicting himself ... either way a waste of my time .. gl guys
Whereas I agree to your conclusion (that it is futile to argue with him) I do not agree with how you arrived there. Individualism does not require you to accept a conventional understanding of free will. Look to my post above for details.
Yurebis: When you responded to said post it seemed you felt the need to rebuttle even though it was in alignment with your opinions. I guess it's natural since you have been argueing for 9 pages, I just found it funny.
You're spouting a bunch of terms and really they don't mean much
You are asking a lot of completely irrelevant, meaningless questions that are answered in the statement you are challenging if you look at it with any depth at all.
You told me you believed in free will as an illusion and at the same time you argue against it. You literally contradict yourself in almost every statement.
and a lot of stuff that I've said you just don't get.
The way to learn is not by pummeling with those types of questions it's by making a statement of your own. I have no idea what you are arguing anymore because you contradict yourself so much.
why is it that only because our genetic code is about 99.999% alike or something, that this fact binds us together? I could just as easily say whatever living beings with >90% genetic similarity have to band together or >50% heck, all living beings should hold hands and listen to me! I should be the lord of the universe!
...all the above assertions are equally meaningless without an individual to believe in them.
so, first be careful when shifting from descriptive statements (observations of reality), to prescriptive statements (norms that you think people should follow for a certain goal)
second, note that only a consciousness can have ends, and if consciousnesses only exist within individuals, then there can be no such thing as a group goal, or a greater good, or a certain species' ends. All of a species' goals lie within each individual's head.
your reply does nothing to answer my assertions of instinct as the catalyst of greater good you deny to exist.
Why is it good? And according to whom? Hint: it is good to your ends. don't mean that it's good for everyone, because "everyone" is not a person, "everyone" does not have a consciousness. Only individuals can have a consciousness, agree/disagree?
On April 28 2010 07:42 chessmaster wrote: i am saying because we are all a part of the same freaking species we are a collective like it or not
and I'm saying that if we were to wear pink hats, we would be part of a group of "people wearing pink hats" and therefore... it doesn't mean anything.
On April 28 2010 07:42 chessmaster wrote:, and another thing DNA is passed down you have no control over it as an individual ( i.e your instinct)
doesn't quite matter another meaningless descriptive statement that does not prove a collective consciousness exists. nor does it prescribe that everyone should follow some undefined entity with arbitrary goals
On April 28 2010 07:42 chessmaster wrote: .. also you do nothing to answer my point .. individuals would not exist without our species , it would come down to the last individual who could no longer bread
again, does not matter as it does not disprove any of the premises in the OP
On April 28 2010 07:42 chessmaster wrote: you cannot continue to bread by your self ( this is a clear example of an individual goal ( that very well may parallel species survival ) that cannot be achieved with only an individual
uh. why are you limiting yourself to one rational individual? the world has billions of them. you seem to be conflating collectivism with collaboration. the latter I not only encourage but is also a direct opposite of collectivism if you put your thinking hat on. to put a very evil spin in it, collectivism is the art of convincing individuals to waste their resources on an imaginary entity while the leaders profit off of it.
EPT
.. meaning one human being ( a single individual cannot perpetuate the human race ) it would take at least a small collective , one male one female to insure the survival of our species , and thus creating more individuals.. thus the individual is dependent on at least one other individual of the oposite sex to procreate . and thus insure human survival : thus making more individuals... id like to see you impregnate yourself ( being a male ) thus having a baby ... even though you individualistically want one 
If you have honestly read what I wrote and are asking the questions above you just need to read more or read it again, no offense.
