• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

What's the point?

existentialism

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Julia36

  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 28 January 2014 - 04:08 PM


The onl;y way out of this is making myself happy, then I cease thinking about what the point.

That is not authenthic though.

1. suicide

2. do some unjustfied direction and keep busy at it deleting philosphy .

3. stay the absurd man always questing for truths never content.

Suicide is impossible if Quantum Archaeology is right (i think it is)

There must be a better philosphy than any I've seen. Religions are just a version of 2.
Myticism is a branch of relgion.

Any enlightenment?

#2 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 28 January 2014 - 09:34 PM

Free will is what we call the (delusion - Parmonides) that we have volition, whereas we are demonstrably reactants
Free wiil isattributed to a level of compexity....otherwise it is defunct as a word with meaning.
The language of choice, and initiation is in conflict with Cause & Effect.

Quantum Theory is trying an argument against determinism, but can only do so in statistics and not physics.

#3 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 28 January 2014 - 10:21 PM

just try to enjoy every day, go out with friends, do fun things, etc. it's the best we can do.

this may seem shallow but i'm a deep thinker myself and i reached the above conclusion in the end after many many years. it's the best way to live. don't care much about deeper things, if you think about it, there's nothing we can do to change reality, we are still incredibly primitive as a civilization/race. so might as well enjoy the little that we have.

developing the ability to enjoy life, as imperfect as it is, is one of the greatest challenges we face. it's a noble pursuit.

Edited by forever freedom, 28 January 2014 - 10:26 PM.

  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Marios Kyriazis

  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 29 January 2014 - 11:28 AM

Normally, the pursuit of personal happines 'takes something out' of the system, where as the search for meaning in your life 'puts something in' the system. In the first case, you expect others to gratify you (however you define it) without you giving something in return, whereas in the second case you increase your contribution to the whole without necessarily being happy. So, the term 'enjoy' can have either meaning, depending on which choice you make in order to achieve it.
  • like x 1

#5 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 30 January 2014 - 09:07 AM

just try to enjoy every day, go out with friends, do fun things, etc. it's the best we can do.

this may seem shallow but i'm a deep thinker myself and i reached the above conclusion in the end after many many years. it's the best way to live. don't care much about deeper things, if you think about it, there's nothing we can do to change reality, we are still incredibly primitive as a civilization/race. so might as well enjoy the little that we have.

developing the ability to enjoy life, as imperfect as it is, is one of the greatest challenges we face. it's a noble pursuit.


Thanks forever freedom.

Happiness is one path: is it a blocking technique though. Like some I've searched for instrinsic meaning by pursuiing reality studies in science and philosophy.

'The finality of the self' as the authrity from which everything devolves shoud be the only perspective.

At least 'self' - and 'the cosmos' seem juxtaposed?

Undying we are capable of final autority - authorship, because we can correct the past..altering it
and faith in the fantastic is now faith in yourself.

We need each other until we get to immortality, or else have suficient faith ourspecies will resurrect us if we perish. (I cant discard Quantum Archaeology if I think it true, and any philosophy ignoring it would be posturing)

So as our base state is (already) eternal survival, meaning is surely a hurdle:

#6 Julia36

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 30 January 2014 - 09:21 AM

Normally, the pursuit of personal happines 'takes something out' of the system, where as the search for meaning in your life 'puts something in' the system. In the first case, you expect others to gratify you (however you define it) without you giving something in return, whereas in the second case you increase your contribution to the whole without necessarily being happy. So, the term 'enjoy' can have either meaning, depending on which choice you make in order to achieve it.


Ho a human perspective! Although you say others which just mean others.

I guess I'm searching for a Way or general perspective not at odds with sceince. However I love ataxy and loathe order as brain-killing.

Religion is a Way, and some find success using it daily, many prcatice rituals.

To me this is another blocking technique like happiness.

I search for a comprehensive philosophy, integrated, consistent, encompassising the edge of science.

Meaning is indeed based as interaction: without interaction I doubt it exists, and because the world is unpredictable, and we insufficient to predict it - despite its being governed by laws absolute.

Philosophy may be the path to happiness.

I think.

I act.

Am I deluded.

#7 Layberinthius

  • Guest
  • 298 posts
  • 26
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:04 PM

I came to the same conclusion too, people on this earth are so very annoying and material pursuits are so very pointless.

 

So I started gardening. By giving life and preserving it in other organisms it has given me purpose in life. And has brung beauty to my surroundings, and new smells. Even a worthwhile crop of food.

 

I also started going to church again after 15 years of being an Atheist, that has given me purpose in life too by having a place where I can socialize with other people, it doesn't matter what age they are I can always talk about the bible on weekends, among many other things.

 

I also, despite enormous pressure to throw it out, started collecting vintage computer hardware (again) and playing dos and windows 98 games. I have fun, it pisses other people off, but who cares people are full of shit 80% of the time anyway!

 

I also started watching tv shows and movies with another person, I won't say who, but it is important to mention it that it also gives me meaning and purpose.

 

I also started visiting other peoples houses, hanging out with them, talking with them.

 

Once I've mastered gardening and made a respectable garden I might start to work with wood aswell, woodworking is a great hobby!

 

I for one can't wait for the day when I can consider myself as great as the greatest inventors and builders of history. That is what I pursue immortality for.

 

Beware though, being depressed all of the time can only result in one thing, brain damage as a result of extensive drug use, I have to combat my own brain damage as a result of binge drinking and drug taking. Legal drugs too, another stupid idea that we have is having bottled ethanol and packaged nicotine/pollutants in every corner store around the world. Silly just silly!! Then again even perscription drugs can give you brain damage.

 

I for one am going to soon be trying St Johns Wort as a method of getting rid of mild depression, I'm never trying any of the 10x Anti-depressants that I tried in the past.

 

It really doesn't matter what you do in life, just keep on doing it! and find a group which can cater to your desires/needs. THAT is the hardest part about life, fitting in.

 

Good luck!


Edited by Layberinthius, 24 April 2014 - 12:29 PM.


#8 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 25 April 2014 - 12:00 PM

Normally, the pursuit of personal happines 'takes something out' of the system, where as the search for meaning in your life 'puts something in' the system. In the first case, you expect others to gratify you (however you define it) without you giving something in return, whereas in the second case you increase your contribution to the whole without necessarily being happy. So, the term 'enjoy' can have either meaning, depending on which choice you make in order to achieve it.


Ho a human perspective! Although you say others which just mean others.

I guess I'm searching for a Way or general perspective not at odds with sceince. However I love ataxy and loathe order as brain-killing.

Religion is a Way, and some find success using it daily, many prcatice rituals.

To me this is another blocking technique like happiness.

I search for a comprehensive philosophy, integrated, consistent, encompassising the edge of science.

Meaning is indeed based as interaction: without interaction I doubt it exists, and because the world is unpredictable, and we insufficient to predict it - despite its being governed by laws absolute.

Philosophy may be the path to happiness.

I think.

I act.

Am I deluded.



Want to know the meaning of life? Read my poll topic from this post on.

http://www.longecity...e-2#entry654353

I analyze life from its inception and at all times keep the meaning of it transparent and functional through evolution ascent to mankind.

It explains psychology, religion, neurology, biology, evolution, all.

It explains that "evolution" is in most ways interchangeable with "God".

It explains what Buddhists hold dear.

It explains that emotions are in fact states that need to be corrected(via behavior) and explains the complexity of todays mind.

It explains that emotions are inbuilt "evolutionary incentive" that direct you towards evolutionary goals

It explains that altruism is in fact an error in observation, due to not seeing the "hidden organizations and pledges of gene pool and knowledge pool meta-entities".

The "pledge" to these two organizations is infact upheld by emotions inbuilt as "evolutionary incentive" or "incentive to honor the pledge".

It explains that we have a life whose purpose is to better the two ever-evolving organizations of "gene-pool" and "knowledge-pool".

It explains wisdom.



It also explains ageing, the hot topic of this forum.


I come from mental health forums from which my theory has evolved to cover evolution of the mind at which point I noticed that evolution of the mind(nervous system) is the most important aspect of evolution itself and most ignored. Within it are hidden all behavior schemas that support it like sexual selection and learning and adapting. As it evolved in jumps (unconscious, subconscious, conscious, aware) so did the animal clades. The crucial difference between animal clades is in fact the nervous system.

Edited by addx, 25 April 2014 - 12:05 PM.


#9 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 25 April 2014 - 01:21 PM

I didn't just tell a story, but I dug deep and revealed the chief neurotransmitters of "evolutionary incentive" to be opioids and provided many studies towards that. States are modulated by serotonin while behavior is coordinated via dopamine. I reveal the final evolved brain chunk called vmPFC to be the neural correlate for "awareness"(wisdom).

#10 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 25 April 2014 - 01:31 PM

Normally, the pursuit of personal happines 'takes something out' of the system, where as the search for meaning in your life 'puts something in' the system. In the first case, you expect others to gratify you (however you define it) without you giving something in return, whereas in the second case you increase your contribution to the whole without necessarily being happy. So, the term 'enjoy' can have either meaning, depending on which choice you make in order to achieve it.


Those are wise words, allow me to expand

Making a contribution is "approach" towards an "organization of objectification"(making you a servant of a "shared cause" which performs the subject role) from "self-subjectification"(making you a master - of nothing but yourself and those whom you can fear condition - always an ever reducing number). It increases "running" expectation(return on invested) which, after immediate effort-pain, results in more long-term well being. Often it causes a happy cycle(people who are happy to help all day).

The increase of well being lasts until:

Taking something out is "avoidance" of an "organization of objectification" towards "self-subjectification". It decreases expectation which, after immediate use-pleasure, results in less long-term well being. Often it causes a vicious cycle(people who don't do anything and everything is wrong for them - in other words, nothing makes the "master" happy any more).

Obviously, the brain is meant to weigh in the balance between the two.

Edited by addx, 25 April 2014 - 01:43 PM.

  • like x 1

#11 Lewis Carroll

  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 May 2014 - 01:18 AM

Don't try to over think it! There is no secret formula that reveals the objective answer to your question of "what's the point?". Life is to be lived. It is a SUBJECTIVE experience. The point of life is whatever you make it! You are the ruler of your own subjective reality! 

 

I wrote a philosophy paper a couple months ago regarding the purpose of life. I came to the SUBJECTIVE conclusion that life is to be EXPERIENCED, ENJOYED, and APPRECIATED. You seem to have deep interest in fields such a philosophy and such. I find a tremendous amount of purpose and happiness in studying fields such as philosophy, psychology, theology, and science. 

 

Two years ago I fell into deep depression mainly due to struggling with the main mysteries of life... Why are we here? How did we get here? What am I supposed to do now that I'm here? What happens after this?... The more I failed to stumble upon solid answers the more anxiety I developed. 

 

However, I eventually realized that I was looking at it the wrong way. Searching for the answers to these unanswerable questions IS the point! And the best way, in my opinion, to uncovering and searching for these answers is by EXPERIENCING life!

 

 

Alan Watts has some incredible talks regarding the nature of life and happiness. I highly recommend checking some of his work out on YouTube.



#12 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:24 AM

Don't try to over think it!

 

There's no such thing as overthinking. "Overthought" is just an idea that was dreamed up by someone who felt too lazy to think.

 

There is no secret formula that reveals the objective answer to your question of "what's the point?".

 

How do you know?

 

I wrote a philosophy paper a couple months ago regarding the purpose of life. I came to the SUBJECTIVE conclusion that life is to be EXPERIENCED, ENJOYED, and APPRECIATED.

 

Having accepted the existential position that inquiry is to center first and foremost on the subject himself and, later, the position that the initial task is to address the question of "What is to be done?" I too have been working on formulating a comprehensive ethical-naturalist system, represented via formal logical grammar and symbolism as is customary in analytic philosophy, to answer that same question. Through analysis of fundamental abstracts, I came to the OBJECTIVE conclusion that the objective purpose, if there is one, is TO EXCEED -- "to be all you can be, to do all you can do," thus to achieve the highest of the highest -- and nothing else, i.e directing all of one's conscious action to that end, with as few diversions as possible. A thing either exists or it doesn't, but there are degrees of existence; some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or "power" you have, which can be understood particularly in Nietzschean terms. Obviously, this mission to achieve the highest (to become as alive/existent/real as possible) cannot be accomplished without an indefinite lifespan -- or, in OP's case, without overcoming those suicidal ideations, perhaps with the help of some good antidepressant medication.


  • like x 1

#13 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:51 AM

Having accepted the existential position that inquiry is to center first and foremost on the subject himself and, later, the position that the initial task is to address the question of "What is to be done?" I too have been working on formulating a comprehensive ethical-naturalist system, represented via formal logical grammar and symbolism as is customary in analytic philosophy, to answer that same question. Through analysis of fundamental abstracts, I came to the OBJECTIVE conclusion that the objective purpose, if there is one, is TO EXCEED -- "to be all you can be, to do all you can do," thus to achieve the highest of the highest -- and nothing else, i.e directing all of one's conscious action to that end, with as few diversions as possible. A thing either exists or it doesn't, but there are degrees of existence; some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or "power" you have, which can be understood particularly in Nietzschean terms. Obviously, this mission to achieve the highest (to become as alive/existent/real as possible) cannot be accomplished without an indefinite lifespan -- or, in OP's case, without overcoming those suicidal ideations, perhaps with the help of some good antidepressant medication.




I still owe you an answer on the other thread, it will take more time than this. And this post of yours is insanely wise (if you read that poll thread of mine you will see what you identify acquiring control or power defined even neurologically but also evolutionary and psychologically) but so I have to add

Since you're using Nietzsche, the "will to power" is only there because of the "will to slave" (with that power) and vice versa.

Since the inception of life, power (improvement of resistance) can seen as selfish (in the moment it is being acquired in) as it is in the primary interest of the individual and only a potential interest of the collective(depending on what will be done with the imporved resistance).
Slaving(sharing resistance -> reproduction of resistance (making a gene pool deposit of ones own genes) or using resistance to protect others which causes those others to learn it vicariously - protecting & teaching(depositing in the knowledge pool) is altruistic as it is in the interest of the collective.
Ability to slave is increased if the slave has more power so it makes power(improvement of resistance of an individual) an interest of the collective as well.
Since our observation of the "selfishness" of the "will to power" was an "illusion of the moment", when looking at the complete cycle of life it is not selfish.

In short, will to power and to slave are inseparable of each other or life would not persist and so since the inception of it life has been "infested" with this "will to power to slave" rather than just one or the other extreme.

Life could not be incepted or persist without using power to slave for the collective(first notion of slaving is using resources to replicate rather than repair ones own damage) which ensures future.

Looking at the master and slave morality, Nietzsche was longing for "more" master morality within himself because he ALREADY HAD slave morality and too much of it.

Point is, there is a balance of power and slaving required for completeness of wellbeing(and the cycle of life) and this is what buddha recognized (humans causing their own suffering by resisting the cycle) and nietzsche identified it logically, stared into it(two moralities) but didn't see it for what it was(since he only looks from a single moment perspective and fails to see the cycle).

There is an essential element of "power" which I can beleive you can all recognize. Having power either leads to paranoia of not sharing it to the benefit of others(and thus paranoia of others having the desire to strip it and punishing you if they succeed) or leads to contentness and bliss if it is being used for others or shared(and thus others having the desire to return the favour). We can all see which option leads to healthy societies and what doesn't.

In that sense, being all you can be is only experienced as worthwhile if you plan to use it and the experience of using it depends on what you use it for. Since your genes are crafted by previous collective investmenent your genes assembled in a way to ensure that collective exists further or it would not persist through time. Therefore - the described altruistic will to slave is embedded in each species as is will to power, they are a cycle of acquiring power to invest/replicate it further. The behaviour embedded in the genetic code is upheld by "emotions" and drives that are crafted to support further investment into the collective. Immortality presents a great challenge to this "nature of things".


The will to power to slave is easily depicted and experienced(as I have many times, rofl) neurologically through addiction.

All increase in control ability is rewarded by mu-opioids until control ability is laerned/observed at 100% at which point only paranoia of losing that control is increasingly manifested via kappa-opioids(insane control sensation is not resulting in insane actual performed ability - thus paranoia). As withdrawal starts losing control starts (receptor/transporter saturation falls) and kappa-opioid not being counterbalanced any more induce irritability and dysphoric reactions to slight changes in expected events(lack of control of events). This is the nature of cocaine control-euphoria and subsequent control-loss paranoia and withdrawal irritability, this the nature of learning (to control) anything important and then being afraid of not remembering it when we need it. And when do you need it? That part seems to be missing, and it is the second part - the will to power to slave.

Edited by addx, 05 May 2014 - 12:35 PM.


#14 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 05 May 2014 - 06:13 PM

just try to enjoy every day, go out with friends, do fun things, etc. it's the best we can do.

this may seem shallow but i'm a deep thinker myself and i reached the above conclusion in the end after many many years. it's the best way to live. don't care much about deeper things, if you think about it, there's nothing we can do to change reality, we are still incredibly primitive as a civilization/race. so might as well enjoy the little that we have.

developing the ability to enjoy life, as imperfect as it is, is one of the greatest challenges we face. it's a noble pursuit.

The more we learn to integrate the fun of complexity into our frame work of every day life, the more enjoyment we can get out of it. Ignoring complexities only works some times. You cannot reverse your linear learning curve, you can only learn new things to help you deal with and expand away from the old learned habits. 

 

Essentially the most crucial component of our enjoyment is the human nervous system and its "at ease-ment". Learn to keep the nervous system calm and free of a whole bunch of stressed out considerations imposed by the conscious mind, without totally rendering inert that same mind, and we have made progress. 


Edited by TheFountain, 05 May 2014 - 06:18 PM.


#15 Lewis Carroll

  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:20 PM

 

Don't try to over think it!

 

There's no such thing as overthinking. "Overthought" is just an idea that was dreamed up by someone who felt too lazy to think.

 

There is no secret formula that reveals the objective answer to your question of "what's the point?".

 

How do you know?

 

I wrote a philosophy paper a couple months ago regarding the purpose of life. I came to the SUBJECTIVE conclusion that life is to be EXPERIENCED, ENJOYED, and APPRECIATED.

 

Having accepted the existential position that inquiry is to center first and foremost on the subject himself and, later, the position that the initial task is to address the question of "What is to be done?" I too have been working on formulating a comprehensive ethical-naturalist system, represented via formal logical grammar and symbolism as is customary in analytic philosophy, to answer that same question. Through analysis of fundamental abstracts, I came to the OBJECTIVE conclusion that the objective purpose, if there is one, is TO EXCEED -- "to be all you can be, to do all you can do," thus to achieve the highest of the highest -- and nothing else, i.e directing all of one's conscious action to that end, with as few diversions as possible. A thing either exists or it doesn't, but there are degrees of existence; some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or "power" you have, which can be understood particularly in Nietzschean terms. Obviously, this mission to achieve the highest (to become as alive/existent/real as possible) cannot be accomplished without an indefinite lifespan -- or, in OP's case, without overcoming those suicidal ideations, perhaps with the help of some good antidepressant medication.

 

 

I think you failed to realize the point of my post was first and foremost to support a site member. Innocent is showing signs of anxiety or depression as well as notioning at the possibility of suicide being an option. When overthinking becomes disruptive to daily life, which in this case it seems to have done, it is a problem. Overthinking can be a direct factor to anxiety and other mental issues. (I think you "overthought" my post a bit  ;) ...)

 

How do I know that there is currently no answer to the question of "what is the point"? This is simply a subjective opinion based on what I know. There are a multitude of different religions, philosophies, and explanations at the moment. Everyone seems to be seeking the answer or has some sort of personal opinion regarding the topic. But at this moment in time, I am inclined to believe we do not have a concrete, objective answer. However, I would not be naive enough to say that the answer could not reveal itself in the future.

 

In regards to your final paragraph, I completely agree! Well, I agree with your SUBJECTIVE opinion. It is very similar to my own... "some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or 'power' you have". That is exactly what experiencing and enjoying encompass in my own subjective conclusion. Through experience, enjoyment, and appreciation the goal is "to be all you can be, to do all you can do" - to exceed and grow! However, I would never be ignorant enough to say that I have come up with an OBJECTIVE answer. How on Earth could you possibly claim to have come up with an objective answer to the purpose of life? Your conclusion is completely biased and opinionated; therefore, subjective. You have  come up with a PERSONAL OPINION based on your very limited knowledge and experience (that is not a shot at you, it simply means that 20 years on this planet is a extremely short amount of time). While I do agree with your personal conclusion, I at the same time realize it is simply just our subjective answer to "what is the purpose of life".



#16 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:14 AM

I still owe you an answer on the other thread, it will take more time than this.

 

Haha, you owe me nothing. The posts on that other thread are long and heavy.
 

if you read that poll thread of mine you will see what you identify acquiring control or power defined even neurologically but also evolutionary and psychologically

 

You give biological evolution too much credit. The instincts evolution gave us, beyond the ones that aid in survival, have no meaning to them. The best thing biological evolution gave us, other than life itself, is the ability to think; now we're on our own.

My conviction is that the imperative I described comes not from the physical world, in which biological evolution occurs, but from the very nature of existence (indeed ontological and metaphysical premises preceded my conclusion, while no premises from the natural sciences did).

 

Since you're using Nietzsche, the "will to power" is only there because of the "will to slave" (with that power) and vice versa.

I wish you didn't turn that much of your attention to that one clause of mine. Yes, it can be understood in Nietzschean terms, but not in the Nietzschean view. Notice I've said "particularly:" Nietzsche doesn't hold a monopoly on this concept. However, the Will to Power is such a big thing in Nietzsche's philosophy that unlike most philosophers he spent a lot of his writing time elaborating on this concept. Perhaps most significantly, he talked about it as the main driving force in man, and while I don't think it is the main driving force in man, I do think that it's methodologically sound in the pragmatic sense to treat it as your own main driving force.

 

Since the inception of life, power (improvement of resistance) can seen as selfish (in the moment it is being acquired in) as it is in the primary interest of the individual and only a potential interest of the collective(depending on what will be done with the imporved resistance).

 

"Power," in this case, is not the best possible word to represent the concept, but there are few alternatives: choice, opportunity, possibility, ability.

Individual power is more often than not in agreement with collective/societal power, especially when you consider that the welfare of the particular is positively affected by the welfare of the whole. If you look at the progress of civilization, you will see that it's all a timeline of power growth. A society with high standards of living is one where its members are powerful, i.e. have more options to choose from.

The stigma comes from the idea that power is a zero-sum resource, and it would be if power was solely power by people over people, but there are different kinds of power, non-social power, which I've mentioned on the other thread: power over oneself, which is willpower, and power over things in the physical world, the means of which are called technology and technique.

It can be anything. A fork is a piece of technology. Making a fork or doing your bed requires technique. Motor skills, for example, involve a a kind of innately known technique. Choosing the best route from the shop back to your house can be thought of as requiring technique, but it also requires knowledge (skills and knowledge are two physiologically distinguished types of applicable recollections, gained and maintained by procedural memory and semantic memory respectively).
 

Slaving(sharing resistance -> reproduction of resistance (making a gene pool deposit of ones own genes) or using resistance to protect others which causes those others to learn it vicariously - protecting & teaching(depositing in the knowledge pool) is altruistic as it is in the interest of the collective.
Ability to slave is increased if the slave has more power so it makes power(improvement of resistance of an individual) an interest of the collective as well.
Since our observation of the "selfishness" of the "will to power" was an "illusion of the moment", when looking at the complete cycle of life it is not selfish.

"He that cannot obey cannot command," a quotation attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

During most individual interactions in society, all parties have some power over each other (Foucault has some material on this) as they submit somewhat to each other, not because some or all of them enjoy to submit, but because submission can lead to more power.

The employer has bargaining power over the employee because even a good employee can't be certain to find a good or better job if he loses his current job, but a good employee has bargaining power over the employer too because the employer can't always afford to lose a good employee, especially if that employee will work for the competitor and/or if the employee operates something that cannot be operated as easily by someone else (e.g., programmers hate reading others' code, some workers in real estate have to know the details of every deal). There are other sources of bargaining power in the employer-employee relationship, as labor unionists will tell you.

 

Life could not be incepted or persist without using power to slave for the collective(first notion of slaving is using resources to replicate rather than repair ones own damage) which ensures future.

 

Deliberate attempts to contribute to the welfare of the collective are not necessary for the welfare of the collective. Most of the welfare of the collective is maintained through selfish mechanisms. The proposition that only conscious altruism can lead to increase in the welfare of the collective is a false proposition characteristic of slave morality. Consequences are more important than intentions.


  • like x 1

#17 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:35 AM

I think you failed to realize the point of my post was first and foremost to support a site member. Innocent is showing signs of anxiety or depression as well as notioning at the possibility of suicide being an option. When overthinking becomes disruptive to daily life, which in this case it seems to have done, it is a problem. Overthinking can be a direct factor to anxiety and other mental issues. (I think you "overthought" my post a bit  ;) ...)

 

Oh, I see, it's just that I don't think that "not thinking" is the solution.

Even though for many people being depressed for long periods can be just a phase or the result of a stagnant social life, sometimes it's the result of psychopathology, namely clinical depression, in which case it may require psychotherapy and/or medication.

Growing up, I too experienced an existential crisis (in my case it was later exacerbated by cultural shock, homesickness and nostalgia), but unlike OP, I would have likely been on my route to recovery as soon as I had found out about the reality of achieving indefinite lifespan as a scientifically valid possibility.

 

How do I know that there is currently no answer to the question of "what is the point"? This is simply a subjective opinion based on what I know. There are a multitude of different religions, philosophies, and explanations at the moment. Everyone seems to be seeking the answer or has some sort of personal opinion regarding the topic. But at this moment in time, I am inclined to believe we do not have a concrete, objective answer. However, I would not be naive enough to say that the answer could not reveal itself in the future.

So you don't know.

"Currently"? If something, such as an answer, exists theoretically, if it's possible in theory, then it's outside of time, then it's there regardless of whether it has been revealed/known, is revealed/known or will be revealed/known.

 

"some people are more alive than others, and the best measure of how alive you are is the quantity of opportunity, choice, control or 'power' you have". That is exactly what experiencing and enjoying encompass in my own subjective conclusion.

 

No, not exactly. I see two significant differences.

First, in my system the purpose is maximal excess while in yours it's enjoyment. The two concepts are distinct. In fact, my system sees enjoyment as a means to an end rather than an end in itself and usually a diversion (meaning that it's bad more often than it's good). Your system is hedonistic; mine isn't.

Secondly, even if "enjoyment" is understood as "excess" (let's call both x for convenience), the purposes of our systems are still distinct from each other as my system specifies quantity of x, namely the maximal quantity of x in the long run, while yours only demands that the quantity of x is positive.

 

However, I would never be ignorant enough to say that I have come up with an OBJECTIVE answer. How on Earth could you possibly claim to have come up with an objective answer to the purpose of life? Your conclusion is completely biased and opinionated; therefore, subjective. You have  come up with a PERSONAL OPINION based on your very limited knowledge and experience (that is not a shot at you, it simply means that 20 years on this planet is a extremely short amount of time). While I do agree with your personal conclusion, I at the same time realize it is simply just our subjective answer to "what is the purpose of life".

 

That, precisely, is the tragedy of philosophy, its tragedy as a prospective science -- the consensus that philosophical truths are neither provable nor falsifiable.

How can they be either, you ask? Well, the same way mathematical equations and logical propositions can. These are objective by their very nature, and they couldn't be subjective even if you tried to make them subjective. An answer cannot be "biased and opinionated," only the answerer can, yet the two are very much separate. There is a "scientific method" in the natural sciences, and it should become more wildly known that there are such methods in the formal sciences as well. Here's an example of what is required for proof in formal language systems: first you need a formal language, which is defined by defining all its symbols and their rules of grammar, then you need to account for the rules of inference, decide on the axioms of the formal language and test expressions for consistency and completeness.



#18 Lewis Carroll

  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:00 AM

So you don't know.

"Currently"? If something, such as an answer, exists theoretically, if it's possible in theory, then it's outside of time, then it's there regardless of whether it has been revealed/known, is revealed/known or will be revealed/known.

 

 

 

That is a very interesting way to look at it. 


 

No, not exactly. I see two significant differences.

First, in my system the purpose is maximal excess while in yours it's enjoyment. The two concepts are distinct. In fact, my system sees enjoyment as a means to an end rather than an end in itself and usually a diversion (meaning that it's bad more often than it's good). Your system is hedonistic; mine isn't.

Secondly, even if "enjoyment" is understood as "excess" (let's call both x for convenience), the purposes of our systems are still distinct from each other as my system specifies quantity of x, namely the maximal quantity of x in the long run, while yours only demands that the quantity of x is positive.

 

 

 

I do see some differences, though I also seem much similarity. Though I must point out that I also feel this way: "my system sees enjoyment as a means to an end rather than an end in itself". Enjoyment via experience is the means by which one grows, develops, and exceeds. So a means to end - a continuous cycle of experience/enjoyment that results in growth/development. However, I won't argue with the fact that my "system" is a bit hedonistic  :)

 

 

That, precisely, is the tragedy of philosophy, its tragedy as a prospective science -- the consensus that philosophical truths are neither provable nor falsifiable.

How can they be either, you ask? Well, the same way mathematical equations and logical propositions can. These are objective by their very nature, and they couldn't be subjective even if you tried to make them subjective. An answer cannot be "biased and opinionated," only the answerer can, yet the two are very much separate. There is a "scientific method" in the natural sciences, and it should become more wildly known that there are such methods in the formal sciences as well. Here's an example of what is required for proof in formal language systems: first you need a formal language, which is defined by defining all its symbols and their rules of grammar, then you need to account for the rules of inference, decide on the axioms of the formal language and test expressions for consistency and completeness.

 

 

 

 

Philosophical ideas are neither provable nor falsifiable because they are are based on subjective opinion. A million people may come up with a completely different answer to the same question (and, as you mentioned, none would be objectively wrong or right). This would be due to the fact that each person is forming a subjective opinion based on their limited knowledge and experience. Biases come into play since the question/answer is subjective.

 

I completely agree that mathematical equations are objective by nature. There is no subjective opinion involved. There is a concrete, objective answer. If I ask a million people what's the answer to the math equation "2 + 2" the answer would objectively be "4" - regardless of ones subjective opinion/understanding. If one person out of the million people I asked answered something other than "4", they would simply be wrong (this is not the case for philosophical inquiry). Biases play no role since the question/answer is objective in nature.

 



#19 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 06 May 2014 - 11:35 AM

Haha, you owe me nothing. The posts on that other thread are long and heavy.


Hehe, now you owe me nothing I guess then :)
 

if you read that poll thread of mine you will see what you identify acquiring control or power defined even neurologically but also evolutionary and psychologically

 
You give biological evolution too much credit. The instincts evolution gave us, beyond the ones that aid in survival, have no meaning to them. The best thing biological evolution gave us, other than life itself, is the ability to think; now we're on our own.


It never gave YOU the ability to think. It gave your body an instrument(brain) to guide itself better. The guidance had the same goal from the start, and the instrument (brain) is just a more elaborate mechanism towards that goal but still crafter to "make you go there".

If you deny this, then there can be no point. You describe our ability to think as an accident of evolution. You in fact confirm that by emphasising that biological evolution has halted. And "we're now on our own" to perform evolution.

You fail to see that our "random ability to think" for some reason creates a pressure(on average per population) to evolve, to do everything you said in your post, to exceed, to power, to develop ability - the same thing evolution has been doing "before it was halted" we proceeded to do anyway, since the birth of man.

You explain this as an accident? You think we're doing the same thing evolution did(evolve) with a tool that evolution evolved(brain) and you're claim the that the tool is no way wired(evolved) to cause this, but that it is rather our free choice?
 

My conviction is that the imperative I described comes not from the physical world, in which biological evolution occurs, but from the very nature of existence (indeed ontological and metaphysical premises preceded my conclusion, while no premises from the natural sciences did).


I do believe I have a very sound alternative explanation and a change of perspective is required. The brain was grown(evolved) from the body to dynamically control the body behaviour towards survival and replication. Prefrontal cortex was then grown(evolved) by the brain(amygdala at that time) to support "mid-life" behaviour rewiring - causing faster adaptation towards survival and replication.

The idea that the brain is increasingly evolved in layers to provide finer control(each layer is in fact an awareness and modulation of the layer below it) goes against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity. And I don't think my explanation of this can actually be refuted.

Your argument places subjectivity within some "magical realm of free choice" not-bounded by biological or physical heritage or underlying biological or physical tissues/matter/connections that perform it.

You consider that humans, given a "perfect free choice" thinking ability would chose to evolve all that they have evolved, to build their societies as they did etc etc. f

There is also another argument, giving a computer free choice does not make it do anything with it. It's just a stupid computer, what makes it make its choices? What makes it see opportunity in a choice? We could perhaps understand what makes a choice bad - personal disintegration, death, whatever, but what makes a choice good? What is weighed when making a choice? What do you weigh when making those choice? What "awarenesses" does your brain provide to your decision making part of the brain? Do you think you are "aware" of things that are not important when making decisions? What marks things as important to be aware of? Etc..

My theory offers answers to those questions and interestingly the answers predict most social behaviour as we see it. So I'm inclined to think there is nothing magic about it, it is being fed what evolution crafted to feed it with and the processors have been crafted by evolution to process it. After a while of perfecting the brain, evolution could step up to a new level and use the brain abilities to replicate "evolutionary behaviour" in a much more rapid way rather than genome abilities(multicellular body building) can support.
 

Since you're using Nietzsche, the "will to power" is only there because of the "will to slave" (with that power) and vice versa.

I wish you didn't turn that much of your attention to that one clause of mine. Yes, it can be understood in Nietzschean terms, but not in the Nietzschean view. Notice I've said "particularly:" Nietzsche doesn't hold a monopoly on this concept.


I know, but I grasp for every mutually understood concept. The nietzschean terms are commonly understood and I can find them easily in my concepts as well, I do realise he doesnt hold the monopoly but he makes a colorful case and I like the way he paints.
 

However, the Will to Power is such a big thing in Nietzsche's philosophy that unlike most philosophers he spent a lot of his writing time elaborating on this concept. Perhaps most significantly, he talked about it as the main driving force in man, and while I don't think it is the main driving force in man, I do think that it's methodologically sound in the pragmatic sense to treat it as your own main driving force.




Since the inception of life, power (improvement of resistance) can seen as selfish (in the moment it is being acquired in) as it is in the primary interest of the individual and only a potential interest of the collective(depending on what will be done with the imporved resistance).

 
"Power," in this case, is not the best possible word to represent the concept, but there are few alternatives: choice, opportunity, possibility, ability.

Individual power is more often than not in agreement with collective/societal power, especially when you consider that the welfare of the particular is positively affected by the welfare of the whole. If you look at the progress of civilization, you will see that it's all a timeline of power growth. A society with high standards of living is one where its members are powerful, i.e. have more options to choose from.

The stigma comes from the idea that power is a zero-sum resource, and it would be if power was solely power by people over people, but there are different kinds of power, non-social power, which I've mentioned on the other thread: power over oneself, which is willpower, and power over things in the physical world, the means of which are called technology and technique.


Yes, I agree with that idea. This is fundamental to keeping an embedded evolutionary pressure. Power is always ultimately over people - in other words relative to other subjectively held power and nothing more.

This is what keeps evolution going - it makes you advance in control over environment and people, but ultimately people, as the environment doesn't "catch up" to cause everlasting evolutionary pressure.

If you were alone in the world you would perhaps invent yourself a few bridges, a roof, a fireplace and some other Gilligans island inventions and that would be pretty much it. There'd be no vision of opportunity in inventing quantum physics, what to do with it? Noone is there to gain or care about it and you don't have any gain from it either.
 

It can be anything. A fork is a piece of technology. Making a fork or doing your bed requires technique. Motor skills, for example, involve a a kind of innately known technique. Choosing the best route from the shop back to your house can be thought of as requiring technique, but it also requires knowledge (skills and knowledge are two physiologically distinguished types of applicable recollections, gained and maintained by procedural memory and semantic memory respectively).





Slaving(sharing resistance -> reproduction of resistance (making a gene pool deposit of ones own genes) or using resistance to protect others which causes those others to learn it vicariously - protecting & teaching(depositing in the knowledge pool) is altruistic as it is in the interest of the collective.
Ability to slave is increased if the slave has more power so it makes power(improvement of resistance of an individual) an interest of the collective as well.
Since our observation of the "selfishness" of the "will to power" was an "illusion of the moment", when looking at the complete cycle of life it is not selfish.

"He that cannot obey cannot command," a quotation attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

During most individual interactions in society, all parties have some power over each other (Foucault has some material on this) as they submit somewhat to each other, not because some or all of them enjoy to submit, but because submission can lead to more power.


And thus mammals evolve over reptiles by developing "attachment" which is still governing human thought processes (but with additional awareness function and modulation compared to lower mammals)
 

The employer has bargaining power over the employee because even a good employee can't be certain to find a good or better job if he loses his current job, but a good employee has bargaining power over the employer too because the employer can't always afford to lose a good employee, especially if that employee will work for the competitor and/or if the employee operates something that cannot be operated as easily by someone else (e.g., programmers hate reading others' code, some workers in real estate have to know the details of every deal). There are other sources of bargaining power in the employer-employee relationship, as labor unionists will tell you.




Life could not be incepted or persist without using power to slave for the collective(first notion of slaving is using resources to replicate rather than repair ones own damage) which ensures future.

 
Deliberate attempts to contribute to the welfare of the collective are not necessary for the welfare of the collective. Most of the welfare of the collective is maintained through selfish mechanisms. The proposition that only conscious altruism can lead to increase in the welfare of the collective is a false proposition characteristic of slave morality. Consequences are more important than intentions.


Neither of the "moralities" are whole or can be seen as correct by itself. It's left-wing(slave morality) vs right-wing(master morality) dualism. It always existed, since ever, it's embedded in our brains, it's the two biologically created parts of the brain which cause RELATIONSHIPS to work, one individual takes the role of the master(teacher) the other of a slave(student). There's no one without the other, they complement each other and insisting on either as truth is a path to an extreme end. The two differing "awarenesses/views of the relationship/attachment situation" are facilitated by vasopressin and oxytocin circuits only evolved in mammals to support this. Vasopressin facilitates master morality while oxytocin facilitates slave morality. They do so in very much the terms Nietzsche describes them which is why I like his "split".

Edited by addx, 06 May 2014 - 11:44 AM.


#20 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:24 PM

So a means to end - a continuous cycle of experience/enjoyment that results in growth/development.

 

How do you define growth/development? Also, is it a means or is it an end? If it is the former, a means to what end is it?

 

A million people may come up with a completely different answer to the same question (and, as you mentioned, none would be objectively wrong or right).

 

I did not mention anything of the like. Quite the contrary, I stood up to the opposite position.

 

Philosophical ideas [. . .] are based on subjective opinion.

 

They don't have to be.

 

Here's a syllogism frequently encountered on IQ tests -- if all As are Bs and if all Bs are Cs, then all As are definitely Cs -- and that is a true conclusion. Now here's the inference of a false conclusion -- if some As are Bs and if Cs are some As, then some Cs are Bs -- and it's provable that it is false (objectively, of course).

 

Have you heard of analytic philosophy? If you haven't, I advise you to look into it.

 

I completely agree that mathematical equations are objective by nature. There is no subjective opinion involved. There is a concrete, objective answer. If I ask a million people what's the answer to the math equation "2 + 2" the answer would objectively be "4" - regardless of ones subjective opinion/understanding. If one person out of the million people I asked answered something other than "4", they would simply be wrong (this is not the case for philosophical inquiry). Biases play no role since the question/answer is objective in nature.

 

What if I told you that the logical propositions that represent philosophical truths were just as objective as mathematical equations and all other formal expressions?


Edited by Bogomoletz II, 06 May 2014 - 01:25 PM.


#21 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:58 PM

Hehe, now you owe me nothing I guess then :)

 

I'll get to it eventually, "bli neder." Not today, though, because I have an exam tomorrow.

 

It never gave YOU the ability to think. It gave your body an instrument(brain) to guide itself better.
 

I don't care whom evolution gave it to (it didn't give it to anyone since unconscious natural process don't specify who is to receive their gifts). Evolution gave me the ability to think in the sense that I have it in my possession and that I have it from evolution.

You describe our ability to think as an accident of evolution.

[. . .]

You explain this as an accident? You think we're doing the same thing evolution did(evolve) with a tool that evolution evolved(brain) and you're claim the that the tool is no way wired(evolved) to cause this, but that it is rather our free choice?

 

"Accident"? Jesus Christ, it's just a way of looking at it. Believe it or not, it doesn't matter if the products of evolution are "accidents" or not, and, indeed, the very concept "accident" is meaningless here.

 

You in fact confirm that by emphasising that biological evolution has halted.

 

I didn't go as far as to make the affirmative statement that biological evolution has halted; instead, I only recognized the possibility. The probability is high.

 

And "we're now on our own" to perform evolution.

 

We're on our own in the sense that no longer is our behavior decided solely by our instincts and now we're left to choose our path on our own -- by thinking.

You fail to see that our "random ability to think" for some reason creates a pressure(on average per population) to evolve, to do everything you said in your post, to exceed, to power, to develop ability - the same thing evolution has been doing "before it was halted" we proceeded to do anyway, since the birth of man.
 

It's not what biological evolution did or has done. For the thousandths time, evolution does only one thing: spread organisms that are good at reproducing fertile offspring. That's that.

 

The idea that the brain is increasingly evolved in layers to provide finer control(each layer is in fact an awareness and modulation of the layer below it)

 

That idea is a myth.

 

against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity.

 

"Separates biology and subjectivity"? What does that even mean? I've never said that. I've said something similar, but at the same time very different.

 

The idea that the brain is increasingly evolved in layers to provide finer control(each layer is in fact an awareness and modulation of the layer below it) goes against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity.

 

Imagine that your premises were true; how would the premise that the brain evolved in layers, beginning with the bottom "reptilian" layer, disprove or at least discredit the proposition that biology and subjectivity are separate? Looks like you jumped to a conclusion.

 

And I don't think my explanation of this can actually be refuted.

 

First of all, irrefutable explanations are unscientific according to Karl Popper. Being irrefutable does not lend a statement credence.

There is also another argument, giving a computer free choice does not make it do anything with it. It's just a stupid computer, what makes it make its choices? What makes it see opportunity in a choice? We could perhaps understand what makes a choice bad - personal disintegration, death, whatever, but what makes a choice good? What is weighed when making a choice?
 

*Sigh* Why bring up the same old answered questions? We've already had this discussion. Yes, a computer won't do anything if you didn't program it do something, so what?
  

Yes, I agree with that idea. This is fundamental to keeping an embedded evolutionary pressure. Power is always ultimately over people - in other words relative to other subjectively held power and nothing more.
 

Unless a single definition of the word is agreed upon, we should stop using the word "power" at once. We're not referring to the same concept. This can only lead to confusion.

To clarify once more, by the word "power" I refer to ability and to availability of choice, regardless of whether other people are involved. Regardless of whether you agree with my ad-hoc definition, this remains to be a matter of mere terminology.

This is what keeps evolution going - it makes you advance in control over environment and people, but ultimately people, as the environment doesn't "catch up" to cause everlasting evolutionary pressure.

If you were alone in the world you would perhaps invent yourself a few bridges, a roof, a fireplace and some other Gilligans island inventions and that would be pretty much it. There'd be no vision of opportunity in inventing quantum physics, what to do with it? Noone is there to gain or care about it and you don't have any gain from it either.
 

Yes, a society is necessary, but the society is useless if its members have no ability ("power") over parts of the physical, non-social world, such as the ability to build industrial machinery.

 

RE:"During most individual interactions in society, all parties have some power over each other (Foucault has some material on this) as they submit somewhat to each other, not because some or all of them enjoy to submit, but because submission can lead to more power."
And thus mammals evolve over reptiles by developing "attachment" which is still governing human thought processes (but with additional awareness function and modulation compared to lower mammals)

 

In itself, it has nothing to do with emotional attachment. You don't go to the bank expecting to see much emotional attachment going on.
 
Neither of the "moralities" are whole or can be seen as correct by itself. It's left-wing(slave morality) vs right-wing(master morality) dualism. It always existed, since ever, it's embedded in our brains, it's the two biologically created parts of the brain which cause RELATIONSHIPS to work, one individual takes the role of the master(teacher) the other of a slave(student). There's no one without the other, they complement each other and insisting on either as truth is a path to an extreme end. The two differing "awarenesses/views of the relationship/attachment situation" are facilitated by vasopressin and oxytocin circuits only evolved in mammals to support this. Vasopressin facilitates master morality while oxytocin facilitates slave morality. They do so in very much the terms Nietzsche describes them which is why I like his "split".

 

Well, that is clearly an unorthodox take on Nietzsche, that's for sure.


Edited by Bogomoletz II, 06 May 2014 - 01:59 PM.


#22 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:39 PM

Hehe, now you owe me nothing I guess then :)

 
I'll get to it eventually, "bli neder." Not today, though, because I have an exam tomorrow.


No worries
 
 

It never gave YOU the ability to think. It gave your body an instrument(brain) to guide itself better.
 
I don't care whom evolution gave it to (it didn't give it to anyone since unconscious natural process don't specify who is to receive their gifts).
Evolution gave me the ability to think in the sense that I have it in my possession and that I have it from evolution.
You describe our ability to think as an accident of evolution.
[. . .]
You explain this as an accident? You think we're doing the same thing evolution did(evolve) with a tool that evolution evolved(brain) and you're claim the that the tool is no way wired(evolved) to cause this, but that it is rather our free choice?
 
"Accident"? Jesus Christ, it's just a way of looking at it. Believe it or not, it doesn't matter if the products of evolution are "accidents" or not, and, indeed, the very concept "accident" is meaningless here.



Well my point goes to the contrary, and so far you have not really given a piece of solid argument against it. And I have a fair argument for it.

 

And "we're now on our own" to perform evolution.
 
We're on our own in the sense that no longer is our behavior decided solely by our instincts and now we're left to choose our path on our own -- by thinking.



No, that's exactly where you skip through my explanations to settle for your subjective opinion.

Thinking is decision weighing. Evolution of new brain parts in fact evolved new awareness levels. That are used to make decisions. As a human you are aware of yourself(your ego, your abilities, your posessions - they are all things you can control subjectively - it's all CONTROL ABILITY - so I do think I understand your term "to power". An mammal is aware only of its surroundings and has extra awareness of social standing and social attachement plus a vague awareness of prefered place preference. A reptile is aware only of its surroundings and has awareness of social standing and prefered place preference. A fish is aware only of its surroundings, it has no awareness of social standing but can compare(or determine) social status dynamically in immediate presence of the other fish.

The fish is mostly "instictually guided" while humans have to weigh several layers of internal social/emotional states and control levels to make their decisions, but it is all nicely assembled, not just a bunch of neurons magically creating subjectivtiy.

You see how life evolved EMOTIONAL AWARENESS layered to provide layered effort investement weighing(decision making).

First the present/immediate state of competing fish was internalized into an awareness(of social standing) that exists and persists when the competition is not present. The awareness is used by reptiles to induce competitive fights that only serve to change social rankings. This is because reptiles are AWARE of their social ranking. A fish will not do that, risking damage for nothing, since fish dont keep an internal track of status. A fish will compete only if there is an immediate goal present. It can not INVEST into social standing since it is not aware of it so it can't assess the benefits of such an investment unless the benefits are in the immediate surroundings..

A reptile can invest into social standing and he gets a benefit which he knows and also the others know it as well.

A mammal can invest into acquiring control of things by using his body. In fact a mammal learns conscious control of limbs as an infant, a reptile has no such ability and is born with most of what he knows.
A mammal can sacrifice his body multiple times to learn to control something that is of immediate use. He can not sacrifice his body multiple times for something that is not of immediate use, because he has no awareness of posession of control. It is just a behaviour learned in the process that is later downloaded to subconscious during REM sleep and activated again ONLY when immediate surroundings engage it.

A human has an awareness of posession of control - he knows what he can control even if it is not there to engage him. He can make decisions based on that awareness. He can choose to practice controlling something because he knows he'll need it 2 days from now.

Now if that isn't explaining it, I don't know what it is.

The brain only replaced the genome as the medium for evolving and self-replicating behaviour. First the evolving-self-replicating behaviour was spread by the eukaryotic cell and the genome. In mammals a second order level was achieved and now evolving-self-replicating behaviour spreads a lot more rapidle accross our brains. Both level replications are facilitated by similar/familiar neurotransmitter networks. It's not an accident.


 

That idea is a myth.



I think I explained it fairly well. You're just being declarative.

 

against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity.
 
"Separates biology and subjectivity"? What does that even mean? I've never said that. I've said something similar, but at the same time very different.



When you sum your argument up, you claim that biology did not CRAFT our ability for subjective thought but it was rather "the last to suddenly evolve and put a stop to evolution"(or greatly reduce its speed) while my claim is that it in fact enabled RAPID evolution but on another level. Something like that.


 

The idea that the brain is increasingly evolved in layers to provide finer control(each layer is in fact an awareness and modulation of the layer below it) goes against the very essence of your thought which separates biology and subjectivity.

 
Imagine that your premises were true; how would the premise that the brain evolved in layers, beginning with the bottom "reptilian" layer, disprove or at least discredit the proposition that biology and subjectivity are separate? Looks like you jumped to a conclusion.



I explained the way it happened in short above. I have spent a long while explaining the last parts (mammalian consciousness and human awareness (of mammalian consciousness)) in the other thread in this forum I think. The one to describe consciousness in short. So, I've not jumped anywhere, I've spent at least a year NOT JUMPING to conclusions and assembling knowledge from the likes of buddha and nietzsche to bateson and freud and m.klein and heaps of raw pubmed studies.


 

Unless a single definition of the word is agreed upon, we should stop using the word "power" at once. We're not referring to the same concept. This can only lead to confusion.



I don't think we are. Ability to control.

Sensing and sense processing is facilitated by cholinergic networks
Control is facilitated by dopaminergic networks. (modulated by internal states and external availability)
Internal state (internal awareness/satiety levels explained above + awareness of organs) are facilitated by serotonin. (modulated by investement and reward)
Opioids facilitate investement and reward and survival and punishing. Mu-opioids facilitate desire/reward. Kappa opioids facilitate fear/survival.
Vasopressin accentuates aggresion/male sexual agonism/acquring - male phenotypic behaviour
Oxytocin accentuates attachment/female sexual antagonism/sameness/defense/survival- female phenotypic behaviour
GABA, AMPA and NMDA seem to be tool networks that are used to regulate "schema"/"associcative" strength and response insensity/duration and this also probably causes them to be concerned with plasticity in mammals and higher.
Cannabinoid networks are processing habituation. This means tracking good and bad events over time and loosely associating them to surroundings as "statistics" that play a part.

This is a laymans simplification but it stand well towards any research.

This layout creates axis for personality disorders and others disorders.

Opioid antagonism will stop borderline people self-cutting by eliminating reward of opioids.
Opioid antagonism will stop autistic children repeating the same action over and over again - it reduces the reward of learning hand movement and thus reduces the motivation to invest in hand movement.

The brain is not a magic box, it works by principles. That can be discerned and that have been CRAFTED by selection.


 

To clarify once more, by the word "power" I refer to ability and to availability of choice, regardless of whether other people are involved. Regardless of whether you agree with my ad-hoc definition, this remains to be a matter of mere terminology.




I understand it precisely and neurologically as explained and I don't think I'm misunderstanding you.

Posession of control is signalled by serotonin and executed by dopamine. It works like that in the brain, for all that you do - all is controlled.

 

This is what keeps evolution going - it makes you advance in control over environment and people, but ultimately people, as the environment doesn't "catch up" to cause everlasting evolutionary pressure.

If you were alone in the world you would perhaps invent yourself a few bridges, a roof, a fireplace and some other Gilligans island inventions and that would be pretty much it. There'd be no vision of opportunity in inventing quantum physics, what to do with it? Noone is there to gain or care about it and you don't have any gain from it either.
 
Yes, a society is necessary, but the society is useless if its members have no ability ("power") over parts of the physical, non-social world, such as the ability to build industrial machinery.



I don't get that remark or the point of it?

 

 
RE:"During most individual interactions in society, all parties have some power over each other (Foucault has some material on this) as they submit somewhat to each other, not because some or all of them enjoy to submit, but because submission can lead to more power."
And thus mammals evolve over reptiles by developing "attachment" which is still governing human thought processes (but with additional awareness function and modulation compared to lower mammals)

 
In itself, it has nothing to do with emotional attachment. You don't go to the bank expecting to see much emotional attachment going on.



Pack hunting offers no advantage?

Raising offspring has no advantage over simply not eating them?

I was talking mammals, not exclusively humans, if you really want to go that way we can, but we'll be expanding too much.

Humans are able to emotionally attach themselves to function of an context(objectifying oneself towards working for a goal within a context). This enables human society, we can choose to do it, because we have extra awareness with which we choose our roles. Lower mammals have no choice but to be what they are and to exceed at that. We can exceed at anything. And we can choose is what to exceed at. And we have awareness of what we exced at normally (what objectifying situations, as a sprinter, thinker, policeofficer, dad, decent christian, whatever)

Lower mamals are always a function of a context and they can't change the context, they can evolve the function only.

 

 
Neither of the "moralities" are whole or can be seen as correct by itself. It's left-wing(slave morality) vs right-wing(master morality) dualism. It always existed, since ever, it's embedded in our brains, it's the two biologically created parts of the brain which cause RELATIONSHIPS to work, one individual takes the role of the master(teacher) the other of a slave(student). There's no one without the other, they complement each other and insisting on either as truth is a path to an extreme end. The two differing "awarenesses/views of the relationship/attachment situation" are facilitated by vasopressin and oxytocin circuits only evolved in mammals to support this. Vasopressin facilitates master morality while oxytocin facilitates slave morality. They do so in very much the terms Nietzsche describes them which is why I like his "split".

 
Well, that is clearly an unorthodox take on Nietzsche, that's for sure.



Well, I guess so.

Edited by addx, 06 May 2014 - 04:19 PM.


#23 Lewis Carroll

  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 44
  • Location:United States

Posted 07 May 2014 - 06:13 AM


How do you define growth/development? Also, is it a means or is it an end? If it is the former, a means to what end is it?

 

 

 

The growth/development would be an "end". But, as I was mentioning, it's a continuous cycle. You experience (enjoy and appreciate) as a means which results in growth/development (exceeding) as an "end".

 


I did not mention anything of the like. Quite the contrary, I stood up to the opposite position.

 

 

 

I guess I must have misinterpreted what you intended to convey when you stated, "That, precisely, is the tragedy of philosophy, its tragedy as a prospective science -- the consensus that philosophical truths are neither provable nor falsifiable".

 

 

They don't have to be.

 

Here's a syllogism frequently encountered on IQ tests -- if all As are Bs and if all Bs are Cs, then all As are definitely Cs -- and that is a true conclusion. Now here's the inference of a false conclusion -- if some As are Bs and if Cs are some As, then some Cs are Bs -- and it's provable that it is false (objectively, of course).

 

Have you heard of analytic philosophy? If you haven't, I advise you to look into it.

 

 

 

I have heard of it, but I have never looked into it. Would you recommend starting somewhere in specific?
 

What if I told you that the logical propositions that represent philosophical truths were just as objective as mathematical equations and all other formal expressions?

 

 

 

I would respond by telling you that I disagreed. 

 

Proposition: the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted

Objective: of or pertaining to something that can be known; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality

Mathematics: the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities                             expressed symbolically

 

Based on these definitions, I am able to arrive at the "Therefore" conclusion that logical propositions are indeed SUBJECTIVE possibilities, and that mathematical equations (with the exception of theoretical, probability, etc) is OBJECTIVE. There is no opinion involved in mathematics; there is simply right and wrong. Whereas in philosophical thought one is using opinion; which as you mentioned, is neither provable nor falsifiable.  







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: existentialism

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users