Messages

For the concept "rational behavior" to exist, there needs to be some agreed upon concept of purpose first. You need to have a goal to act rationally towards.

Every single goal that is considered worth pursuing is in line with our basic instincts, however.
We want the best for our selfs, for our gene-pool and especially for our children. We may cut back on self-interest here and there, but only to help our fellow humans.
Even the stuff that looks like true altruism is sold to us as a benefit to our gene-pool. "Save [insert endangered species x here] so that our grand-children may enjoy seeing them too".

If every goal for rational behavior is set by our instincts then there isn't much point trying to make a fundamental distinction between the 2, is there?

There are some long-term unfortunate side effects though. Once you can distance yourself form your own emotions and ego-centric thinking well enough, you begin to see what a thoughtless and instinct-driven monkey everyone is, including yourself.
This kind of makes it hard to to be too bothered about anything. You lose your passions.

if this was your experience, and you felt it was unfortunate, it sounds more like a problem with you, than as a long-term side effect of meditation.

i might suggest you'd either deal with those problems through meditation, or in some other way.

and otherwise, boo hoo.

I'm not complaining. Stuff is as it is.
Just pointing out that if you become more calm and observant you also become less involved and distant.
If people know and love as a raging asshole, then being meditative will have some social consequences

You're just meditating on the wrong things.

Why I call meditation is attempting to stop thought.
You just listen to your breathing (or non-vocal music) and try to let that be your only occupation.
Attempt not to think of anything, judge anything or react to anything.

You can't actually meditate ON something. Not the way I see it anyway.

It helps to become more calm and self-aware, yes. It's like looking at yourself as an outsider.

There are some long-term unfortunate side effects though. Once you can distance yourself form your own emotions and ego-centric thinking well enough, you begin to see what a thoughtless and instinct-driven monkey everyone is, including yourself.
This kind of makes it hard to to be too bothered about anything. You lose your passions.

[...]often by just being the kind of person that other people don't believe exists.

It may be is dishonest but it should be fun as hell if you can pull that off....

[...]Do We Have The Right? [...] Where does our obligation end? [...]

I'd say that no one is obliged, or has the right to, do anything.
Those concepts only exist in your head. Shape them as you see fit.... or don't....

Well yes, that's what I said.
A perceived lack of free will causes you to be a tortured soul unless you can compensate with a new world-view that has free will in it again.
That new world-view can be seen as "a higher state of conciousness" or "a new and more clever way to lie to yourself". With ever you prefer.

If you tell me what BIP stand for I can look for it.

Regardless, belief in a lack of free will has less utility than the belief that it exists, and not only in mere philosophical terms.
It may be true that you rationalize decisions after the fact. It may be true that the entire experience of control over your decisions is another manifestation of this after the fact monkey brain.
But, true or not, having a feeling of control over your decisions is strongly linked to your mental health and immune system.
Even if it is illusory, it confers a testable, biological advantage over believing it doesn't exist.

It just occurred to me this has to do with the p-zombie example Sigmatic and me were talking about.

Take a garden variety p-zombie.  Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie.  How would he behave?  If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?

He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.
I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......

Agree, but to me that implies two things:  That "consciousness" and by extension free will, occur in degrees, not on/off.  Secondly, it implies that we're part of the continuum between no consciousness and maximum consciousness.

It appears then when you are convinced you have no free will, you:
- Either kill yourself (directly, with depression or lack of care).
- Or compensate with a new mental construct that recognises your former lack of free will, incorporates your new-found free will and makes it harder to convince you again that you have no free will.

HAHAHA, how wonderful.
This really is a revelation to me.

Take a garden variety p-zombie.  Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie.  How would he behave?  If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?

He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.

I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......

Agree, but to me that implies two things:  That "consciousness" and by extension free will, occur in degrees, not on/off.  Secondly, it implies that we're part of the continuum between no consciousness and maximum consciousness.

Who said there is a maximum?

Take a garden variety p-zombie.  Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie.  How would he behave?  If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?

He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.

I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......

Are you capable of understanding the difference between a holy man who builds a congregation around his own belief that he has been granted sacred knowledge by God Himself, and a cult leader who claims to believe they have been granted sacred knowledge to build a congregation for personal gain?

Both may be wrong, but only one is unethical, by virtue of their insincerity.

Call me a cynic, but to me the world makes more sense if you stop making the distinction between these two.
People want to hear convenient stories that make them feel good and are willing to suspend disbelief for those stories to make sense.
Others are compelled to provide those stories.

You can be a sceptical consumer of those stories, knowing that what you are told is not true, but still like the entertainment. You do that when you go watch a stage magician or an SF movie.
You can be a believing consumer. You are that if you believe the fortune teller is really has magic powers.
You can be an exploitive provider. You tell lies just because you hope to profit from it.
You can be a believing provider. You really believe your stories to be true and will help people.

However, reality it is usually a grayzone between these extremes.

The SF movie makers are in it for the money, but they prefer to make something they can be proud of.
The fortune teller may be bullshitting you, but knows it is good for business if his actions really help people.
The politician may actually believe his own words, but knows he has to add some bullshit to spice things up.

The SF movie inspires you because you believe that SOME of what is shown COULD happen in the future.
The fortune made you fell better so you stop being sceptical.
The bullshit politician made people discuss, form groups and rally. This causes people to socialise, exchange ideas and feel purpose.


I used to really REALY hate this effect. If nothing anyone tells in public is bullshit-free  and everyone is fine with self-deception then society can go fuck itself, right?
I guess I still fell like this a bit, but I see that there is no point in arguing with how evolution made us.

Well yeah, kind of... The trick to keep having sane conversations is to see when it stops being useful to use logic.

Making a statement about something that is subject to logic is fine.
Making a statement about logic itself is fine, but expect a paradox here and there.
Making a statement about an effect that gives rise to logic itself (I think this topic is exactly that) is....... religion. That is fine too, but don't expect it to make sense.

I believe you can't assume the universe is deterministic simply because no one can observe that determinism or the lack thereof.
As an entity INSIDE the universe, you are stuck with Heisenberg, quantum foam, Planck units and other effects that fundamentally prevent you from examining reality beyond a certain scale.
An entity OUTSIDE the universe can not look in because the universe is (likely) inside an event horizon, just like a black hole.

So can you assume something is true or false if there is no possible hypothetical observer to witness it?
If you say yes, then that means that all things are true, even those that are untrue for all possible observers.
If you say no, then the universe is not deterministic and ALSO not chaotic in nature. Noone can observe it to be so or not so, then it must be neither.

In any case logic falls apart.

(btw, first post, hi all!)