Dglgmut

Members
  • Content Count

    1,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Dglgmut

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Calvin
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Can you be more specific? How was it determined that almost all humans want something more? What kind of experiment was this???
  2. Yes, over time. Just as exposure therapy gradually reduces the specific form of aversion, voluntarily avoiding something slowly creates the sense in the person that they cannot confront that thing. So the less you use volition the less you believe you are capable of it. Also, having little willpower left at the end of the day is called ego-depletion.
  3. I think Sam Harris would argue that thought is the result of physical processes, and thus it is not the thought per se, but the physical aspect of that thought which creates the change in neural pathways. So again, it is really impossible to prove, within the realm of physics, that free will exists. As for eliminating the self, I assume you mean the concept of self. In that case I think you're right that eliminating the concept of self, or the ego, makes for much more predictable behavior. This video was removed from YouTube, but I think it's got some very interesting points that relate to this subject, especially coming from a 14 year old girl. She even mentions hearing from a friend in high school that he was being taught that there is no self. https://www.bitchute.com/video/OdaUDeAGIck/
  4. I'm atheist and spiritual. I just think our spirit is part of the physical world, and that free-will is self-evident.
  5. I think a determinist would simply say that the process of raising your arm is not simply the brain signalling for the arm to move, but also the brain activity that would be required for the decision making process. The example you quoted is a simpler, and contradictory, one to the two experiments brought up in the "Free Will Debunked" video (Benjamin Libet and Chong Siong Soon). I think this is a metaphysical question. I doubt we will find any physical evidence for free will.
  6. The denial of "persisting subject of experience" is pretty drastic. Sam Harris is definitely not on that level. I don't know how someone can believe that... You wouldn't be able to function at all...
  7. As for your observation of the YouTuber "debunking" free-will, I think you are right. Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek had a discussion in which Zizek said something very interesting about the concept of no-self: he brought up a Maoist soldier or police officer who used the Buddhist concept of no-self to rationalize his murdering of innocent people. This soldier's thought process was that if he had no self, then nobody was truly responsible for the murders... This is such an important aspect of the general philosophy permeating Western culture, it might be the most fundamental belief that allows for someone's behavior to be controlled.
  8. I'm curious if you are familiar with Sam Harris' thoughts on spirituality? He is very interested and educated on aspects of Buddhism and has even developed a phone app for meditating. He has also has a book called "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion." Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I am sure he is a dualist. I wouldn't call it a mind/body split, as he sees experience completely determined by the brain, but observed by something else.
  9. The nature of the dualism implied by modern determinism is that there is an observer that can look, but not touch. That although it seems like there is a circuit between the physical self and observer (that they could actually be one), it is in fact a unidirectional connection. The brain does what it does as if there were no experience element to consciousness, while the observer experiences sensations, but also experiences deliberation, action, and effort. This would mean that the observer is completely redundant, which in itself is not a self-defeating argument... However, if that is the case, there is one MASSIVE flaw in this argument: the brain is aware of the observer.
  10. Sam Harris, like all determinists, states that free-will is an illusion. This implies a separation between self and experience. Sam's thoughts on meditation reinforce this implication. He is a dualist, though not self-professed. He claims to be agnostic on the metaphysics of it all, but the whole subject is purely metaphysical... Somehow he seems comfortable sitting in his cognitive dissonance, or the illusion of such.
  11. Absolutely. I did mention that some were beyond reason, those are the ones who consciously choose violence. The ones who are not conscious of it, those are the ones I am talking about. I edited my last post. I had to rethink one of the later paragraphs... Tolerance and love are not even what they want. That is not their end. That is the "convoluted justification" part. The real end is to get out their aggression. That's the whole thing. Look at their end the way they look at your end: they see racism, so what do you see? Of course we've already seen it... Pure brutality.
  12. I guess the topic of this thread has changed, but to respond to your quoted text: I don't mean "point out their violent acts," if I did, you'd have a good point. I mean, point out their lust for violence, the way they point out whatever depravity they think they can get away with accusing you of. This is how they see the other side: Racism -> convoluted justification to act on that racism -> racist acts. They think you started with the emotion, and built the rest from there. They look at a system they see as racially imbalanced and extrapolate the process that would lead someone to defending that system. This is their projection... it reveals how they think. Apply it to them and see what you get. Their professed ideal, the end to their means, is tolerance and love. Of course the standards to which this end must be realized are ever changing... meaning the VIOLENCE used to achieve that end is perpetual. So what is their true end? How much good faith do they extend when they interpret the system you propose? This is what I think is happening from their end: __________ > convoluted justification for violence > perpetual violence. When they point out a FEELING they think you have, from which you derived all of your "reasoning," they are telling you what to point out in themselves: REPRESSED AGGRESSION. And to reply further to the quoted text above, schools don't teach that violence is inherently wrong. They do teach that racism is inherently wrong. What about racism against whites? They redefined the word to avoid that issue. You need to use reason to expose someone to a truth, but more importantly you need to be talking to a person who is EMOTIONALLY capable of reasoning. If someone thinks they are morally superior... they're not going to listen. Narcissism has a huge roll to play here, and that's why shame is so important. Shame them, then show them the fault in their logic.
  13. Also note that when debating politics they have tied to it their version of morality. Their accusations are always attacking the morals of their opposition. Violence is not that important of a subject to them, probably because it is not part of the school curriculum the same way systemic racism and sexism are. This is why it's important to point out that they are violent. They want to be seen as moral people, that's why they are so obsessed with victims and villains. They are addicted to this narrative because of the simplicity, as you (Anthony) theorized. The fulcrum, I believe, between someone who can be reasoned with on these issues and someone who is lost, is whether they value the minimization of violence (which is truly what "Liberty" is all about).
  14. I'd like to add to this, because the theme is more or less fighting fire with fire. Using the state to promote a healthy culture is one thing, but arguing, and persuading is another. Why is reason so impotent when dealing with leftists? Most of them cannot be convinced that their ideal is immoral and/or impractical. Why? The psychology of leftism values destruction. Most people are drawn to destruction because of its simplicity and its quantity of change. Most people cannot produce to the level that would be valued by a modern society... and so the quantity of change they can create is extremely limited on the production side. When you start with the premise that they want violence and destruction, you can apply reason differently. Instead of criticizing their proposed social order, criticize their motives. The same they use words like "racist" and "homophobic," and you wonder how and why they came to that conclusion...? Because they are projecting! They behave as if you reason the same way they do! Why else would you want to keep illegal immigrants out, for example??? Call out their true value: destruction, violence. Point out what they are doing to achieve that goal, causing discord, division, and even lying to themselves about the state of things. They say there are concentration camps on the border to compare the US to 1943 Germany. Why? Because they want a war. Tell them that. Shame them. I just saw a video of a British kid in a shirt and tie saying that if Trump announced that all the adult men caught coming over the border were to be executed, millions of Americans would agree with the decision. His audience is very small, but there are a lot of people out there who think like this. Reasonably intelligent people... Of course their reasoning always come back to justifying violence. It's not an honest mistake. But they aren't fully conscious of it either. They do it because they want to be USEFUL. They want to effect CHANGE... destruction is the only thing they think they're capable of, but they haven't thought things through.
  15. I don't know about that. It's hard to delimit what human beings can and can't do... But I do stand by the idea that culture comes first, and until people learn how to act, the system is secondary. Why is it okay to force children to behave? Why doesn't freedom teach them the way freedom would teach society? You could argue, "Who says what is 'behaving'?" But Rand did a good job discrediting the "Who says?" argument.