Dglgmut

Well, when I talk about a situation, I'd include the entire state of the universe. So yes: the moment, exactly as it happened. Memory and imagination are the two facets of thought... When we think, we "re-experience" bits of memories, which are often completely manipulated by our imagination. For example, we can imagine a shape that we've never seen, but I don't believe we could have done that if we hadn't ever seen lines or curves. The question which is confusing the hell out of me is about context... An experience is usually not complete without context... which, as I understand it at the moment, is primarily the emotion we feel as we receive sensory information. A determinist may argue that will is nothing more than an experience... However, I can't isolate the experience of willing... can anyone? I can't isolate the experience of any emotion. I can remember an experience, and say, "I felt happy, then," but in the present, there is no "feeling". So, from one angle, I look at an experience and include context as part of the situation. I was in a certain state of mind, and that should be included in what was going on at the moment. However, when I focus on the present moment, the question that comes up is: What context? Okay, just theorizing here: It may be that experience has no context, but thought does... To think is to focus, not on something of which we are aware, but of something we're not. Here's a question I find interesting: Why do I think? Maybe emotion is not an experience, but another facet of thought. Emotion is the guiding force behind thought... It is not experienced, but it can be uncovered by analysis of thought. Also, I'd say that maybe logic is emotional... Logic is importance/value placed upon truth... If one sees no value in truth, one is illogical. Does that make sense? ...Someone could be incredibly intelligent, yet completely illogical, because they don't place enough value on the truth.

We have to be what we are. We are constantly defining ourselves, because we are the cause of our actions. You can look at your life and what you've done, and that's who you are. You can think, "I'd like to change some things," but that doesn't mean you can become something else. You can start defining yourself in a new way, but really, it's just you in a different situation. Memories of your past impact your experience in the present, so there's no real reason to believe that we could possibly have done something different than we have. What's illogical about saying that anyone re-experiencing an identical situation will react in the same way as the first time?

A piece of meat IS the particles that make it up. It's not really a single thing, but a group of things. However, I am not a group of things. My body certainly is, but I have only one perspective, and when I act, my deliberation comes from a single place, regardless of how many particles were involved in carrying out my will. Regardless, if we were the group of particles that made up our brains, you could say we've been in existence forever.

Thanks Peter. I'll have to go over all that when I have more free time; I got through the first letter, though. I think what needs to be addressed here is the question: Do people control what they know? You could say they have control over whether or not they seek knowledge... but I think that is pretty automated. When a human first gains consciousness, where is the option to think, "Nope, not even the slightest bit curious about what's going on here..." At what point do people deliberately choose ignorance? They must have some "knowledge" that influences them to think the truth is either not worth knowing, or completely unknowable. What must be taken into account is that beliefs are concidered knowledge by the believer... Objectivists may not like me saying this, but it's impossible to disregard one's own beliefs. Not only that, but beliefs help form new beliefs. George/Aristotle used the word deliberation, and separated it's meaning from volition, saying that choice is not the same as volition, as choice is preceded by deliberation. And deliberation is preceded by...?

Selene: Isn't the "What if?" in this case simply curiosity of reality? With causality, you have to assume there's a possible explanation for everything, or there's not... until we do build a machine like that. But surely it's safer to assume that everything has a cause, as otherwise, we're castrating our own ability to reason. Ba'al: If free will is an illusion, then we are simply experiencing action, and are not actually involved in the process. I don't see how we could possibly ask questions if we were being forced to do everything we do. Being what you are should not be considered un-free. And with the meat thing... We are single things, are we not? Why do you insist that, not only are we a massive group of particles, but one that is constantly changing?

Well, if he knew the state of your brain, and all the cells in it, as well as all the forces at work in your environment, is it not theoretically possible to predict something like what you described? If you use a word like "chance," I assume that means you believe certain things are truly random/happen for no reason. A situation that would be paradoxical would be if there was a machine capable of making such predictions, and someone used the machine to predict their own thoughts/actions... Edit: Okay, so Objectivists do not deny causality, but they also do not deny that we are the source of our own choices... How, if at all, is this different from Compatibilism?

Thanks for the information. I was actually referring to individual thoughts, as opposed to our overall behavior. And what are your comments on that? Taking into account every little butterfly effect and every chemical reaction... is it theoretically possible to predict someone's thoughts? I don't see why it wouldn't be... but that's only because I haven't heard a compelling argument against it. Actually, is there any logical reason at all that this might not be possible?

I'm actually liking Ayn Rand's philosophy more and more, but I have a question: Does Objectivism support the idea of total causality? Can our thoughts, in theory, be predicted if the predictor could know everything about a past "state of the universe?" Also: Is happiness/desire considered reasonable? And sorry about any of my posts that were out of line... It is your forum, after all.

I was just using examples there, I wasn't expressing my own beliefs. The idea of individual souls is ridiculous. My memories and beliefs, everything that makes me "who" I am, are stored in my brain. I look at consciousness as a force, like gravity, that is not limited in quantity. I am singular. I am what I always have been. With that said, I can only use deductive reasoning to establish what I am not, as what I am is obviously not so obvious. I used a metaphor to illustrate my understanding of consciousness, but here it is again: I see consciousness as a wall, and experience as a ball being thrown at the wall. The angle and velocity of the throw determines the direction the ball bounces back. And if we can fully understand our experience, we can look to our reaction to determine things about our selves (consciousness).

No need to reply; just defending myself. This advice on how to deal with torture was an implication, in my mind, that pain is simply something to be avoided, which is an assumption. Also, you didn't take into account the possibility that there was no way to stop the torture. My argument was, in other words, that nothing makes us happy or unhappy. No experience brings pleasure or displeasure without context. Tony: I don't think egoism is avoidable, now... Empowerment is at the core of egoism. Even a spontaneous act of kindness is simply a way of proving what we are capable of... The closest thing to humility may have nothing to do with letting go of egoism, but accepting it. And I don't think of it as a mind/body split, but I have been acknowledging a difference between observing and doing.

I don't believe in a supernatural dimension. I don't see how that would explain anything, it just moves the questions about consciousness to another dimension. No, we don't experience non-existence. We experience sensations and memories of sensations, which are both rooted in existence. When I say reasonable or unreasonable, I am referring to the individuals personal reasoning. The child running onto the street had a reason. However, there are things we can do without justification, and those things often bring us the most pleasure. For example, a spontaneous gesture of kindness of which we know will get us nothing in return. Often, the reasoning behind our actions is to create memories. We often do things not because we want to do them, but because we want to have done them. In reply to Brant: I guess I started thinking about happiness and what it is. The torture thing, like Rand, you are looking at as very black and white. You are certain that pain is bad, and I am asking: Why is pain necessarily bad? I said that I believe no experience is good or bad, but the context of the experience, which we create, gives it that feeling. If you know the pain is for a very good reason, you may actually enjoy it. If we disagree on this point, then I don't see the benefit of you educating me further.

A "working assumption" would be one that is possibly true, but has no proof... If you knew it definitely was not true, you couldn't trick yourself into believing it. Anyway, thank you for the advice, and to the others that have contributed theirs. I am under the impression now that we are always doing, never having or being. That's a working assumption, I guess... Actually, if you try to observe what you are consciously doing, you don't observe anything. It's interesting. By the way, all those Buddhists and similarly spiritual people, who are all very at peace... as wrong as you may see them having things, at least they get something out of their beliefs. One of things I did when I was first starting to think heavily about my existence is consider how I would be able to deal with torture. It's an egoistic effort, attempting to let go of one's ego. It may even be the most egoistic effort.

I don't understand, though... How can you accept an assumption as truth if you know it's an assumption? An axiom I use to conclude that I am not my physical form is that I am singular, I cannot be divided and I do not have "parts". There is only me and otherness, not things that are sort-of me, but not entirely me. I can't just dismiss that belief... If anyone could do that they'd have complete control of their emotions.

I get that, Brant, but I also don't see the point of going through life never understanding anything. I'd rather be able to fully understand something simple, than pretending to understand all the things people generally do pretend to understand. I'm not looking for answers, I'm just trying eliminate my assumptions.

You say we can't imagine eternity, and therefor my assertion that we cannot imagine non-existence is insignificant. That's how I took it, anyway. However, non-existence should be compared to existence, not a time period of existence. We can't imagine eternity for the same reason we can't imagine five minutes... I don't know how to explain it any better than that. We can imagine existence, and being conscious... There is no limit to our familiarity with existence, so eternity is not an issue. I don't know whether what I believe is best described as dualist or monist... In the reality we are familiar with, I believe in a duality. There is me, and otherness, but there is no real line to separate the two. For example, I know I create my thoughts, because they are clearly linked to my experience... However, I don't know how I can control my thoughts, because thoughts are at the most basic level of the control process. We create our thoughts from a place of pre-thought. I believe everything is causal, and in theory, predictable, even the activities of consciousness. So I guess I also believe in compatibilism. If you define the ego as our sense of self-preservation, than everything we do is either egoistic, or unreasonable. I believe those unreasonable actions are the closest thing to freedom we have... What's the reason for existence? It's a silly question, to me. What's the reason for reason? I don't think those beliefs really affect my argument, though, that egoism is unavoidable as long as you have a concept of self. If you believe we are the brains in our heads, that doesn't change the fact that we can identify with other things. I'd say most people see themselves as being inside their brain. If we get hurt, we know we are dependent on our body, and so, logically, it is irritating... but that logic is rooted in that unexplainable sense of self-preservation. My concept of ownership is being rattled a little bit right now... I don't really believe this is "my" body, but I assumed this was "my" experience... However, in what way is it mine? Maybe it is better to just say that I experience, rather than I have an experience. If any of this is inconsistent with old posts I've made, it may be because my understanding has changed. That's why I keep saying I'm not trying to prove anything, but more put ideas on the table and see what responses they get to help me validate or reject them.

Okay, I'm going to make one last effort to communicate coherently, then I'll leave it... I think what I've left out is that an experience itself is not good or bad, without context. Pain is not bad, what gives it negative context is our identification with our body. We believe that pain is hurting us, rather than our body. Either that, or we identify with the keeper of our body, and the pain still has negative context. However, if you know the pain is due to some sort of benefit to your body... like exercise, the experience has a positive context. The exact same pain could be looked at differently, though. Our emotions are logical, to us. We always have a reason for feeling the way we feel, whether we can communicate that or not, whether we're honest with ourselves or not. This chain of logic comes all way back to our concept of self, no matter the situation. And to why we're so concerned with the self, there's no explanation. Eliminate the concept of self, however, and you get rid of the reasoning that makes you do the things you do and feel the way you feel.

Your assuming that the person ending their life identifies with their body. How can one want to cease existing all together? It's an incomprehendible idea! Wanting to end an experience is different than wanting to end one's existence, as would be the desire to rid the world of yourself. The choice is between the individuals current circumstances, and the "unknown."

Well, to say that my biology controls me just isn't true. My biology affects my experience, but the way I react to my experience is dependent soley on ME. An analogy I'd use to explain my view of consciousness is this: Imagine consciousness is a wall, and a ball being thrown at the wall is experience. The way the ball bounces back is dependent on the angle and the velocity at which it was thrown, but also on the wall being there, because otherwise it wouldn't have bounced back at all. About the pickpocket taking your purse... If it's in your emotional interest to get your purse back, because it would be less of a hassle than replacing what was in it, than go for it... However, to stress over it because of your principles, when it's easier to accept the fact that you can't force people to behave the way you think is right... Well, why do it? If you identify with nothing, there's no reason to experience anything other than to pass the time/explore and satisfy your curiosity. If you identify with your mind, then your sense of self preservation may lead you to pursuing justice in order prove you are not weak. You may feel you have to ensure the conviction of the thief, and put yourself through the stress necessary to do so.

Then why are you trying to express it? I wasn't trying to express the experience, I was theorizing the cause of the emotion. I disagree. You are always observing something, whether it be your thoughts, memories, sensations... never observation itself. Thoughts are interesting, because we create them, yet we have no experience of the creation process... just the result. We don't need a sense of self, because we can conclude we have a self through logical thinking. The reason, like I said before, is that our actions have a clear correlation to our experiences... this is proof that we are not just observing. I would love if someone with the same reasoning as me could explain how I can "have" an experience... it is not a posession, but it is the closest thing we "have" to a posession. I don't think that explanation will come from this forum, and that's okay. I do appreciate the understanding I've gained from replies to this thread that it's important to look at groups from the aspect of the individual, although I think it has led me back to where I started... natural law being as fair as things get. Can anyone argue against the point I made earlier? Why is it the responsibility of the individual to defend the property rights of others, especially if the individual has the capabilities to defend his/her own? What almost made me change my tune is when Ron Paul said something along the lines of, "Why should one state have to take everyone else's garbage because the 49 other states decided that?" It makes sense... Why should the individual get screwed over just because they aren't the majority? But then I thought, why would it come to that? If the free actions of the individual has led to them becoming an outcast, why is it everyone else's responsibility to protect them? They had the freedom to avoid being in that position... The logic used to argue for a free-market, opposed to socialism, can also be applied to the property rights debate. True freedom is having absolutely no social contracts. Can anyone tell me why this is wrong??

I retract the part about suicidal people because it could be offensive and I shouldn't have said that... But I'm not trying to read minds, and I'm also not trying to preach. I'm saying things matter-of-factly to make them easier to argue against, and easier for me to look at from a different perspective. So please, argue for the sake of what's right and don't worry about what I think. That aside, I believe that observation and the subjects of observation are mutually exclusive. The only thing that differs between me and any other conscious thing is our experiences. And I know that is not a popular belief on these forums. Also, the "over" simplification is necessary because an experience is impossible to express...

You're absolutely right, but there's two points to argue here. Let me end my very slight objection to property rights by attempting a coherent argument that should appeal to Objectivist principles: Why should I be obligated to enforce, or to fund the enforcement of, the property rights of others, when I am capable of defending/building relationships that will voluntarily aid me in defending my own property? That's it... Now, about our motivation always coming from our ego... The only time we aren't led by our egos is when we accept that we don't have a reason for our actions. Other than that, everything we do is in pursuit of self-preservation. Self-preservation should not be equated with happiness. Our ego comes from the delusion that we are aware of a "self". I am a dualist, I suppose, but I don't follow a philosophy other than what makes sense to me... The duality is simply between me and otherness... Or rather between what is me and what is mine. My experience is not me, it is mine. If I am this body, then what I am made of is material that has existed, in some form or another, for eternity, and I am a permanent part of the universe. In this case, nothing is really mine. If I am not my body, but an observer and controller, then I cannot possibly be aware of myself. I can only conclude I have a self based on the knowledge that my actions are the result of my experience. Any information I have about myself is conclusive as well... I can look at my experience and my reaction and think, "So that's what I do when I have that experience." And life has the potential to be a continuos learning experience of the self. There is no logical answer to why we care about ourselves, but we do, as long as we have a concept of self. As soon as you conceptualize a "self" it is not you. You can't observe observation. If you don't identify yourself, you can't care about yourself... and that is incredibly freeing. But self identification is hard to avoid... and always leads to egoism. My reply to George's comment, in short, is that self interest is constant, and depends on self identification. If you identify with someone in a bad situation, you will feel empathy. If you identify with your physical form, you will fear bodily harm. The only time we don't serve the (concept of) self is when we don't serve anything. I have a feeling you guys will HATE that response.

I would love a free market, and I understand all the benefits. However, to have any sort of market you need property rights, which is a social contract that I don't think is necessary. Even within a "free" market, people are threatened with violence to obey the law. An individual has the natural right to threaten someone, a piece of paper does not. We can create the systems that control us, and in reality, that was the intention of the system in the first place. Controlling the future is what contracts are all about... I think that is wrong. I think this is a proper argument against property rights: What's the point of them? To encourage us to work and support ourselves? Is everyone going to run around stealing and breaking things if there's no agreement that forces society to punish these people (pay taxes toward a police force). Social contracts are the only thing strong enough to take power from the majority... THAT is evil... This is the same reason I am strongly against intellectual property rights... Innovation and creativity should not be forced upon us. Anything worth being created or discovered comes about from a free will to do so, and not because "I didn't want to get a real job." Like I said, individuals and groups of individuals have the right to defend their land, but social contracts create obligatory interventionism. Obviously. I am not advocating a centralized state controlled system, I'm advocating majority rule. The "good dictator" example was just to say that a dictator that accurately represented his people could coordinate a more efficient system for production than a free market, which requires time for a the process to correct any faults in the system. The reason anyone agreed to a non-free market in the first place was because they weren't aware of this invisible hand. If people understood the way the market regulates itself, it would have been way more popular... I'm saying the same thing about property rights: things work themselves out when you give the responsibility to the individuals. Would you disagree with anything in this post?

Sorry, I am not that great an arguer, but this seems interesting: The idea of property rights is that you can fairly put something off limits to everyone else. This is dependent on a social contract that is far more powerful than individual volunteerism. So, even though things can be considered your property, you depend on society to defend the limits you have imposed on them. You need some sort of government, though, because without public property, everyone would be isolated to their own land... Will property rights be beneficial to society forever? Would they have benefited ancient civilizations that were frequently discovering land?

The comparison I made to the military that enforces a dictatorship was my argument, I guess. I mean, the man holding the gun isn't any more free than the worker. He could be acting out of his own fear... But what if everyone in the military was against their own cause? Who has power in that situation? The dictator doesn't enforce through violence... So what happened? The people have become convinced to work against themselves... (in this example) We have psychological weaknesses that allow us to become our own enemies... In a free market, you aren't threatened by violence to do anything, but you are threatened by violence to not do things. Making someone aware of a threat is very fair, but if the threat comes from the power of a social contract (the power coming from the weakness in our group mentality to uphold the contract regardless of personal belief) rather than an individual, or a group of individuals? My issue is not with property rights, but with the contradictory principles behind them. If society can be trusted to enforce property rights, why can't they be trusted to co-exist without them? I know it's a non-issue, but why bother defending the idea? It's like people who think if everyone carried a gun we'd all shoot each other...

Who forces a military to support a corrupt dictatorship? Not the dictator, but the people who are dependent on a system that rejects natural law. I just don't think social contracts are fair, or ethical. I think people are capable of upholding what the majority deems just. The main appeal of a free market is that it's self regulating, well, what regulation is necessary for total freedom? And for the personal information you want from me: I live in Canada and I am involved in some artistic/performance type stuff, not well educated, and not very experienced.