Collectivism vs What?

[Xray]

There is no logical answer to why we care about ourselves, but we do, as long as we have a concept of self.

Keep it simple: The answer is biological: Since our organism is biologally programmed to ensure its survival, our self-interest goes toward caring for ourselves.

If you get used to applying Occam's razor ("Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate") in these discussions (i. e. you first consider the simple answer before getting to the more complex), you will see that in many cases the simple answer without redundant elements will suffice.

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.

This is of course a very detached philosophical position (although it points to a deep truth). But this way of regarding the world is in danger of collapsing quite easily when subjected to the litmus test of our life here on earth. Imagine a pickpocket is trying to snatch your purse - you probably would not let him get away with it (instead of saying that nothing is really mine, so he may as well have it).

[Dglgmut]

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.

[Xray]

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.

My point was not that biology controls all one's decisions (for quite obviously human individuals can decide to go against the biological program of self preservation by ending their life); I pointed out that the drive to "care about ourselves" is rooted in our biology.

The same goes for the whole "property" issue too.

Just watch two four-year-olds-fighting over a toy, each claiming "It's mine!" and you'll get the picture. The four-year-olds are not that different here from two dogs fighting over a bone. Or from our Stone Age ancestors fighting over who gets the biggest chunk of the hunted animal.

For to "have" something considered as essential, to "possess" it, is a survival advantage over those who don't have it. That the four-year-olds in the above example are fighting over something which is not necessary for survival is irrelevant - the relevance lies in realizing that their drive to possess something has biological roots.

One can therefore rationally argue than to deny an individual personal property would be going against human nature.

That's why e. g. Communism has so miserably failed: every political system disregarding basic human needs will invariably collapse in the end.

[Dglgmut]

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."

[Dglgmut]

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.

[Xray]

Your assuming that the person ending their life identifies with their body.

What exactly do you mean by "identifies with their body"? Are you referring to a materialist position which goes by the premise of no 'afterlife' existing, i. e. that it all ends with the death of one's body?

On the "What are We" thread, I asked you:

"Am I correct in assuming that you believe a supernatural dimension exists?"

Since my question went unaswered, I'm asking it again here. TIA for your reply.

My assumption is based on what you wrote in your root post on the respective thread:

What are we?

I'm not sure whether objectivists believe in souls or a form of consciousness that exists separate from a physical form, but I'll try to lay out the possibilities in an open-minded fashion.

I more and more get the impression that all your efforts in the discussions here and on the other thread ultimately center around these "possibilities".

How can one want to cease existing all together? It's an incomprehendible idea!

Being freed from the burden of existence may well be regarded as something to be wished for. It all depends on the circumstances an individual finds himself/herself in. .

And if one thinks it through, the idea of "existing forever, in all eternity" may well be regarded as undesirable.

Since we humans are finite beings, our mind cannot imagine "eternity". Nor can it imagine "infinity".

And to why we're so concerned with the self, there's no explanation.

But of course there is an explanation.

As living, conscious, goal-oriented entities with a highly developed brain, forming the idea of a self, of a personal identity, is essential for our survival, and everything essential for our survival we are concered with.

Human individuals unable to separate their own self from their surroundings would be classified as having a severe mental deficiency.

[Dglgmut]

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.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see the value in going through life trapped in intellectual molasses.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

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.

[Brant Gaede]

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.

"The atom will never be split." That's something "simple." That was something "fully" understood at one time.

If you eliminate axioms there go your "assumptions." All of them. Then what?

I think you are trying to escape humility and the effort is questionable. Humility is a working bedrock of science--and all other things respecting knowledge, especially of people and their interactions and just reality in general.

If you succeed in getting rid of your assumptions you'll be left with the biggest one of all: you are the bearer of truth and we better get simpatico with that. Of course you will not believe me for you're far from there and if you get there you won't care about that--as long as we get with it. Don't worry; you will fail in your quest; it's contradictory.

--Brant

no John Galts, only Prometheuses

[Dglgmut]

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.

[Brant Gaede]

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.

You call it a "working assumption." As for axioms, they're so inclusive they can't be proved. Any attempt to disprove them results in the contradiction of using what you are trying to refute.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

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.

[Brant Gaede]

"Working assumptions" are, for instance, leverage used by scientists trying to understand something(s). They aren't looking for proof so much as dis-proof.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

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.

You deal with torture by caving in to it if it goes beyond X. For a few, usually religious fanatics, no torture is too much torture. Galt's torture wasn't all that bad. It was only the worst Rand was willing to subject her God to. I assure you your "most egoistic effort" is very unlikely to withstand the reality of sheer physical pain, or even its credible threat. Galt (Rand) did have the essence of it right: he would commit suicide to stop Dagny being tortured to get him to comply with the evil ones. You see, he was incapable of withstanding torture ramped to that level.

--Brant

quo vadis, courage?

[Brant Gaede]

.

I am under the impression now that we are always doing, never having or being. That's a working assumption, I guess..

Doing, having and being are all one and the same. Don't be a fool for intellectualizations.

--Brant

[Xray]

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.

But as as opposed to eternity and infinity, "non-existence" is something we can witness in our daily lives, i. e. we are constantly witness to the fact that someone/something that existed before no longer exists.

Am I correct in assuming that you believe a supernatural dimension exists? Excuse me for being so persistent, but since I have asked you this question twice already (the last time in # 56 here), and it still goes unanswered, I'll try again. Since this question is pivotal for the discussion, a clear answer will be help us to make substantial headway (instead of running in circles) .

Checking premises is crucial, but for that to happen, it is necessary to present one's premises to the discussion participants .

Therefore TIA for putting your (premise) cards on the table.

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...

Since egoistic actions can be either reasonable or unreasonable (as e. g. a child running after its ball onto a busy street), I think it is necessary to correct your premise here.

[Dglgmut]

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.

[anthony]

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. .

Calvin,

First your stated preference for loss of ego - then this plum.

Have you been considering why a mind/body split is of value to you?

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

You are certain that pain is bad, and I am asking: Why is pain necessarily bad?

I said no such thing. I cannot continue this conversation with you.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

You are certain that pain is bad, and I am asking: Why is pain necessarily bad?

I said no such thing. I cannot continue this conversation with you.

--Brant

I was ahead of the curve on this thread, at least.

Ghs

[Dglgmut]

You deal with torture by caving in to it if it goes beyond X.

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.

[Xray]

No, we don't experience non-existence. We experience sensations and memories of sensations, which are both rooted in existence.

Regardless of how you choose to phrase it, the fact remains that we all have witnessed that something which existed before no longer exists - right?

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.

How then is one to interpret what you wrote in your root post on the "What Are We" thread:

What are we?

I'm not sure whether objectivists believe in souls or a form of consciousness that exists separate from a physical form, but I'll try to lay out the possibilities in an open-minded fashion.

"Souls or a form of consciousness that exists separate from a physical form" sounds pretty supernatural to me.

[Dglgmut]

]"Souls or a form of consciousness that exists separate from a physical form" sounds pretty supernatural to me.

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).