0neKiwi's (twisted) philosophy

[0neKiwi]

I'm not sure if this should be moved to arena or fun, but it is philosophy [justification]

It would be really helpful if people could disprove or provide a counterexample for these ideas. I am tired of them, they get me nowhere other than depression, and they are old (and probably immature). They need to be changed!

1. People USE and WEIGH each other. There are examples of this in politics and everyday life. A person weighs whether they should eat or not, what they should eat, whether they should watch TV, etc. Now this works with emotions too and between emotional bonds also. If you don't like someone, you won't be friends wih them, unless there is some external factor to balance it. Now in theory, this means that if you provide enough incentives, a person can make another person stab and kill their whole family. However, that is hard to imagine, and seems improbable. If all the appropriate incentives were set into place, and one has an infinite amount of resources to fulfill that incentive, ome would be able to essentially control people. It wouldn't be mind control, yet would achieve similar results. There must be something wrong with my logic.

2. There is no objective meaning in anything. If you consider all points of view, nothing is good, nothing is bad, and nothing matters. (Actually, wouldn't subjectivity be points of view and objectivity be all points of view combined, because one would cover everything and it would be fair; nothing would be left out?)** If you kill a person and you feel good about it, that's good for you and bad for them. If you kill a person and you feel bad about it, that's bad for you and them, but it would be better for the earth to get rid of humans (probably), or insignificant.

Both examples are extreme, but they get the meaning across. So it is fair.

3. (This old thought of morals- a year or two ago- where I probably defined natural rights wrong. It will be replaced with X, because I think there currently exists no accurate word for it; responsibility isn't close enough either). One has the x to do anything as long as they can hold responsibility for it. This is taking things to the extreme also... If they cannot take responsibility for it, they will obtain a result, good or bad, that cannot be avoided. I suppose this is somewhat like "you have done nothing illegal until you're caught."

Number 2 is especially troublesome. I find it hard to think philosophically, because I can basically use that as an excuse to say "Nothing really matters." Then I go off, and nothing is actually solved. It isn't satisfying to use this over and over again, and I have tried to avoid it, but it has drained my interest in philosophy.

* I know I am probably dumping all these problems out on you people. But you don't have to care or answer.

**Irrelevant thought: could the objective view make something "good" or "bad" then, if it is like the average of all views? It is hard to imagine that there is an equal amount of good and bad.

I must post before I regret it.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

You forget the total stubbornness of the human soul when it attaches its core to some vision. Displace it as you will, your will will never overweigh the person's core.

Now, you say that nothing matters, and in the same breath, same that something is good for one and bad for another. You have contradicted yourself*. This childish nihilism is the product of an underreaching mind. Now, the whole notion of subjectivity in the face of a reality that exists regardless can be overwhelming, but you don't even seem to be considering that side of things.

Lastly, I don't know what point you are making about responsibility.

* though you claim at the end that the objective would take into account all and thus there be an excess of either good or bad... yes that's the general idea.

You can get into the idea of oneself as the only existence, as the god, which is essential solipsism, and that also means everything that matters is what you are doing right now at this very moment and only you. But actually believing this is close to impossible, except possibly to some degree which would be judged highly destructive, if it were not for the moral code naturally imbued in you.

 

[Cognisant]

1. People don't make decisions without being influenced by their history and circumstances so if there exists an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient entity free will is effectively impossible, furthermore even in the absence of such an entity we are still confined by causality, the past being immutable and thus the future is predetermined.

I'm a Hard Determinist, there are many who would disagree with me, I think they're irrational.

2. In two words what you describe is Existential Nihilism, before you get yourself all worked up about it consider that if nothing matters then the fact that nothing matters does not matter either. It's like finding out Santa isn't real, to a child that's very upsetting because the existence of Santa has great meaning to them but for an adult being told Santa isn't real is amusing because they know Santa isn't real and thus Santa's existence meant nothing to them.

Rather than being upset that life is meaningless laugh at yourself for making such a silly assumption in the first place.

3. Morality is relative, that being said morality is also practical.

 

[Black Rose]

the past being immutable and thus the future is predetermined.

I'm a Hard Determinist, there are many who would disagree with me, I think they're irrational.

YouTube channel
Quantum Gravity Research

In a presentation I saw on this channel, the guy says events from the future can change events from the past thus changing events in the present. As long as no paradoxes arise in the time stream because several different past can lead to the present moment, a viable past can replace the original past and thus you in the present can experience altered memories because a different yet viable past replaced the past you remembered.

 

[Cognisant]

As long as no paradoxes arise in the time stream because several different past can lead to the present moment

No they cannot, imagine a billiards table, your opponent sinks a ball so you use some magic device that lets you go back in time to change your previous shot, the white ball is now in a different position, he could sink another ball on his turn (thereby preventing a grandfather paradox) but if it's not the same ball the present moment has not been recreated perfectly, even if it is the same ball he took his shot from a different angle so even if he got the same ball in the same hole the white would still be in a different position, furthermore even if he got the same ball in the same hole and somehow the white ended up in the same place there would still be uncountable variations in temperature, sound, wear on the balls, etc.

The butterfly effect is inescapable, the only way to create the exact same outcome is to repeat the exact same circumstances, thus the grandfather paradox is inescapable because with every iteration circumstances are changing and they will continue to change until something breaks the cycle. You don't just go back in time once you keep going back until something stops you going back, it's like the movie Final Destination except instead of some murderous poltergeist you're up against statistics and no matter how lucky you are sooner or later your luck will run out.

TL;DR Time Travel. Not even once!

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

1. This is true for the most part. As I wrote before somewhere, there is a conflict of interest even between a mother and a phoetus in her womb - they both compete for resources and they are evolutionarily designed to act according to some equilibrium strategy. In general, the members of your own species are your biggest rivals, biologically speaking, and we are wired to act accordingly. Most people don't think about this kind of stuff and thus essentially become puppets of their own physiology. That being said, there are people out there who possess a level of self-awareness, an understanding of human psychology, and a set of ethics and principles to guide them in life. Those are the non-zombies that might reawaken some of your faith in humanity.

2. This is introduces a false dichotomy; either you act purely on impulse and nothing other than hedonistic incentives, or- our values and our purpose are absolute, imposed on us from a superhuman authority. If you look closer at this, you are making assumptions here you don't really have to make.

 

[The Grey Man]

1. This looks like plain old psychological egoism. People don't normally want to stab and kill their whole family, but if for some reason, they wanted to stab and kill their whole family...well, they would want to stab and kill their whole family.

2. So the co-existence of instances of perception, some or all of which are not hedonically neutral, does not imply an equal distribution of utility among them?

3. It seems like you're referring to the principle of "ought implies can", or rather, ethical responsibility implying causal responsibility (or, from the perspective of the agent making the decision for which they are supposed to be responsible, an influence upon the value of the total utility of other, "future" perceptions, the expected extent of which is believed to be non-zero, prompting the initiation of ethical reasoning where conditions permit within the (putatively) emergent system under consideration: the mind (the presence of these conditions may be called "universal benevolence subordinate to love of truth"; an element of the latter is duty, the supposed appearances of the fulfillment of which the objects of the desires implied by the former)).

 

[0neKiwi]

Now, you say that nothing matters, and in the same breath, same that something is good for one and bad for another. You have contradicted yourself*. This childish nihilism is the product of an underreaching mind. Now, the whole notion of subjectivity in the face of a reality that exists regardless can be overwhelming, but you don't even seem to be considering that side of things.

Ah I forgot.

No meaning makes me... despair for some reason.

furthermore even in the absence of such an entity we are still confined by causality, the past being immutable and thus the future is predetermined.

In other words, isn't this saying that fate exists? Hmm, the Many Worlds Theory in quantum mechanics has a reason behind it though. Also, observation can change things, or are you saying that even observation/attention is predetermined?

My own thoughts behind this would be that the probabilities of each possibility is predetermined based on the past, but that is a mere probability. What really happens to oneself's path in life does depend on one's own choices.

Rather than being upset that life is meaningless laugh at yourself for making such a silly assumption in the first place.

Hmm, but I still need to know a reason though. Isn't that what humans do? If they can't find a reason they usually make up a reason, don't they? I find that the fear of the unknown is quite prevalent.

If you look closer at this, you are making assumptions here you don't really have to make.

It seems that is a bad habit of mine. How might one get rid of it?

People don't normally want to stab and kill their whole family, but if for some reason, they wanted to stab and kill their whole family...well, they would want to stab and kill their whole family.

Huh what, that was just an example.

So the co-existence of instances of perception, some or all of which are not hedonically neutral, does not imply an equal distribution of utility among them?

If they were equally distributed, what would objectivity be if it is based on subjectivity?

In theory, objectivity should be the "perfectly" neutral point, which (in my mind) would imply a 3D bell shaped curve in which objectivity is the median and mean (what words would they be in 3D) As one's perspective gets closer to "objectivity," it would get more common. However, that doesn't make sense... Ok, now I'm confused about what I am thinking about.

I have got to cool down my overheating brain (especially not going to help procrastinating the essay I've got to finish in 30 minutes).

---
Thanks for the points of view.

 

[Cognisant]

In other words, isn't this saying that fate exists?

The word "fate" implies more than just shit happening.
Shit happens, that's it.

Hmm, the Many Worlds Theory in quantum mechanics has a reason behind it though. Also, observation can change things, or are you saying that even observation/attention is predetermined?

I agree with the many worlds theory but there's no reason to think we interact with them and the "observation effect" is a layman's misunderstanding of a poorly written press release, think of the observer as a blind/deaf man trying to observe a game of billiards by touching the balls.

 

[The Grey Man]

Huh what, that was just an example.

Yeah, I know...oops.

What I was trying to show is that there are no hard and fast rules about what a person wants per se, what anything is per se, except that it is in accordance with what it is. Person A can't choose what they want; it's built into them, part of the essence connoted by the term "Person A", whether that essence owes its existence in part to the operations of a sinister incentive-manipulating entity or not.

If they were equally distributed, what would objectivity be if it is based on subjectivity?

In theory, objectivity should be the "perfectly" neutral point, which (in my mind) would imply a 3D bell shaped curve in which objectivity is the median and mean (what words would they be in 3D) As one's perspective gets closer to "objectivity," it would get more common. However, that doesn't make sense... Ok, now I'm confused about what I am thinking about.

If the same pattern holds true throughout all instances of perception, it could be viewed as an a posteriori "law which governs the world" until positive evidence emerges against it. I guess this is why science uses repeatable procedures that can be observed by multiple people to establish objective laws: objectivity based on extended subjectivity/theory of mind.