My Issue (Long)

[Duty]

First, I apologize for the length. I've divided it up into sections to make it easier to read, but I do have the tendency to ramble and be precise. The last section is the most important, so skip to that if you don't want to read my background, are short on time, or just don't feel like reading a long thread. I hope INTPs that have had similar experiences and got out can help me out.


Introduction

As I'm sure you all know, society is really hard on INTPs...and in fact I'd say both the INxPs have it "tougher" than any other personality type. Society is just set up for SJs (they're by far the largest group of the Keirsey main types, second is SPs) and introvert just means straying away from society anyways. When an INTP's whole life has been spent around 80% SJs, and 15% SPs, my life can be the result.


Family

I was raised by 2 ISTJs, and my 2 closest extending family members (grandparents) were an ISFJ and an ESTJ. ISTJs as the parental authorities for an INTP is just a recipe for disaster. My brother is the ultra-social ESFP.

Growing up, I constantly got the usual INTP harrassment that would be expected from being surrounded by SJs, particularly the rigid STJs...that I was deficient, lazy, screwed up and just not normal. I still get this today from all those family members.


My Mother

My mother is legally physically disabled from a condition similar to an acute Fibromyalgia or Rumetoid Atheritis...but it's probably neither of these things (or is a combination of things). The constant nagging I get to "help your mother around the house," is of course horribly hard for an INTP, and further, my mother is borderline OCD and runs a cleaning company. She doesn't help herself (overloads herself with work...including physical work), and then gives me the "You should do X automatically, I shouldn't have to ask for help." It's extremely stressful to both parties, and a major reason I wish I could find the motivation to support myself again (see the last section).

My true problem with my mother is she thinks she's educated in psychology because she's 6 credits from an associate's in psych. It's incredible because she thinks that I am:
1. Autistic, and claims that she fought to have me diagnosed as such.
2. ADD, and did have me diagnosed with it.
3. Addicted to my computer

When I try to explain that I am truly none of these things, and that MBTI's assessment of me is not only more accurate, but in my opinion more helpful, she closes up and rejects it.

Think about it...
1. She thinks I'm autistic because I don't display "correct emotions." This is typical of an INTP.
2. "Attention deficit" is typical INTP behavior too...we're absorbed in our own thought.
3. The addiction part is only because I've found the computer to be a more convenient, comfortable way of socializing as well as an extremely huge library to feed that intuition and thinking. I've lived completely without my high-powered machine for 2 weeks now, only used this computer once a day to check mail (less then 10 minutes), and writing this is the first time I've done anything other then that on the computer. I do not at all feel any of the pitfalls that addicted persons typically feel (anxiety about the computer, higher stress levels, or a near irresistable urge to "relapse"). Addiction does not seem at all to be the proper concept in play here.

My main difficulty with my mother is that she refuses to even try and see how my behavior is just normal behavior for my personality type. She's convinced I'm defective and psychologically disturbed. When I reject that, she (predictably for an ISTJ!) gets upset and says I'm being disrespectful to her. To her, she's the authority figure since she's my mother, and any time I disagree or debate the issue, the famous, "You just think you're always right," comes out.


How To Hurt an INTP

In fact, I get that from nearly everyone..."You just think you're always right...you will never be convinced that you're wrong." Nothing is more frustrating then that little phrase to an INTP. More then another other type, except perhaps INFPs, we second guess ourselves and almost never admit "being right." I'm honestly tired of hearing this phrase, and all the people that know me have talked about me when I'm not around and have agreed that this is the way I am (my family, my ENFJ neighbor, all the family's friends)...and none of them respect me enough to listen and understand this is INTP normalcy.


The One Person I Loved

Let me tell you about the one person I ever loved (I don't claim to "love" my family, depending on your definition of love...being brutally honest INTP here, but most people do not "love" their family imo, but only do family things out of a sense of duty). The one person I fell in love with, and ever loved, was an INFJ girl. She made an effort to understand me, and I think she truly did. I met her in high school, enjoyed an intesely great friendship with her, and eventually we made it a romantic one. She would listen to me talk about my theories and what I learned for hours, and she honestly liked to listen to it...as we had similar interests in political philosophy, philosophy of religion, psychology, sociology, and sometimes I could get into the artsy-ness she loved to display (particularly music). Predictably, the relationship strained a LOT from lack of attention...she did not get the attention she craved and eventually dumped me and never looked back. The relationship lasted about 3 years, and has been over for about 5 years now.


The Important Part

Honestly, I've long suffered the "emotional death" that I think is a constant threat to INTPs (the one where we are always the outcast...where we're always judged/dominated and feel enslaved to the dominant societal system...and that system just breaks our spirit with seemingly endless and unavoidable stretches of monotony). We are an INCREDIBLY resilient and patient type imo...I've gone 22 years with only a single person ever that would engage in debate, understand me, and most of all...respect who I am. The rest of those years every person in my life has constantly given me the "You always think you're right" speech, told me how abnormal and defective I am, and all of them completely disrespect me because they can get away with it...no one is going to object to disrespecting a person that none of them understand, and such a person that doesn't fit in...that doesn't follow their values, etc...is not worthy of respect.

In the 5 years since I've been dumped, I've had no friends except for passing aquintances and a couple gamer friends (and I've since stopped gaming). For those 5 years I've honestly stagnated...I went to college (had a 3.8 GPA, and by retaking 1 class could get to a 4.0) for a year, but dropped out because I lost the motivation to continue. I still lack that motivation. Although I can sit down with philosophy (which was my major) and get "in the zone" (INTPs, you know what I mean by that!) on even very complex problems such as "the Given," and "The Problem of Induction," I rarely can find the motivation to sit down and do it in the first place. I too often find myself watching reruns of ATHF, playing with the dog, relaxing in the tub, or just not wanting to get out of bed. INTPs typically are the combination of intense intelligence and single minded passion for their subject...I've lost the passion part.

I've also had an interest in physics...particularly astronomy, but philosophy was by far my greatest interest in the past.

Now I live (unemployed atm :/) just in a rut, and it's really getting to me badly. I just can't find the motivation to work a GED-level job enough to get money to get back into college...and even then I don't know if I would have the motivation to keep at college. Any suggestions?

 

[GarmGarf]

If it were up to me, you'd be given mandatory euthanasia ignorantly, instantly and painlessly straight away (but hey, I'd issue that to every human if I could).

But that ain't gonna happen, so I guess next time someone states there is something wrong with you, state that they are but stardust in a certain composition. Nothing says anything is "correct". No universal truth states you are "incorrect" in any way. So their statements are invalid.

I guess suicide is an option. How religious are you?

Alternatively, you can go on social welfare for the rest of your life, and compose philosophies in your own time.

I'd recommend for you to pursue your interest in physics. Ultimately, it does link to philosophy.

 

[FusionKnight]

I would not recommend suicide!

I understand the feelings you're expressing, because I've been there several times. When I was in college, it took me almost getting kicked out of the university, twice, for me to finally buckle down and get through it. A big part of that was having an extremely encouraging and loving wife to help me finally get through it. If you have any close friends, family, etc. that you trust, I would recommend opening up to them, and really sharing your heart, and where you're at.

Another bit of advice I have for young people thinking about not finishing college is this: 4 years (or even 6, as was my case) of your life is a very short time to sacrifice doing something un-fun (I know, it doesn't feel that way when you're in it) for the doors it will open later. The fact of today's society is that many opportunities are closed to those without degrees. I know this seems like a bad reason, and it is, but it's also reality. I would encourage you to do whatever you have to do to go back to school and finish.

It's not just the degree that matters, either. It's the journey. It's the people you might meet, the subjects you might be introduced to, the perspectives you might gain. It is worth it if you can develop an attitude of adventure, learning, and a little humor. Remember that being an INTP is an amazing gift, and it gives you many skills and abilities that others don't have. On the other hand, being INTP isn't being perfect. A place like college is a great place to learn how to use your other functions, and how to learn to deal harmoniously (as much as is possible) with some of the more difficult personalities out there.

College is a tough time. It can be hard, depressing, discouraging, tiring, and downright miserable sometimes. However, at the end, the best reward that you will find, is that you have grown and changed. This is true of all the uncomfortable experiences in our lives. As an (in)famous Minnesota governor once said, "Pain is just weakness leaving the body"!

 

[Auburn]

Eric,

Since you have studied philosophy, I'm assuming you're familiar with the philosophy of determinism.

If, for a moment, we assume determinism to be true, then we can clearly see that there is indeed a set reason for why all those people throughout your lifetime have responed the way they have to an individual such as yourself. Their personalities, which are engrained in their physical makeup, naturally react to yours in the way that two cheimical solutions naturally combine and inevitably yield an undesireable outcome.

Try to more fully understand, as I can see that you have already begun to do so, what circumstances were necessary (and happened) to bring you to where you are, and also figure out what are the exact circumstances that would be necessary to bring you to where you want to be.

Which needs are not being filled in you? What would it take to fill them? As an INTP, using your talent for analysis, you may be able to figure out what are the exact circumstances that would be necessary for you to regain motivation. For instance, it may have to be from a partner/lover who is both willing to understand you fully and will naturally revive that passion in you for things you enjoy by enjoying them with you.

Understand reality and how it works, then "manipulate", per se, reality to yield the outcome you desire just as a chemist mixes solutions to achieve a desired product. Then proceed to do all in your power to create those circumstances that will result in what you desire.

~Auburn~

 

[Decaf]

When I was at that point in my life I joined the Air National Guard. I'm not saying that's what you should do, but I'll tell ya, it helped me a lot. It forced me to cope with situations where I had no option but to buckle down, because the option of retreat was taken away (believe it or not, but that helps). It also helped me get through college with benefit incentives and a decent paycheck (considering it was just one weekend a month).

It certainly had more than its share of unpleasantness, but I also walked away with stories. Don't underestimate the confidence that having stories can bring you. INTPs are often disregarded by others because they are seen to lack experience, and in part they're right. We trust our thoughts implicitely, and that is a strength, but we can trust them too much sometimes. We can be tempted to trust our thoughts above our perception of reality. Life experience is both the aid we need to keep from doing that AND a way to shut up those people who claim that we don't know what we're talking about.

Obviously the military isn't for most people, and may not be for you. I only suggest it because it surprisingly worked wonders for me. I came back far stronger physically than I left, confidant in myself, full of stories interesting and terrible and with enough college benefits to get me through 4 years. I also credit my military experience for favoritism I've gotten on my resume.

I didn't go to war. That obviously changes things a lot, but that's why I joined the Air Force and not the Army. If you do well enough on your ASVAB (which being an INTP is extremely likely) you might even get yourself a clincher job like cryptography, computer security or air traffic control.


Wow, I don't think I've prattled on about the military like that for a long time. If you discount it out of hand, that's your prerogative. I only mention it because it in many ways it was my rite of passage. I could not have imagined how much more control I would have over my life before I left and hardly remember what life was like now that I'm done.

If you are interested, I will also say this. Don't believe anything a recruiter tells you. NOT ANYTHING. They are assholes who will lie like used car salesmen. But the deal is solid nonetheless.

 

[FusionKnight]

If you are interested, I will also say this. Don't believe anything a recruiter tells you. NOT ANYTHING. They are assholes who will lie like used car salesmen.

Now that's a disturbing thought...

 

[Ermine]

I can totally relate with your family situation. My mom, an ISTJ, is always telling me to be "more humble" yet I never assume I'm right. If anything, she's the one that needs to be more humble. Also hate it when she compares me to my autistic sister. At least my N is starting to rub off on her.

And I'm also frustrated with the college system. There are too many obstacles to pure education. I have to sidestep the affirmative action nonsense, search and search for colleges that have flexible majoring options, (I don't even like the major-minor system anyway), a place with high academic standards so I don't get bored AND a place with low tuition. Too many factors at once, and it seems I'm forced to pick a mediocre choice and educate myself since school doesn't seem like it will ever do. And I'll never have any time to take all the classes I want.

Sorry for the venting.

 

[FusionKnight]

My mom would always use terms like "arrogant", "cynical", "lazy", and "insensitive"... I totally get where you're coming from.

 

[flow]

If it were up to me, you'd be given mandatory euthanasia ignorantly, instantly and painlessly straight away (but hey, I'd issue that to every human if I could).

But that ain't gonna happen, so I guess next time someone states there is something wrong with you, state that they are but stardust in a certain composition. Nothing says anything is "correct". No universal truth states you are "incorrect" in any way. So their statements are invalid.

I guess suicide is an option. How religious are you?

Alternatively, you can go on social welfare for the rest of your life, and compose philosophies in your own time.

Wow. I hope this response was completely a joke, but be that as it may, I think we can all agree that posts like this are completely unnecessary and harmful.

As for college, I'm currently struggling my way through it (I hope to graduate in May with a General Studies degree). I've been taking classes like Anthropology, psychology, philosophy, etc. I'm just trying to get BA and then join either the Peace Corps or Americorps or some sort of program like that.. I'm still open to ideas though.. (I blame my INTPness).

 

[GarmGarf]

Wow. I hope this response was completely a joke, but be that as it may, I think we can all agree that posts like this are completely unnecessary and harmful.

Excuse me; it is no joke. Suicide is an option, and should be taken seriously.

And please; my ideals or no jest either. I would appreciate if you didn't belittle them.

Although I wont take this personally, I still wish to make it clear that I am not joking. I take pity to the misery of this individual.

I am a poet, and what is the duty of poets? Well: "to say what one feels, and not what one ought to".

 

[flow]

I don't think "this individual" was seeking pity, and suggestions of suicide. Life is a gift, don't waste it. And MORE importantly, don't encourage others to waste it either. Disgusting!

 

[GarmGarf]

I don't think "this individual" was seeking pity, and suggestions of suicide. Life is a gift, don't waste it. And MORE importantly, don't encourage others to waste it either. Disgusting!

Life is a curse. People are forced into it.

Begrudging individuals death is what is disgusting.

 

[Jesin]

I, for one, say that you should not recommend suicide unless you've gone through with it, or heard recommendations from those who have.

 

[Duty]

When I was at that point in my life I joined the Air National Guard. I'm not saying that's what you should do, but I'll tell ya, it helped me a lot. It forced me to cope with situations where I had no option but to buckle down, because the option of retreat was taken away (believe it or not, but that helps). It also helped me get through college with benefit incentives and a decent paycheck (considering it was just one weekend a month).

It certainly had more than its share of unpleasantness, but I also walked away with stories. Don't underestimate the confidence that having stories can bring you. INTPs are often disregarded by others because they are seen to lack experience, and in part they're right. We trust our thoughts implicitely, and that is a strength, but we can trust them too much sometimes. We can be tempted to trust our thoughts above our perception of reality. Life experience is both the aid we need to keep from doing that AND a way to shut up those people who claim that we don't know what we're talking about.

Obviously the military isn't for most people, and may not be for you. I only suggest it because it surprisingly worked wonders for me. I came back far stronger physically than I left, confidant in myself, full of stories interesting and terrible and with enough college benefits to get me through 4 years. I also credit my military experience for favoritism I've gotten on my resume.

I didn't go to war. That obviously changes things a lot, but that's why I joined the Air Force and not the Army. If you do well enough on your ASVAB (which being an INTP is extremely likely) you might even get yourself a clincher job like cryptography, computer security or air traffic control.


Wow, I don't think I've prattled on about the military like that for a long time. If you discount it out of hand, that's your prerogative. I only mention it because it in many ways it was my rite of passage. I could not have imagined how much more control I would have over my life before I left and hardly remember what life was like now that I'm done.

If you are interested, I will also say this. Don't believe anything a recruiter tells you. NOT ANYTHING. They are assholes who will lie like used car salesmen. But the deal is solid nonetheless.

Unfortunately I have to discount the military out of hand. That INFJ girl had a big influence on me and convinced me of the values of pacifism. Although for a society I could advocate a Just War theory leaning heavily on the side of not going to war, personally I would rather die then kill another person. The only time I could fight someone is if it was a sport like boxing or MMA.

I have looked into the Peace Corps and similar though...but they all require college diplomas.

Eric,

Since you have studied philosophy, I'm assuming you're familiar with the philosophy of determinism.

If, for a moment, we assume determinism to be true, then we can clearly see that there is indeed a set reason for why all those people throughout your lifetime have responed the way they have to an individual such as yourself. Their personalities, which are engrained in their physical makeup, naturally react to yours in the way that two cheimical solutions naturally combine and inevitably yield an undesireable outcome.

Try to more fully understand, as I can see that you have already begun to do so, what circumstances were necessary (and happened) to bring you to where you are, and also figure out what are the exact circumstances that would be necessary to bring you to where you want to be.

Which needs are not being filled in you? What would it take to fill them? As an INTP, using your talent for analysis, you may be able to figure out what are the exact circumstances that would be necessary for you to regain motivation. For instance, it may have to be from a partner/lover who is both willing to understand you fully and will naturally revive that passion in you for things you enjoy by enjoying them with you.

Understand reality and how it works, then "manipulate", per se, reality to yield the outcome you desire just as a chemist mixes solutions to achieve a desired product. Then proceed to do all in your power to create those circumstances that will result in what you desire.

~Auburn~

Heh, I could go on and on about determinism vs free will, but suffice it to say, I suspect the whole argument is pretty meaningless and unknowable as is most of metaphysics. From an ethical standpoint, there can't be ethics if determinism is completely right, but complete free will makes little sense either. I'd say our situation is determined, and our dispositions may be strongly inclined to a certain choice or outcome...but in the end humans have the unique ability amongst the animals to opt out of following their instincts. We have the ability to reason and choose against our feelings or nature.

However, what you're generally saying isn't negated just by disagreeing with determinism. The people in my life are strongly disposed to judging me as a deviant. xSTJ is nearly defined by doing that in the eyes of an INTP.

As far as which needs aren't being fulfilled...I'd say first and foremost the passion for a subject. I enjoy philosophy, but more in the realm of discussing it with others and debating it, which brings me to the second thing...I have no person that cares about me in a non-physical well being sense, no person that respects me, and no person that I can discuss my ideas with. INTPs I think benefit a lot from having a few friends they can go to and say, "Hey, I figured this out and..." I have had only 1 such friend ever. I want to say that going back to college would fulfill that...but it never fulfilled that before (maybe just the wrong college...Oklahoma State is like 40% business majors, 15% agriculture, 10% biology, 10% engineering, 10% education...etc...I think I was one of about 40 philosophy majors out of about 20k students when I went there). Perhaps if I transferred over to OU (which is like 60% social sciences, liberal arts, and education) I might be more likely to meet people...but I wouldn't get my hopes too far up. Oklahoma is not a good state, as far as culture, for an INTP, but I can't afford an out of state college (or even in state atm :/).

I would not recommend suicide!

I understand the feelings you're expressing, because I've been there several times. When I was in college, it took me almost getting kicked out of the university, twice, for me to finally buckle down and get through it. A big part of that was having an extremely encouraging and loving wife to help me finally get through it. If you have any close friends, family, etc. that you trust, I would recommend opening up to them, and really sharing your heart, and where you're at.

Another bit of advice I have for young people thinking about not finishing college is this: 4 years (or even 6, as was my case) of your life is a very short time to sacrifice doing something un-fun (I know, it doesn't feel that way when you're in it) for the doors it will open later. The fact of today's society is that many opportunities are closed to those without degrees. I know this seems like a bad reason, and it is, but it's also reality. I would encourage you to do whatever you have to do to go back to school and finish.

It's not just the degree that matters, either. It's the journey. It's the people you might meet, the subjects you might be introduced to, the perspectives you might gain. It is worth it if you can develop an attitude of adventure, learning, and a little humor. Remember that being an INTP is an amazing gift, and it gives you many skills and abilities that others don't have. On the other hand, being INTP isn't being perfect. A place like college is a great place to learn how to use your other functions, and how to learn to deal harmoniously (as much as is possible) with some of the more difficult personalities out there.

College is a tough time. It can be hard, depressing, discouraging, tiring, and downright miserable sometimes. However, at the end, the best reward that you will find, is that you have grown and changed. This is true of all the uncomfortable experiences in our lives. As an (in)famous Minnesota governor once said, "Pain is just weakness leaving the body"!

I have to agree. College can suck so bad for INTPs because they make you take so many seemingly useless and crappy classes. My big hatred was foreign language, as I deemed it completely retardedly useless for a philosophy major. Let people translate philosophy into English and I'll read that. OSU required 10 credit-hours of foreign language too :/

As far as trusted family members...I don't trust a single person that I know personally. Most of them despise me...they're almost all sensors, and I've never gotten along with sensor types ever.

I can totally relate with your family situation. My mom, an ISTJ, is always telling me to be "more humble" yet I never assume I'm right. If anything, she's the one that needs to be more humble. Also hate it when she compares me to my autistic sister. At least my N is starting to rub off on her.

Ya, if anyone in my life I can enjoy once in a long while it's my mother. The N part is exactly what can rub off on her sometimes. We have a mutual interest in astronomy...but the problem is her interest is all visual and just doing star gazing/identifying constellations. My interest is in things like the physiology of black holes, how gravity bends space-time and early universe formation. I have to keep it simple to relate to her when we spend time together.

 

[Jesin]

there can't be ethics if determinism is completely right

But what if ethics are fated to exist?

 

[GarmGarf]

I, for one, say that you should not recommend suicide unless you've gone through with it, or heard recommendations from those who have.

I didn't recommend suicide. I stated that it was an option.

And, this is an INTP forum. INTPs are theoretical people. Experience isn't a requirement for recommendations.

Heh, I could go on and on about determinism vs free will, but suffice it to say, I suspect the whole argument is pretty meaningless and unknowable as is most of metaphysics. From an ethical standpoint, there can't be ethics if determinism is completely right, but complete free will makes little sense either. I'd say our situation is determined, and our dispositions may be strongly inclined to a certain choice or outcome...but in the end humans have the unique ability amongst the animals to opt out of following their instincts. We have the ability to reason and choose against our feelings or nature.

Reason and choosing against feelings are phenomena produced from determinism. When one reasons or chooses against feelings/nature, all that is happening is matter in one's brain moving around into different configurations, still dictated by events out of one's control.

 

[Duty]

But what if ethics are fated to exist?

I need to clarify that statement...

I meant responsibility and blame could not justly be attributed to agents if determinism is completely right.

As in...we don't call animals immoral because their behavior is so strongly determined. We can call people immoral because we understand that they do have a much better capacity for choice.

 

[Duty]

Reason and choosing against feelings are phenomena produced from determinism. When one reasons or chooses against feelings/nature, all that is happening is matter in one's brain moving around into different configurations, still dictated by events out of one's control.

My main objection to the determinism/free will debate is epistemological in nature. I'd say we simply can not have knowledge that either system is truly describing the reality of things because both systems "evidence" are based on conjecture and inductive inference. I remain a skeptic on induction but I currently may have some theory of solving it in the works.

 

[GarmGarf]

I meant responsibility and blame could not justly be attributed to agents if determinism is completely right.

Yes, that is correct.

Actually, I remember that I was going to compose a post sating that mentioning determinism would only make your situation worse.

If you evaluated that determinism is correct, not only have you been put through hard times, but you can't blame anyone.

 

[Duty]

Yes, that is correct.

Actually, I remember that I was going to compose a post sating that mentioning determinism would only make your situation worse.

If you evaluated that determinism is correct, not only have you been put through hard times, but you can't blame anyone.

Well, being the logical INTP I am, stating that determinism makes it so blame becomes meaningless doesn't disprove that determinism is the system that is truly at work in the world. The fallacy of consequences would be committed if one proposed that determinism is just wrong because they then couldn't blame anyone for anything.

That's why I have to make my main objection on epistemological grounds and say the distinction is meaningless because we can not possibly gain proper justification for belief in either system.

 

[EditorOne]

That girl dumping you will stay with you forever if you let it. I believe you can't think yourself out of this, and I also think counseling by a professional would probably help you normalize all that has happened. Many of us have gone through similar situations, what you described is hugely familiar to many of us, and the girl thing too. But it is of course the undeveloped emotional side of things that is snaring you in a mesh of unresolved conflicting feelings. I'd give a lot to go back 40 years and have somebody "normalize" me after exactly the same thing happened. It would have been a shortcut to a more balanced state. "Normalize" is the epiphanous word I picked up, eventually, from counseling on an unrelated thing a while back. I think (of course, I think, I'm INTP) that a lot of us crave some normalization from time to time, and it is almost always when we let what passes for feelings with us dominate our existence because we let them loom larger than they would to a person more equipped to deal with them. Phew. I'm out of breath from typing that but was afraid to stop for fear of losing the thoughts....

Yes, I think the girl thing is at the root of it, been there done that and recognize the symptoms. Be glad you're not inclined toward reckless behavior as a release from the frustration, it ages your body too quickly. :-)

Get some counseling. Someone you pick because they're a professional and you've done the thinking thing and checked that they are down with INTP and whatnot and can speak to you usefully without their own agenda.

Don't go for the suicide option. It forecloses the possiblity of seeing what happens next..... got to feed the curiosity part of your brain, right?

 

[GarmGarf]

In order for determinism to not be correct, there must be some magical thing which allows for free will.

When one makes a decision, the decision's verdict is composed in their brain based on two things. The first is the situation they are placed under, and the other is the content of their brain.

Take any decision, and you will see that if you keep on tracing back, eventually it can be seen that ultimately, the situation's existence wasn't in the individual's control.

For example, take it that a person has to make the choice of whether they register into a forums or not. One might state that they chose to surf the net, therefore they contributed into the existence of the situation, but if you take a few steps back, there will be a reason why they were surfing the net, which could be because it is their daily routine. Go back and you will find that they didn't choose for computers to exist, let alone the internet, and they might have a daily internet routine because they have little friends or something. Just keep on going back and you eventually arrive to when they were born, and they didn't choose to be born, so ultimately, the situation's existence is not under their control.

Now, the content of the brain is shaped by situations; the brain obeys the laws of physics; the brain is a physical thing. If two perfectly identical people were put under two different situations, the produced entities would be two different people. The content of one's brain is ultimately not chosen by the person.

Now, there is one valid argument I have found that works against determinism, which is the randomness of nano theory. However, randomness isn't free will, and therefore we can conclude that free will does not exist, unless proof of some magical free will component can be acquired.

Don't go for the suicide option. It forecloses the possiblity of seeing what happens next..... got to feed the curiosity part of your brain, right?

But one must recognise that there will be no mind to feed if one executes suicide, and thus there will be no purpose or necessity to feed it.

 

[Duty]

That girl dumping you will stay with you forever if you let it. I believe you can't think yourself out of this, and I also think counseling by a professional would probably help you normalize all that has happened. Many of us have gone through similar situations, what you described is hugely familiar to many of us, and the girl thing too. But it is of course the undeveloped emotional side of things that is snaring you in a mesh of unresolved conflicting feelings. I'd give a lot to go back 40 years and have somebody "normalize" me after exactly the same thing happened. It would have been a shortcut to a more balanced state. "Normalize" is the epiphanous word I picked up, eventually, from counseling on an unrelated thing a while back. I think (of course, I think, I'm INTP) that a lot of us crave some normalization from time to time, and it is almost always when we let what passes for feelings with us dominate our existence because we let them loom larger than they would to a person more equipped to deal with them. Phew. I'm out of breath from typing that but was afraid to stop for fear of losing the thoughts....

Yes, I think the girl thing is at the root of it, been there done that and recognize the symptoms. Be glad you're not inclined toward reckless behavior as a release from the frustration, it ages your body too quickly. :-)

Get some counseling. Someone you pick because they're a professional and you've done the thinking thing and checked that they are down with INTP and whatnot and can speak to you usefully without their own agenda.

I think this is solid advice, but I lack financial resources to employ professional help, unless there is some socialized psychological program in the US that I am unaware of.

Don't go for the suicide option. It forecloses the possiblity of seeing what happens next..... got to feed the curiosity part of your brain, right?

This is so true that it has brought me back from thinking about suicide twice. It's the only reason I may not have done it...because it means I would stop learning. I'm just too curious about what is going to happen and what could possibly happen.




I'll be back later to answer further responses. Thanks for your support guys and gals!

 

[Duty]

Take any decision, and you will see that if you keep on tracing back, eventually it can be seen that ultimately, the situation's existence wasn't in the individual's control.

I would agree that it certainly seems this way, but I think you're arguing a straw man. The way I understand determinism is that not only the situation's existence is determined, but the choice the individual makes is determined as well. That's where free will and determinism split...determinism states that the choice is already made and the individual must choose this way or that based on a complex (and unknown) calculus that takes personality, basic organism drives, etc into consideration. Free will states that we make our own choices about how to proceed.

The way I would say the world most seems to be (although as I said...knowledge of this is impossible) is that the situations are normally not determined, but out of the limited choices we have, we have essentially a free will to choose among those choices. We're typically strongly inclined to a certain choice (as INTPs are inclined to rebellion when told to do something and do it now), but we're not determined beforehand to do such a thing.

 

[GarmGarf]

I would agree that it certainly seems this way, but I think you're arguing a straw man. The way I understand determinism is that not only the situation's existence is determined, but the choice the individual makes is determined as well.

When someone makes a decision, the verdict of this decision is determined by the content of their brain and the particular situation, as I have stated before (and since I evaluate neither is the choice of the person, free will does not exist).

It ain't so much that God or whatever already decided what will happen, but that the figures of every situation are put into the equation of the universe, and the universe never makes an error. This includes the situations happening inside one's brain when they make a decision.

If that is not the case, well physics doesn't make any sense or there is some magical free will element to be accounted for.

Now, there is a possibility that the universe rolls dice (randomness of nano-mechanics), but regardless, individuals: products of the universe, don't choose the results of these chance rolls, so still, free will doesn't exist.

That's where free will and determinism split...determinism states that the choice is already made and the individual must choose this way or that based on a complex (and unknown) calculus that takes personality, basic organism drives, etc into consideration. Free will states that we make our own choices about how to proceed.

It doesn't take into account if any of those things directly. The universe doesn't really care that we are "living". The universe takes into account less compound concepts, including the laws of matter and energy. Our brains and bodies follow the determination of what our matter and energy are governed by.

The way I would say the world most seems to be (although as I said...knowledge of this is impossible) is that the situations are normally not determined, but out of the limited choices we have, we have essentially a free will to choose among those choices. We're typically strongly inclined to a certain choice (as INTPs are inclined to rebellion when told to do something and do it now), but we're not determined beforehand to do such a thing.

It's not impossible to know. It's just that some magical free will element will have to exist if free will is to. The burden of proof is on those who claim free will exists.

 

[Jesin]

I meant responsibility and blame could not justly be attributed to agents if determinism is completely right.

As in...we don't call animals immoral because their behavior is so strongly determined. We can call people immoral because we understand that they do have a much better capacity for choice.

"Maybe it wasn't your fault you committed the crime. Maybe it was your destiny. Maybe it's my destiny to punish you for it."

 

[loveofreason]

Well I think you're on the road to recovery here.

Or at least distraction.


Credit to you both Duty and GarmGarf.

And welcome!

 

[GarmGarf]

"Maybe it wasn't your fault you committed the crime. Maybe it was your destiny. Maybe it's my destiny to punish you for it."

Oh yeah. This is the best part. With our knowledge, we can justify anything we do; or at least not feel bad about it.

If I kill someone, guess what? No one can't blame me. >



Also, on a more society-running-smoothly approach, yes, there is still justification in jailing individuals who commit crimes:

"If an object in a room posses a threat to other things in a room, it is fixed, replaced or just removed. For example, if a shelf is wobbly which causes items placed on it to fall off, the shelf is repaired. However, if repair isn't an option, then it is replaced. And if replacement isn't on option, well still; it's gotta go." - Same thing applies to individuals.

And also, the executing of jailing is a deterrent, which will cause less crime than if jails weren't implemented.


Edit:

Well I think you're on the road to recovery here.

Or at least distraction.


Credit to you both Duty and GarmGarf.

And welcome!

Wait, who requires recovery? Oh, and thanks; I guess. :P

 

[Duty]

"Maybe it wasn't your fault you committed the crime. Maybe it was your destiny. Maybe it's my destiny to punish you for it."

Well, in philosophy we firmly believe you have to have a reason for believing something or else you aren't justified in believing it (and subsequently any actions made without justification aren't really justified themselves). So if you don't have a reason to punish, because you can't blame, then you aren't justified in punishing.

"If an object in a room posses a threat to other things in a room, it is fixed, replaced or just removed. For example, if a shelf is wobbly which causes items placed on it to fall off, the shelf is repaired. However, if repair isn't an option, then it is replaced. And if replacement isn't on option, well still; it's gotta go." - Same thing applies to individuals.

Hmm, good response, but I think it misses a critical point...that people are in fact different from objects. When people are locked up, it makes them feel bad and is something they will otherwise resist having to do. Most people do not want to go to prison. If it's something that they were determined to have to do, while others aren't determined to do it...it doesn't seem fair or just in any way. If they can't help but have to kill someone, it doesn't seem right that we should punish them.

 

[Dissident]

Hey Vanadium, why did you delete your post?

Welcome to the forum, dont be shy!

 

[severus]

May I introduce..
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=376

Old and dead, but still interesting!

 

[GarmGarf]

Well, in philosophy we firmly believe you have to have a reason for believing something or else you aren't justified in believing it (and subsequently any actions made without justification aren't really justified themselves). So if you don't have a reason to punish, because you can't blame, then you aren't justified in punishing.

Ahh, but you could punish them and then tolerate your own actions ("forgive" yourself) afterwards because you too don't possess any free will.

Hmm, good response, but I think it misses a critical point...that people are in fact different from objects. When people are locked up, it makes them feel bad and is something they will otherwise resist having to do. Most people do not want to go to prison. If it's something that they were determined to have to do, while others aren't determined to do it...it doesn't seem fair or just in any way. If they can't help but have to kill someone, it doesn't seem right that we should punish them.

Yes, life isn't fair. That's why I go around stating that I'd issue mandatory euthanasia to every human ignorantly instantly and painlessly. This would terminate their suffering as well as terminate the unfairness of existence.

Ahh, but are these individuals objects? The argument to not lock them up is because they are free-will-less. The emotions in their head is just matter and energy constituted in a certain composition. Yes, they are objects; their emotions shouldn't be considered. Emotions aren't valid anyway; emotions don't justify themselves.

Still, prison must exist and be used as a deterrent. If you do wish to base your justification on emotion and suffering, well the people in prison cause suffering to others. On a purely addition/subtraction scale, more suffering would exist if no one was put into prison. Which is worse: punishing some people for events which were not their fault, or punishing everyone?

The best system would be to kill everyone who commits a crime, unless they themselves sign a document stating that they don't mind serving their sentence. When you kill someone, you terminate their suffering and bring them back to Oblivion from whence they came.

 

[Dissident]

(Maybe there should be a thread-split-merge)

My current stance is the following:

I'd bring epiphenomenalism from dualism to materialist monism. Consciusness is an emergent property of the brain, its purpose is to unite all the processes of the brain in one "self", this is achieved by separating consciusness from those processes, its job is only to become aware of the decisions made by them.

Imagine a lake, below its surface there is a big machinery which consciusness cant see from above the surface; all it sees are the bubbles produced by it, those bubbles are the result of the complex mechanism's proccessing, they are the brain's output.

Now imagine consciusness as the shadow of that output, it becomes aware of them almost exactly at the same time as they happen and feels it as its own. Imagine your shadow having a consciousness that tricks it to believe that actually you are its shadow, you are mimicking its movements, since both happen seemingly at the same time, the shadow believes that he is the cause and you are the effect.

I think that our consciusness has these properties, it is a deterministic product of the brain, it doesnt affect anything, it doesnt decide anything, it is just aware of things. But this awareness exists, its real, the difference between breaking a rock and breaking someone's arm is that the person is aware of what is happening, it is aware of the pain, etc; the rock is not. Cosciusness is what separates us from objects even if we function under the same deterministic laws as them.

This is partly supported by this: http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

 

[GarmGarf]

(Maybe there should be a thread-split-merge)

My current stance is the following:

I'd bring epiphenomenalism from dualism to materialist monism. Consciusness is an emergent property of the brain, its purpose is to unite all the processes of the brain in one "self", this is achieved by separating consciusness from those processes, its job is only to become aware of the decisions made by them.

Imagine a lake, below its surface there is a big machinery which consciusness cant see from above the surface; all it sees are the bubbles produced by it, those bubbles are the result of the complex mechanism's proccessing, they are the brain's output.

Now imagine consciusness as the shadow of that output, it becomes aware of them almost exactly at the same time as they happen and feels it as its own. Imagine your shadow having a consciousness that tricks it to believe that actually you are its shadow, you are mimicking its movements, since both happen seemingly at the same time, the shadow believes that he is the cause and you are the effect.

I think that our consciusness has these properties, it is a deterministic product of the brain, it doesnt affect anything, it doesnt decide anything, it is just aware of things. But this awareness exists, its real, the difference between breaking a rock and breaking someone's arm is that the person is aware of what is happening, it is aware of the pain, etc; the rock is not. Cosciusness is what separates us from objects even if we function under the same deterministic laws as them.

This is partly supported by this: http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

That's I very good hypothesis, and I'd state that I agree with it.

Still, what would happen if the data within one's brain were to be saved and then copied onto another brain? How special is this consciousness, really?

 

[Dissident]

Not really knowing how consciusness is produced or how to detect its presence, that is nearly impossible to answer with certainty, but if it was posible to copy everything exactly then I dont see why couldnt both be conscius, and from living different situations from that point on they would end up having different personalities, etc.

 

[GarmGarf]

Not really knowing how consciusness is produced or how to detect its presence, that is nearly impossible to answer with certainty, but if it was posible to copy everything exactly then I dont see why couldnt both be conscius, and from living different situations from that point on they would end up having different personalities, etc.

Consciousness must be produced by something physical. By tampering with a brain, one can affect another's mind. By destroying a brain, one can kill another.

My point is that if you programed the thoughts of someone into a robot, would the robot have consciousness?

 

[Duty]

Yes, life isn't fair. That's why I go around stating that I'd issue mandatory euthanasia to every human ignorantly instantly and painlessly. This would terminate their suffering as well as terminate the unfairness of existence.

Ahh, but are these individuals objects? The argument to not lock them up is because they are free-will-less. The emotions in their head is just matter and energy constituted in a certain composition. Yes, they are objects; their emotions shouldn't be considered. Emotions aren't valid anyway; emotions don't justify themselves.

Still, prison must exist and be used as a deterrent. If you do wish to base your justification on emotion and suffering, well the people in prison cause suffering to others. On a purely addition/subtraction scale, more suffering would exist if no one was put into prison. Which is worse: punishing some people for events which were not their fault, or punishing everyone?

The best system would be to kill everyone who commits a crime, unless they themselves sign a document stating that they don't mind serving their sentence. When you kill someone, you terminate their suffering and bring them back to Oblivion from whence they came.

I understand your argument, but prison is viewed as a punishment. If all actions are determined, they're all morally equal in the sense that you can't place blame on a person. Blame is a core component of ethics and political theories of crime. If all actions are equally moral as they're all determined, then how can we as people justify punishing some people and not others, if all their actions are equal?

Punishing everyone would be locking everyone up in prison, or euthanizing the entire world. Separating some people out as criminals, when they're performed actions that are morally equal to the rest of the world (only intuitively do they seem like criminals), is unjustified.

I'm going to do some research today on the free will vs determinism problem. It's a problem I've always ignored because I epistemically object to even being able to know which system is the actual system in place (and still do), and I considered it solved by...I believe it was Hume...who basically said it seems that our situations are often determined and not up to us, and we may have limited choices per situation, and we may even be heavily influenced toward choosing a certain decision...but we always make a choice, and are free to make a different one from what we're inclined, and that's what separates humans from animals.

(Maybe there should be a thread-split-merge)

My current stance is the following:

I'd bring epiphenomenalism from dualism to materialist monism. Consciusness is an emergent property of the brain, its purpose is to unite all the processes of the brain in one "self", this is achieved by separating consciusness from those processes, its job is only to become aware of the decisions made by them.

Imagine a lake, below its surface there is a big machinery which consciusness cant see from above the surface; all it sees are the bubbles produced by it, those bubbles are the result of the complex mechanism's proccessing, they are the brain's output.

Now imagine consciusness as the shadow of that output, it becomes aware of them almost exactly at the same time as they happen and feels it as its own. Imagine your shadow having a consciousness that tricks it to believe that actually you are its shadow, you are mimicking its movements, since both happen seemingly at the same time, the shadow believes that he is the cause and you are the effect.

I think that our consciusness has these properties, it is a deterministic product of the brain, it doesnt affect anything, it doesnt decide anything, it is just aware of things. But this awareness exists, its real, the difference between breaking a rock and breaking someone's arm is that the person is aware of what is happening, it is aware of the pain, etc; the rock is not. Cosciusness is what separates us from objects even if we function under the same deterministic laws as them.

This is partly supported by this: http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

2 Questions:
1. How would you know this to be true?
2. How would you prove this to be true?


No offense, but I think the proper answer to both those questions is "you can't know or prove it." I'm going to have to epistemically object to this as just describing the way things "seem" to be (or possibly, what you "hope" them to be), but not the way you "know" it to be.

Metaphysics runs into that problem a LOT. Epistemology really overrides it in many places because you have to justify how you know your metaphysical system to be true. If you can't justify it then it's just supposition, even if it's fun supposition to toy with. So to justify it, you need a whole theory about how knowledge is justified...hence epistemology.

 

[Dissident]

2 Questions:
1. How would you know this to be true?
2. How would you prove this to be true?

1- I dont.
2- I cant.

No offense, but I think the proper answer to both those questions is "you can't know or prove it." I'm going to have to epistemically object to this as just describing the way things "seem" to be (or possibly, what you "hope" them to be), but not the way you "know" it to be.

I never claimed to KNOW this to be true, I said that this is my current stance, I did some research, I gave it quite some thought and this is what makes more sense to me right now. This is OBVIOUSLY just my theory of it, noone actually knows how consciusness works, maybe one day we will figure it out. I would love to hear you objections as long as they are specific, if there is a contradiction within it or with some piece of evidence believe me, Im eager to know. Just lighten up mate.

 

[Duty]

1- I dont.
2- I cant.


I never claimed to KNOW this to be true, I said that this is my current stance, I did some research, I gave it quite some thought and this is what makes more sense to me right now. This is OBVIOUSLY just my theory of it, noone actually knows how consciusness works, maybe one day we will figure it out. I would love to hear you objections as long as they are specific, if there is a contradiction within it or with some piece of evidence believe me, Im eager to know. Just lighten up mate.

Hey, chill now, I'm just saying that if you don't know something, it can only be supposition. Think like in science when there's a difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A theory is pretty strong and has lots of supporting evidence...it's likely to convince people of it's truth. A hypothesis is just that...it's neat and interesting, but it's unlikely to convince people of it's truth without supporting evidence.

I'm not trying to personally attack you and condemn your views as invalid and retarded, I'm just objecting to them and perhaps giving you something to think about.

 

[GarmGarf]

I understand your argument, but prison is viewed as a punishment. If all actions are determined, they're all morally equal in the sense that you can't place blame on a person. Blame is a core component of ethics and political theories of crime. If all actions are equally moral as they're all determined, then how can we as people justify punishing some people and not others, if all their actions are equal?

Stop looking it as a punishment; it is a necessity for society to run smoothly. If prisons' goal was to punish people, then the prisoners would be tortured.

Punishing everyone would be locking everyone up in prison, or euthanizing the entire world.

Well, I'd consider mandatory euthanasia to be what is deserved; for what was done to be undone; but that's another issue.

Separating some people out as criminals, when they're performed actions that are morally equal to the rest of the world (only intuitively do they seem like criminals), is unjustified.

But we are treading on an area where if something was justified incorrectly, it is still okay because the thinkers didn't have free will.

I'm going to do some research today on the free will vs determinism problem. It's a problem I've always ignored because I epistemically object to even being able to know which system is the actual system in place (and still do), and I considered it solved by...I believe it was Hume...who basically said it seems that our situations are often determined and not up to us, and we may have limited choices per situation, and we may even be heavily influenced toward choosing a certain decision...but we always make a choice, and are free to make a different one from what we're inclined, and that's what separates humans from animals.

So there a few extra details thrown into the equation when humans are involved. Still, humans, ultimately, don't choose the content of their brain or the situation they are under. It may seem as if we have some power over our choices, but we don't, and we might as well just be an animal or a rock.



The burden of proof here is on those who believe free will exist. For free will to exist, what humans know to be physics has to be wrong, basically.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

2 Questions:
1. How would you know this to be true?
2. How would you prove this to be true?

1. How would you know this not to be true?
2. How would you prove this not to be true?

No offense, but I think the proper answer to both those questions is "you can't know or prove it." I'm going to have to epistemically object to this as just describing the way things "seem" to be (or possibly, what you "hope" them to be), but not the way you "know" it to be.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. It has nothing to do with proof, veracity, or justification of any given theory.
One cannot object to something merely because it exceeds the current limits of knowledge.

To argue this on a basis of proof or fact, you would have to ascribe to an empirical argument, for empirical arguments are provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Metaphysics runs into that problem a LOT. Epistemology really overrides it in many places because you have to justify how you know your metaphysical system to be true. If you can't justify it then it's just supposition, even if it's fun supposition to toy with. So to justify it, you need a whole theory about how knowledge is justified...hence epistemology.

One cannot justify anything with a theory of knowledge, for a theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

"Metaphysics runs into that problem a LOT" because metaphysics is concerned with abstract thought or subjects, such as existence, causality, or truth, and is concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, such as being, time, or substance which again are highly abstract, subtle, or abstruse.
Abstractions are conceived as apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances, and therefore not subject to concrete proofs by epistemological means.
Metaphysics is beyond physics (Greek meta, after or beyond + phusika, physics). It is that which, by definition, we speculate on after all the physical data is confirmed by epistemology.

It may be that anything metaphysical can never be proven as most metaphysical theories, such as proof of God or origin of consciousness, are concerned with that which, by definition, is beyond any physical instrument of measurement or means of discovery we could devise.
The experiments proposed by Benjamin Libet, would require physical incision into a human brain while the individual is conscious therefore, it is highly unlikely that this theory, which Dissident derive his from, will ever be proven epistemologically.

(...btw, Dissident, it's nice to know someone else reads the Conscious Entities site)

In metaphysical discussions, the burden of proof is always moot, but acceptable because no epistemological proof can be forthcoming unless the subject of the metaphysical argument enters the realm of the physical. All we can do within these discussions is compare various theories and come to conclusions of possibility and probability, but never proof. The direct experience which an individual offers as proof or validity of a theory is only proof to that individual. Similar to one who claims disproof of said theory.

The words 'proof' and 'validity' should be struck from all metaphysical discussions, for when concerning the metaphysical these are personal and individual, and should be replaced by 'probability' and 'possibility'.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

The burden of proof here is on those who believe free will exist. For free will to exist, what humans know to be physics has to be wrong, basically.

How so? How does free will affect gravity, the speed of light, the density of a rock, or entropy?

Again, free will is an abstraction, a metaphysical concept. It's probability and possibility can be debated, but not its existence or validity.

 

[Dissident]

I did some research and I think that this is reasonable given the information I could gather, who is the authority to tell hypothesis from theories I dont know, and ultimately I dont care. Anyway, you may want to read, besides the link I posted, this: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/conscwil.htm Im not saying the first crazy thing that came into my mind.

I'm not trying to personally attack you and condemn your views as invalid and retarded, I'm just objecting to them and perhaps giving you something to think about.

Again, Id love to hear you objections. That I cant prove it I always knew and never claimed to be able to do so. If we are discussing free will then lets do it, I say what I think, you say what you think, then we try to come to some conclusion. The fact that I cant prove something right now will not prevent me from thinking about it, temporarily rule some possibilities out, try to figure out which ones are more likely to be true, etc.

 

[Duty]

The burden of proof here is on those who believe free will exist. For free will to exist, what humans know to be physics has to be wrong, basically.

The burden of proof lies on the agent making a proposition. "Determinism describes reality how it is," is a proposition, so both sides have a burden of proof.


Just for clarity, define determinism for me, in your own words. The determinism I understand has nothing to do with physics and everything to do with intelligent agents' (humans at this stage of our knowledge) decision making processes, not causality.

1. How would you know this not to be true?
2. How would you prove this not to be true?

I can't. But because I can not prove or disprove it, it becomes a moot point...which was my point all along.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. It has nothing to do with proof, veracity, or justification of any given theory.
One cannot object to something merely because it exceeds the current limits of knowledge.

Well, you can object to it. If I told you that a giant invisible pink unicorn controls all our actions, and it is from that pink unicorn that every action is possible, and that unicorn controls the laws of physics...you'd object because there is no way to know it to be true. You can't DISPROVE it, but because there is absolutely no way to know if it's true, you have to suspend judgment, and then assume it not to be the case due to burden of proof being on the person making the claim. You'd also probably ridicule this notion of a pink unicorn, but the monism that has been presented in this thread is 10,000 times more intelligent and thought out, so it by no means deserves ridicule.

To argue this on a basis of proof or fact, you would have to ascribe to an empirical argument, for empirical arguments are provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

And most philosophers would say that a priori statements that are not vital to our knowledge structure and understanding the world (logic and math being oft cited examples) are going to come under intense scrutiny and most likely be rejected.

One cannot justify anything with a theory of knowledge, for a theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Theories typically have supporting evidence, but still have areas where they are conjecture or areas which have been revealed later to be assumptions of the philosopher (and thereby conjectural), but typically can be pretty solid.

It's probably true that (analytical) philosophy is at a moment of a lot of skepticism, and has been in that since Hume and Kant, but the recent rejection of foundationalism is moving the discipline forward in my opinion. There's still a lot of work to do, but a theory of knowledge and language will have to be established pretty tight before metaphysics will make a new surge in the discipline.

"Metaphysics runs into that problem a LOT" because metaphysics is concerned with abstract thought or subjects, such as existence, causality, or truth, and is concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, such as being, time, or substance which again are highly abstract, subtle, or abstruse.
Abstractions are conceived as apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances, and therefore not subject to concrete proofs by epistemological means.
Metaphysics is beyond physics (Greek meta, after or beyond + phusika, physics). It is that which, by definition, we speculate on after all the physical data is confirmed by epistemology.

It may be that anything metaphysical can never be proven as most metaphysical theories, such as proof of God or origin of consciousness, are concerned with that which, by definition, is beyond any physical instrument of measurement or means of discovery we could devise.
The experiments proposed by Benjamin Libet, would require physical incision into a human brain while the individual is conscious therefore, it is highly unlikely that this theory, which Dissident derive his from, will ever be proven epistemologically.

(...btw, Dissident, it's nice to know someone else reads the Conscious Entities site)

In metaphysical discussions, the burden of proof is always moot, but acceptable because no epistemological proof can be forthcoming unless the subject of the metaphysical argument enters the realm of the physical. All we can do within these discussions is compare various theories and come to conclusions of possibility and probability, but never proof. The direct experience which an individual offers as proof or validity of a theory is only proof to that individual. Similar to one who claims disproof of said theory.

The words 'proof' and 'validity' should be struck from all metaphysical discussions, for when concerning the metaphysical these are personal and individual, and should be replaced by 'probability' and 'possibility'.

I would argue that epistemology and metaphysics are much more entwined then you seem to advocate. To take metaphysics as a separate discipline and throw out the generally accepted rules of debate like burden of proof just doesn't seem acceptable. I'd ask you supply evidence of why you can't have burden of proof in a metaphysical argument...why it's different from other disciplines in this aspect. You do say, "All we can do within these discussions is compare various theories and come to conclusions of possibility and probability, but never proof," but that doesn't explain why metaphysics is void from having to supply burden of proof to produce any meaningful results.

Metaphysics has a primary concern with describing what reality consists of...and our perception of reality, the limits of our perception, and the limit of how far we can know that reality (all of which are areas dealt with by epistemology), are all very very important and relevant points in dealing with metaphysical inquiry.

I did some research and I think that this is reasonable given the information I could gather, who is the authority to tell hypothesis from theories I dont know, and ultimately I dont care. Anyway, you may want to read, besides the link I posted, this: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/conscwil.htm Im not saying the first crazy thing that came into my mind.


Again, Id love to hear you objections. That I cant prove it I always knew and never claimed to be able to do so. If we are discussing free will then lets do it, I say what I think, you say what you think, then we try to come to some conclusion. The fact that I cant prove something right now will not prevent me from thinking about it, temporarily rule some possibilities out, try to figure out which ones are more likely to be true, etc.

Well, my objection is like I said, epistemological in nature, and I would say something like:
"Your theory is not provable or disprovable, and so does not help me to understand reality as it seems to be a conjecture, albeit an elegant and well thought out conjecture."

I promise that I don't think you're crazy or that your viewpoint is invalid. I just couldn't accept it as I follow the Cartesian Method of Doubt (analytic philosophy is what it's called...it's the dominant philosophic method in the non-Continental European Western world). I'm basically saying that I scrutinize a theory much more then the average person...it has to really really be justified in order to be convincing (I'm really sounding INTP now lol).




I'm having fun with this guys. I perceive some frustration and tempers may be raising a bit. Just remember that we're all intelligent debaters here, we're not here to insult each other or nothing.

 

[Dissident]

"Your theory is not provable or disprovable, and so does not help me to understand reality as it seems to be a conjecture, albeit an elegant and well thought out conjecture."

If we agree on materialism then consciusness is strictly produced by the brain's activity. The fact that we cant prove it right now doesnt mean that we wont be able to do so eventually.

 

[Agent Intellect]

i only read the last few pages, so forgive me if any of this has been mentioned already.

how can one have burden of proof for something theres no proof for? in order to test free will vs determinism, we'd have to be able to replay decision making scenarios and see if people make the same decisions. otherwise its all speculation. if i reach my hand up and touch my face, i can claim that it was a decision made based on free will, but i could also say that if i replayed the day 1000 times, i would have always touched my face at that moment. perhaps the future can have a Copenhagen interpretation: i'm both touching my face and not touching my face until that moment arrives. of course, all of it is just conjecture, and unless we can replay time, it will always be conjecture.

as far as consciousness goes, Dissidents theory does sound logical, but its another thing that will never be proven. even if empirical evidence was obtained, there would still be those that have other hypotheses (such as Gods or spirituality). but the fact is, as far as we know, consciousness is most prevalent in higher intelligence beings. what i wonder, though, is if consciousness is a result of communication, or of communication is a result of consciousness. apes that have been taught sign language seemed to display self awareness (often times thinking of themselves as different then apes of the same species that can't communicate), but how could one test whether it had been before it was taught to communicate? i read somewhere (and this might be unsubstantiated) that a person who was born deaf and blind had no memories of any thoughts before they were taught to communicate, as if being taught to sign (Hellen Keller style i assume) gave them self awareness.

i would have to say that consciousness is a result of our physical being. i tend to think of our brains as the hardware of a computer and our consciousness as the software. our software can only be compatible with the hardware. humans, being subjective, can only follow a certain code (one thats constantly being "patched" based on our experiences). we cannot act outside of this line of code. but, as Dissident said, humans are aware of this code being written, of these "patches" being installed into our hardware (the brain). even if determinism is how reality works, being conscious means being aware of our subjectivity, being aware of how we make decisions. of course, even if determinism is true, its like flipping through a face-down deck of cards: we don't know which card is coming up next.

 

[Dissident]

i would have to say that consciousness is a result of our physical being. i tend to think of our brains as the hardware of a computer and our consciousness as the software.

Following that analogy, what prevents us from analyzing the hard drive directly, see what software is stored in it, how it works, how it relates with the other parts of the computer, etc? Even if its software, it exists physically in one way or another. Of course we would have to understand the language in which its written, which we dont, but some day we probably will.

 

[Duty]

If we agree on materialism then consciusness is strictly produced by the brain's activity. The fact that we cant prove it right now doesnt mean that we wont be able to do so eventually.

I can't agree on materialism either lol. Traditional materialism in modern western philosophy is based off of Thomas Hobbes, who basically took many of Descartes's theories as being truth, and then extended them further to say that there is no mind/body problem because there is no "mind." Although psychologists and some scientists find this view useful (and I would SUSPECT that if any metaphysical view is right, it's that of materialism), it still has the same primary objection to it that most metaphysics suffer from...namely, it can't be proven.

Although it is a MUCH more intuitively correct theory (and I think the non-epistemological objections to it are very weak) then others of its time...say Leibniz or Malebranche, it really was over-shadowed by the dawning of empricism, which has occupied more interest in the analytic tradition since Locke proposed it.

The primary non-epistemological objection to it is, by the way, that it seems to discredit that spark of conscienciousness that doesn't seem to just be a mixture of chemical reactions. Imagination, especially spontaneous imaginings/problem solving seem to be hard to explain by chemical reactions. Like I said, it seems a weak objection.

 

[Duty]

how can one have burden of proof for something theres no proof for?

An agent still has burden of proof even if they can't produce any proof. The inability to produce proof or impossibility of such just indicates conjecture or faith (depending on if the agent truly believes the proposition or is just theorizing and thinking of possibilities).

 

[EloquentBohemian]

An agent still has burden of proof even if they can't produce any proof. The inability to produce proof or impossibility of such just indicates conjecture or faith (depending on if the agent truly believes the proposition or is just theorizing and thinking of possibilities).

Prove to one who has been blind since birth that light exists.
Describe its qualities and functions.
Or its reflected colours.
Or what you look like.
All the proof you can produce will in no way convince the other that light exists. The other can only take your words for it.

Or prove to a deaf person that music exists, that the haunting sounds of a violin will move one to tears.
There is no way. I know because I was with a deaf woman for almost two years and through this time it always troubled me that she would never know what music was and that she would never hear the sound of my voice.

Such is the similarity of one's experience of God, no matter what one conceives God to be. An experience of this sort is individual and can never be truly communicated to another.
There is no 'burden of proof' in cases such as these, but there is a 'burden of respect' on the one's who have not experienced what another has. If one believes that it is impossible for an experience of this nature to occur, this is fine and respect is due for one's opinion, but equal respect is due to those who claim the existence of said experience.

EDIT: I forgot to include that this is indicative of qualia.