Times you've changed your mind

[The Grey Man]

More seriously now, if seeing intellectual positions changed is a desideratum for you and you frankly disagree with a belief of mine (any of them, really), why don't you disabuse me of my error here and now?

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't know what your positions are. I don't read your posts because you don't make them easy to read.

I have no reason to think anything you say is of a value high enough to bother deciphering your posts. I might be interested if I felt you were communicating in good faith - but your writing reads like you were trying to jerk off a thesaurus.

When you write like this:

Consider also, reciprocally, that other identity of Schopenhauer which Chalmers and Tononi have not adopted, but which is the complement of the first in forming a complete image of the world: namely, that between what is known indirectly as the changes undergone by the organic spatial relations that thoroughly characterize the manifoldness of objects in space (that complex which Tononi calls “integrated information” and which Leibniz calls the “multitude dans l’unité”) comprehended by the subject in a transient act of cognition- the passage of time in Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception- and what is known directlyas the penetration of this cognitive space by a temporal willing. In other words, the second is an identity between what is seen extensively as a transcendent causal order, as the patterns manifest in the changes undergone by mutually individuated entities (māyā: the matter of natural philosophy, which is the expression of a universal through particulars, the revelation of a truth which is a sum of facts) and what is felt immanently and intensively as willing(duḥkha: the matter of art, which is the expression of universals through a particular, the revelation through facts of a truth by and through their more or less immediate- less or more physiognomic- stimulation of affect), that immensely revelatory element of experience which contemporary philosophers of the mind have all but ignored to flatter their misguided sense of objectivity and which, at its most intense, we call passion and suffering.

I just write you off. Maybe you are some crazy genius who's thought up a whole bunch of stuff that I can't find anywhere else. I'm willing to take that risk, because I value my time too highly to waste it reading something complicated that could have been put simply.

I don't mean you any ill will, I just have no incentive to read your posts.

 

[redbaron]

because:

1. you give the impression that you yourself are obviously not interested in having your mind changed, so that's 50% of the people involved in a discussion with you that aren't going to have their position changed
2. the way you write is pretentious and faux-intelligent. you use vocabulary in a way that makes your writing denser, rather than clearer. that's the opposite of good communication
3. your point in that thread is not even 'non-dualist' and there's plenty of 'non-dualist' ways to come to the conclusion that the way modern animals are consumed/treated is wrong - it doesn't even look like you understand your own argument

tl;dr

- your posts in the thread come across as closed-minded
- your ideas are badly communicated
- you appear to lack an understanding of the topic, including an understanding of the limits or basis of your own understanding

 

[The Grey Man]

I don't mean you any ill will, I just have no incentive to read your posts.

I don't even want you to read my previous posts at this point. Since I'm "definitely wrong", I want you to show me what's right, even if it's only on a very minor point that won't take very much of your time to ventilate. I like I said in that thread you quoted, "I would like to be told I'm wrong, convincingly." That's what all my content is about, including my posts here.

 

[redbaron]

'convincingly' is a very vague goalpost that most people don't want to waste their time chasing

it comes across as a challenge rather than an open call for sharing ideas. it sets up a social interaction that looks something like, 'you guys go out of your way to entertain me, while i sit here and decide if you're worthy'

that's why no one has bothered talking about the topic to you, because not only are you wrong, you come across arrogant about it

most of the people i never bother engaging on the forum are similar kinds of communicators, who think they have good ideas, move goalposts and who generally speaking just seem to regurgitate some shit they've read and then smear it all over the page - but i'm probably better off just reading some source materials at that point than trying to talk to this person, because even if i still disagree, the book isn't going to move goalposts - i can read it, understand it, see where it's wrong, see where it's right, and move on with a better understanding of the topic. if i struggle, i can re-read it, minus the pretentious verbiage, argumentative undertones and with shifting goalposts in tow

discussing the topic with someone with your communication style? likely to just be annoying, at best

(only saying this because you're directly asking why no one is responding to you in the plant eating thread)

 

[Hadoblado]

I was being facetious. I don't read your posts, so I don't know their content, so I don't know if they're right or wrong. Sorry, humour doesn't convert well over the internet, my bad.

You were wondering why people don't engage with your arguments. I wanted to gently bring your attention to the fact I've already told you why I don't engage with them:

Jesus Christ that is a thick sludge of words.

Honestly I find it impossible to even begin wrapping my head around what you just wrote, not because it's dumb or anything, but just from the writing style. I'm not invested enough to put in the effort to decipher this.

See for yourself, control+f -> "."

You are packaging your sentences faaaar too full. It might make sense for you, because you have an intimate knowledge of what you're saying, but this doesn't feel like communication, it feels like you're gate-keeping people <200IQ from engaging with your posts.

That said, I like the gist I'm getting from a quick look over, so if you put some more effort into dumbing it down for us smooth brain normies, that'd be great.

 

[The Grey Man]

You don't have to repeat yourself. I actually took that to heart and tried to make my writing in the "Plant eating" thread more accessible. I even included a personal anecdote!

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, well, I assumed from the non-response and subsequent enormous text walls in the same thread, that you'd decided to keep on going without adjustment (which is a legitimate decision).

If you think it's worth a go, I'll give it a try next time I have the urge for some thought-food. I'm not promising anything, but I'll try.

 

[The Grey Man]

1. you give the impression that you yourself are obviously not interested in having your mind changed, so that's 50% of the people involved in a discussion with you that aren't going to have their position changed

I don't know how I can be any more clear that my goal is to stimulate discussion. I literally say it all the time: I don't write stuff just to hear myself talk, I actually want to know what other people think of Kant, Schopenhauer, double-aspect theories, and so on.

2. the way you write is pretentious and faux-intelligent. you use vocabulary in a way that makes your writing denser, rather than clearer. that's the opposite of good communication

Point taken. The "Schopenhauer" thread was a special case because I was trying to do too much at once, cramming a whole bunch of concepts together so that there'd be lots to talk about.

3. your point in that thread is not even 'non-dualist' and there's plenty of 'non-dualist' ways to come to the conclusion that the way modern animals are consumed/treated is wrong - it doesn't even look like you understand your own argument

I don't want to come to just any conclusion that pleases you, I want to come to the right conclusion. How is it that I botched my argument so badly? Enlighten me! It's all I want.

(Also, double-aspect theory is a form of monism, ergo not dualism, so I don't know where you're getting my non-non-dualism from.)

'convincingly' is a very vague goalpost that most people don't want to waste their time chasing

it comes across as a challenge rather than an open call for sharing ideas.

It's both. I want people to be challenged and to be challenged in return. That's the whole point.

it sets up a social interaction that looks something like, 'you guys go out of your way to entertain me, while i sit here and decide if you're worthy'

This is an uncharitable characterization of it. The word salad that is my "Schopenhauer" thread is an attempt to avoid posting a Youtube video and a couple of sentences, then fucking off. I'm not here to spectate.

 

[redbaron]

why dont you just write your arguments similar to how you just responded to me?

im trying to go to bed and failing but that was understandable.

 

[QuickTwist]

I think there is little value in changing your mind for changing your mind's sake. Everything is contextual. The most essential part of changing your mind or not is what the actual motive is for doing so. Are you changing your mind about something that brings goodness or harm to the world or yourself? One should always be changing their mind based on the feedback they receive from knowledgeable and wise individuals, but it doesn't always work out so pretty because people can be lead astray by those who are in a position of power who may not have some actual wisdom to speak, but their own folly. This is especially true if the one in power happens to be very intelligent because they have the power to convince people who may not have as much conviction about their beliefs. To have a strong moral character is something that can change overnight, but it often comes with a lead up of circumstances/events that allow one of such radical change. It is all in the pursuit of truth! One can pursue what one thinks or one can pursue what is true and I would say often times the two are mutually exclusive. But it is the condition of one's character in the first place that determines if they will change their mind to bring goodness or harm to the world. And don't be confused about this, there are people on both sides of the fence! There are also a lot of people that are not quite sure about a plethora of different things to which they don't have much conviction one way or another. The people on the fence are the people whose minds can be changed. It's not those who already have conviction, but the people who don't quite know what to think or believe. Those who act out of selfishness are the ones who if they do gain a conviction on things, it's usually to their own benefit which in turn more than likely turns the world a little bit more towards evil since selfishness is inherently greedy. Those who are inherently looking for truth are the people who will turn the world a little bit towards the good that is found in humanity. So before you change your mind on something, ask yourself if you are doing so for the benefit or ruin of the world.

 

[Animekitty]

I am not so familiar with the philosophers @The Grey Man is familiar with. But I can understand the concepts well. I responded to him in the Plant thread the best I could from what I did understand. It would help if he did make things clear and less dense. As long as the paragraphs are short you can communicate better because you need to structure things accordingly. 3/4 the avatar height is good.

 

[Minuend]

Just now, in the "Plant eating" thread, I denied the truth of dualism, animal (and, implicitly, human) rights, utilitarianism, and, consequently, all political theories based on their implicit foundations, while asserting the truth of dual-aspect monism, panpsychism and metempsychosis. Surely somebody's beliefs were contradicted there, and yet not a serious argument was deployed in their defence. If you would see your own or others' beliefs changed, why do you squander opportunities for a sincere philosophical debate, only to waste all these words on so much navel-gazing humbug?

Are you talking about me? I haven't gotten back to that thread because it will take a lot of time replying to everyone who quoted me and that is not the type of thing I'm up to doing just anytime

That being said, one of the last posts of yours completely misrepresented what I had been saying, which I assume must be because you skim read what I write or something, meaning you're not really trying to understand what I'm writing or where I'm coming from.

Spoiler

I wrote "Biologically, we know of quite a few similarities between mammals and humans. It's not like I saw an animal and thought "hey, that thing seem to fear things so he must have a system like mine!" I mean, it's literally science. "

and "In some cases we might struggle more to know exactly to what degree another creature can feel pain, but in the case of for instance mammals, it's pretty clear."

And you interpreted this as: "(paraphrasing Minuend), "That thing does not appear to fear things the way I do, therefore it must not fear things at all."

I think you also at some point said something about anatomy being irrelevant, unless I misremember that's a pretty clear sign we're not going to see eye to eye. That's too far detached from reality for me to consider seriously. You can't talk about how a life form experience pain without taking into consideration anatomy, structure etc.

And yes, I skim read everything up until I reply to it, so I haven't really read the posts in depth yet, though after seeing that I wasn't planning on making the effort

 

[The Grey Man]

No, no, no!

I did not interpret what you said in quotation marks that way, I did not even interpret it as something you said! How could I? It was in quotation marks! It was an ironic straw man argument of your own device! I "paraphrased" it, which is to say that I borrowed and modified your straw man argument to illustrate a point to Artsu which was quite different from that which it was originally intended to illustrate, marking very clearly with italics what I had changed! I did not skim any of your posts, I read them word-for-word! I am not detached from reality and I did not say that anatomy was irrelevant, I said that we were not having an anatomical discussion, but a moral one, so your anatomical definition of pain, which comprehends its objective aspect only in the case of human and animal bodies and not its subjective aspect, which alone confers upon it its special ethical import, was unsatisfactory!

 

[Blarraun]

Unless it's a moral or emotional issue, I don't hold a firm opinion on most subjects so there's few occasions to experience a major shift to the opposite view. I do have working theories and usually new information is added rather than used to replace existing ideas.

Even with views where I do hold an opinion I try to be careful not to hammer it in as that would destroy the potential for the discourse to show new truths. Most of the stuff I am opinionated on depends on the interpretation of the available information that could be controversial, which is perhaps why I prefer subjects where there is less space for interpretation of facts and reasoning can be applied directly, or where such interpretation is a welcome part of the artistic process.

I mean I'm not bothered by a fact that something is controversial, rather that such topics don't give tangible results.

Most positions have at least some element of truth or value in them that can be used to view a problem more broadly and positions that don't merit my attention are usually blatant, biased or I'm biased towards them.

If a person changes their mind too often it would seem that either the opinions they form are too strong (bad weight/value assignment) which causes dissonance with reality or they have difficulty forming conclusions that are defensible (bad data processing) so they can't perceive reality. Cognitive bias is terrible when it happens to you.

 

[Minuend]

No, no, no!

I did not interpret what you said in quotation marks that way, I did not even interpret it as something you said! How could I? It was in quotation marks! It was an ironic straw man argument of your own device! I "paraphrased" it, which is to say that I borrowed and modified your straw man argument to illustrate a point to Artsu which was quite different from that which it was originally intended to illustrate, marking very clearly with italics what I had changed! I did not skim any of your posts, I read them word-for-word! I am not detached from reality and I did not say that anatomy was irrelevant, I said that we were not having an anatomical discussion, but a moral one, so your anatomical definition of pain, which comprehends its objective aspect only in the case of human and animal bodies and not its subjective aspect, which alone confers upon it its special ethical import, was unsatisfactory!

Ok, I'll look over it more thoroughly when I have the energy. That being said, if I understand you correctly, I must say the objective aspect is controlling the subjective aspect. I mean, if my brain is identical to that of another person, she's gonna feel pain identical to me, because our systems function the same. Now, some humans can't feel pain for instance, but they can still feel stressed if being tortured. So there's a good chance they'll suffer emotionally even if their brain can't register pain. Which is still a type of suffering I'd say it's not ok to do to another person (or most other animals).

But still, in the case of mammals, we can make a probable estimate of how and if animals suffer based on their anatomy and seeing how they respond in real time. If animals lack those centers in the brain that humans lack when they don't register pain, we can infer the animals are suffering mainly due to emotional stress and not physiological pain, so to speak. Now, if that was actually the case, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe we'd be aware of these mechanisms in animals (or lack of). Most probably.

I also think, (this is more of an "out there" thing which isn't an argument in itself), mammals would display a very different type of behavior if their suffering was mainly an emotional and not a physical pain one. I'd imagine that would make for more careless animals that didn't protect themselves more carefully against physical damage (like they wouldn't mind jumping off too high places, or attacking everything regardless of size and threat until they became so damaged they started to connect the dots and by then they'd be dead from infection or being killed by something bigger. I mean, without the fear of pain of a too high landing plus lacking knowledge of how it would damage them and be a threat to their survival, you have an animal with no or few reasons to avoid jumping off very high stuff. I mean, there might be some innate fear toward heights in some animals, but I'm pretty sure there's a wide variety of animals who do not fear heights themselves, but still avoid jumping from very high heights ((yes, that lame phrasing was intentional)).

So there's also the aspect where you can try to imagine how something or someone would react if some of their systems functioned this or that way. And even from that angle, physical pain in animals and their wish to avoid it seems more likely to be an important factor when animals make choices (like flee or fight. Now obviously some animals are more prone to flee or flight, but in the case of individual animals, a lot of them will vary between those depending on for instance the size and behavior of their attacker). Trying to simulate things this way is not a foolproof method in itself, but it does give for some interesting perspectives occasionally and can be a supplement to a conclusion. But like I said, not an argument in itself since it's heavily dependent on being able to simulate something which is prone to a lot of bias errors and so forth.

Even if you think we can't conclude for certain whether animals suffer or feel pain in a way where we should take measures to prevent it, I'd still make the better safe than sorry type of choice considering how huge an impact it has on animals should I be right in my assumption they are able to suffer. As long as avoiding it to some degree is feasible (that being said, obviously I don't do a perfect job or have a perfect life where I avoid all animal suffering, but my point is never that we should be perfect either, merely that we do think about these issues and if possible maybe consider reducing our negative impact somewhat. Though obviously not everyone cares about that and that's just how it is. Some people also have other pressing issues in their lives where they don't have the luxury of thinking or acting much outside the situation they are in)

Oh god, this became longer than I was planning. This is why I haven't started to reply in the plant thread And I'm not even sure whether that interpretation was the right one

And yes, I used the phrase "I mean" too much. That's intentional to make you all suffer

 

[Reluctantly]

Just now, in the "Plant eating" thread, I denied the truth of dualism, animal (and, implicitly, human) rights, utilitarianism, and, consequently, all political theories based on their implicit foundations, while asserting the truth of dual-aspect monism, panpsychism and metempsychosis. Surely somebody's beliefs were contradicted there, and yet not a serious argument was deployed in their defence. If you would see your own or others' beliefs changed, why do you squander opportunities for a sincere philosophical debate, only to waste all these words on so much navel-gazing humbug?

Heh, I didn't read the thread, but did you just deny that truth, invalidate it based on your own criteria, or invalidate what the other person finds valid about it?

 

[The Grey Man]

...if I understand you correctly, I must say the objective aspect is controlling the subjective aspect. I mean, if my brain is identical to that of another person, she's gonna feel pain identical to me, because our systems function the same.

Yes, yes, yes!

But I don't think it's quite right to say that the objective aspect controls the subjective aspect. That two identical brains must have two identical minds as their subjective aspects seems to be no more and no less justified a claim than that two identical minds must have two identical brains as their objective aspects. It seems to me that the chief merit of dual-aspect theories is that they save you from having to commit to one claim over the other. It enables you to plot a course between the Scylla of idealism and the Charybdis of materialism.

Now, some humans can't feel pain for instance, but they can still feel stressed if being tortured. So there's a good chance they'll suffer emotionally even if their brain can't register pain. Which is still a type of suffering I'd say it's not ok to do to another person (or most other animals).

But still, in the case of mammals, we can make a probable estimate of how and if animals suffer based on their anatomy and seeing how they respond in real time. If animals lack those centers in the brain that humans lack when they don't register pain, we can infer the animals are suffering mainly due to emotional stress and not physiological pain, so to speak. Now, if that was actually the case, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe we'd be aware of these mechanisms in animals (or lack of). Most probably.

Suffering is bad; the suffering of animals is bad. And animals do suffer. On this much we agree. I'm just trying to figure out what suffering is to see if minimizing it is a feasible goal. I'm leery of anatomical definitions of it because they restrict it to the particular bodies treated by anatomy, discounting the possibility that it may be a much more general phenomenon.

The brains of humans and animals are objects among many other objects in nature. So why should human and animal minds be all alone?

If you could achieve a God-like vantage from which you could see perfectly how my body functioned and how it was affected by my environment, my actions would seem to you to follow from causes as distinct and inexorable as the impacts between resin balls on a billiards table seem to me. And yet, I would still feel my actions as acts of will. The only possible explanation for this, unless I've missed something, is that seeing and feeling, or perception and appetition, to borrow terminology from Leibniz, are two complimentary ways of knowing the same thing: causality. You can watch billiard ball collisions and take notes on their symmetries all day, but you will never see any causes, just a series of contingent events, effects: this is the "problem of induction" identified by Hume. In the will, we feel necessity, we know that we are ourselves a cause or, perhaps more precisely, a force, in that subjective want/suffering and natural forces are two aspects of the same thing.

So I propose that we view ourselves as completing not just a physical, but also a mental continuum with nature. Just as we view the human mind as the subjective aspect of the human brain, so should we view other objects, whatsoever exerts a causal influence, as having a subjective aspect of its own. The alternative is to suppose, like Descartes, that subjectivity is inexplicably restricted to human (and, in our case, some animal) brains, which is a preposterous petitio principii.

Heh, I didn't read the thread, but did you just deny that truth, invalidate it based on your own criteria, or invalidate what the other person finds valid about it?

To be more precise, I think Cartesian dualism is unfounded, rights are a fiction, and utilitarianism is inapplicable to reality.

 

[Cognisant]

Imo there's nothing wrong with being uncertain when you're uncertain, for example my stance on gender identity is that some of it's bullshit, some of it's not and if you really press me on where exactly I draw the line I have to admit I don't really know, I don't have enough data to come to a definitive conclusion yet.

As for walking a mile in the shoes of the opposite gender (where did that conversation come from?) it would certainly be an experience but I don't think it would be better or worse by such a degree that I could conclusively say one way is better than the other. It's like cars and motorcycles, each is better in some ways and worse in others, all I can say for sure is that if you know what you want then for no other reason that'll be the best thing for you.

If I was stuck in a female body permanently the whole menstruation thing would annoy me but I don't think being physically different would fundamentally change who I am, my preference is currently to be male but that's mainly because it's what I know, having to adjust would be time consuming and annoying.

On the topic of manipulating I can see how you can manipulate someone if you've got some kind of leverage on them, maybe you know something they don't or you have something they want and you're using that leverage to make them behave contrary to their intentions. But you can't just change someones thoughts or intentions with clever words, maybe you bring to light some perspective they haven't considered or some fact that they've missed, but any change you bring about has to begin with them.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

@OT
Many times on multiple subjects.
You have to consider that life is learning.
For example:
In the past i was very hateful towards pink tomatoes (symbolic) for instance, but the more i learned about pink tomatoe plants, the less fearful and resentful i became.
In the end i wasn't bothered as much by pink tomatoe plants as before and would even cultivate some in my garden.
Which goes to show that ignorance is the root of many problems between people plants.