cynicist
-
Posts
917 -
Joined
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by cynicist
-
-
Thank you Lians and cynicist for presenting your thoughts to me in such a pleasant and non-confrontational way. It certainly makes it easier to hear you. I did think I put a "label of caution" on it when I said "I know the spiritual part is not the right answer for folks here, but it worked for me." I can see now that was not enough context and I will work harder next time as you suggest. I did move away from the spiritual movement because of just what you say, some of it is dangerous.
Right on, I assumed you wouldn't be here otherwise.
Nihilism and addiction share several similar qualities at their core. I realize here some of you maybe using more of a theoretical definition of nihilism, but for me it was an EXPERIENCE of nihilism. There was no reasoning happening in my head, this was nothing anyone could have reasoned me out of. It didn't take philosophy, virtue, truth--those things were totally meaningless to me! It took love, compassion, understanding, kind people, prayer, meditation, mindful awareness, and a shit-ton of work in becoming the existential detective of my inner emotional world...
The experience of nihilism and addiction share another very deep common component--hopelessness. The feeling that the world is a total shit hole and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, so why try. The spiritualists help you to see the world with eyes of compassion that starts with oneself, and it works. And I will continue to try to explain why and how it might work as a first step toward greater rational philosophy and UPB.
IMO, if a book alone, or a girlfriend, or a new sport, or a philosophy can snap you out of nihilism, then we did not experience the same degree of it. I must have had the heroine version where maybe there is a marijuana version as well.
I apologize that I do not understand "non-dualism" and that I allowed Kevin's aggression to cloud my responses.
I find your thoughts on nihilism enjoyable to read and similar to my own. When I talk about nihilism being a rejection of principles, primarily truth, I'm referring to the truth of your emotional experience as well. Subjectively speaking, I think the key to solving it has to do with finding hope or potential in yourself or the world around you to combat the hopelessness. This doesn't require rigorous philosophical principles but I think they can serve that purpose really well, even better than other things that you might change your mind on. I mean after learning so much here, nobody is going to talk me out of objective truth for example. I find comfort in having that level of certainty about some aspect of reality. It makes me feel grounded. Whether it's through objective principles or getting in touch with your feelings having some connection to what is true keeps you from floating between social fictions and feeling dissociated.
-
Scientists were baffled of course and didn't' know how to explain this. And its because they base their science in gravity, nuclear fusion, matter condensing and exploding apart and all that crazy stuff when the whole thing is just so simple and beautiful. Just look at it. It never changed its size too much and yet it was able to disperse a tremendous amount of energy and radiation. There is no explosion here in the sense that scientists claim. Stars can take sometimes thousands of years to form and sometimes just a few years. Think of it as an onion with two layers, supercharged and super condensed energy created by the magnetic field around them. Basically the same explanation I gave about the Sun which is a much different type of star if you wanna call it at that. The charge gets so intense that it needs to be dispersed. And it bursts. Most of the time in a form of intense gamma ray flares but sometimes in almost pure radiation form such as the the one here with the red around it. It is a dispersion of electricity and not an explosion. As this happens pushes the magnetic field around it away from its core sending all kinds of charges particles in all
Beautiful pictures, it looks almost like it is unfolding. Reminds me of a blooming flower.
-
Those are great quotes, and I never understood the Turing test for exactly the reason Searle points out. Who cares if a computer can be programmed to be pretty good at responding like a human. It would be far more interesting if you could actually teach a computer and have conversations with it, knowing that it would respond intelligently. Faking intelligence is just boring and pointless besides as a joke to confuse computer illiterate people.
-
I'm wondering what other hosted shows you listen to? I found myself at first thinking the same thing with Stef, that it seemed abrupt somehow. But when I started to analyze the feelings more I realized I was comparing him to a therapist, not a "radio show host', if that makes sense. I was doing that because in so many other ways the show comes off as much more personal and the topics oftentimes more delicate, and so there feels like there should be more "cushion" like at the therapists office. I've listened to so many different types of radio shows, and I've never felt they applied appropriate phone etiquette. For better or worse!
I agree. I think the delicate nature of a lot of the topics on the show make it seem like Stef is being impersonal, when in reality he is just trying to answer as much as he can and get to as many callers as possible. The balance between efficiency and empathy is challenging for this kind of show, and I don't think there is a clear answer to it. For example if you make sure to say "thank you for calling" or even "bye" after every call, you risk it sounding forced and fake which is even worse than not saying it at all in my opinion.
-
If I remember correctly, Tolle is a kind of nihilist, insofar as he rejects objective reality, truth and morality. His "non-dualism" means embracing contradiction as truth, right? The dualism being truth vs falsehood, or right vs wrong, or real vs unreal. He essentially says that the mind invents meaning where there really is none (ostensibly).
If that's true, I wouldn't consider his writing good for getting out of a nihilistic mindset. Just the opposite, really.
I'm not an expert on Tolle but his ideas are similar to what Stefan has discussed about the true/false self. His stuff is about being present in the moment, conscious of what is going on in your mind. Unfortunately he mixes those ideas with irrational deepities such as "Time is an illusion" and "Dogmas--religious, political, scientific--arise out of erroneous belief that thought can encapsulate reality or truth."
The function of the nihilism seemed to be to make my depression out to be healthy and the state where I'm most "honest". In other words, it's okay that I feel afloat unsure of myself because (ostensibly) everybody else is floating too and they are deluded, only pretending to be ship captains.
This is the most seductive aspect of nihilism; Half of it is actually true. Most people are only pretending to know anything, and when there are so few resources that are logically consistent like FDR it is hard to find a foothold in reality. The lingering doubt and cynicism can be healthy, but only as long as they don't extend to cover logic and empiricism, without which you end up lost.
The spiritual movement is not the enemy, and could be the friend, that's all I've been trying to say here sometimes, while getting a bit of what feels to me like more indoctrinated bullshit.Even Stefan has said that there is common ground between the philosophy discussed here on FDR and christianity (about morality being absolute and real) but that doesn't mean we should recommend christian teachings as a good starting point for UPB. This is not to equate the spiritual movement and christianity, just to illustrate the principle behind what I'm saying, which is that even though there are similarities between what some of those people are saying and FDR, the approach taken here is fundamentally in opposition to theirs.I think the reason why Kevin is arguing against your recommendations is because nihilism is a rejection of principles and most philosophers besides Stefan range from being vague to outright oppositional to them. I like a lot of what Tolle says on consciousness but he says some dangerous things too. I know you are only recommending him because he helped you and therefore could help others but maybe a label of caution in regards to some of the things he says would prevent a long debate (or any hurt feelings) between you and Kevin in the future
(I'm not saying you should do or change anything, it's just a suggestion)
-
But how do you know the falling book does not understand, and do you hold humans and computers to the same standard of judgement by dropping them to the floor? If there is some methodology to making your claims, I would like to hear about it. Otherwise all I know is you are making assertions and categorizations about what qualifies as understanding.
By way of automated deduction, a computer can use logical connections to establish new equations, similar to an algebra student trying to solve an equation. While I can certainly accept this has nothing to do with free will, it seems to overlap with the kind of mathematical understanding people have. I am sure you can augment these computational associations with sensors to provide "subjective experience", but it sounds to me as if you've already decided nothing a computer can do will qualify as true understanding unless there is a human brain attached.
Lol, a book has no cognitive apparatus, no sense to perceive, no intelligence to reason, but I guess it at least has the capacity to store information. All of those things are required for comprehension and the ability to designate meaning. A computer can also do all of these things (besides real intelligence) but only through human programming. Nothing computers do can qualify as understanding because they are not capable of doing anything without human instruction at the moment. You can program a computer to perform functions that mimic the process of comprehension for human beings but for obvious reasons that is not the same thing.
-
I think the whole problem comes from the idea of land as property. If we view property as the product of human action and land only as the opportunity create property, rather than property itself, then the idea that one has the right to buy and sell land gets fuzzy. If land is "property", then it can be exchanged, bought, or sold, just like any other form of property. If land is "opportunity", can land be bought and sold the same way property can? Another way of putting it, can one puchase the "right" to deny others oppourtunity? When Cecil purchased the land wasn't he just purchasing the so-called "right" to deny others the opportunity to use the land productively?
Buying land with the idea of flipping it for a profit is a risky venture. How does he know that the city won't simply expand in a different direction? If he's not doing anything with the land but sitting on it and waiting for it to rise in value, that seems like a really bad investment. Even if this guy got really lucky and bought the land at a good time and for a good price, the only way he would be able to sell it is if the person who buys his land thought that he could use it more productively than the current owner. If the land is priced too high, there will be no demand until it goes down, and meanwhile since the owner isn't doing anything with it, he is actually losing money compared to more productive investments.
I think that there is a natural balancing effect that way.
-
I was also wondering why someone would say something like that, don't they know that it hurts(especially coming from someone who watches FDR)?
I just feel down right now and I'm unsure of what to do from now on, to get my ambition back. It's really sad that it can go away like that, with one snarky comment on Youtube.
They really don't get it. I would never say anything so horrible and cold about someone as that particular youtube commenter did, but I myself felt humbled after having a call with Stefan. It seems very easy on the outside but when you are talking to the man directly about the traumas of your life you feel not only exposed but also struggling to focus in spite of your defenses and sometimes trying not to break down if the call gets very emotional. You have been trained all your life to avoid being honest and so when dealing with someone truly empathetic like Stefan it can be kind of overwhelming and your feelings of possible attack or confusion from childhood return to you tenfold.
Remember that your experiences were carved into your brain while you were young and vulnerable and over many years, so there is no shame in feeling them now. It's fine to feel down about the fact that the average person is fairly cold and uncaring, it is sad. I wouldn't expect sympathy from people on youtube, since many of them watch Stefan for his material on the state/economics without interest in the personal/relationship stuff; You see them whining all the time about the call-in shows and the length of his uploads in general. I don't really consider them a part of the FDR community, unlike the people who frequent the boards and chatroom.
-
If it brings up anger or anything like that in her I'm not looking to disagree. On the contrary I did her wrong and we've never talked about it.
I want to acknowledge how I mistreated her, own up to it and tell her that I'm sorry.
We were never close but I would like to have a relationship with her.
I think that's exactly what you should say to her, all three of those things. The only thing to watch out for in my opinion is that because you feel guilty there will be a desire within you to be forgiven, and you just have to remind yourself that it's not her job to do that nor something that should be expected at some point. As long as you remain curious and open to whatever her response is you will be ok no matter what happens, because you will know the truth of the situation, even if it takes a number of conversations. (by situation I mean whether a real relationship with your sister is possible or not)
-
causality is singular, universal, and permanent; and emergent property cannot arise.
I'm not even going to get into most of what this thread is about, but I am curious, do you see a difference between life/inanimate matter? Or do you see human beings as residual effects of the big bang in the same way as stars/planets? (in that we are effects only rather than have any ability to affect causality)
-
Im not trying to talk to him out of anything don't get me twisted.
Really?
One of the things that got me pissed off. Was when I told him that
his dad was holding him back, and he ignores it .
I know this because he says why aim i lazy or dumb.
And i told him who around you benefits from you being lazy and dumb ?
he couldn't answer. I told him your dad because if you are gone he will
be alone.
But he takes it as an attack and ignores it. And acts like nothing just happened.
Sounds like you are trying to get him to see/change his relationship with his father here, and he becomes defensive and acts like nothing happened in order to communicate his thoughts about that to you.
-
If there is a GOOD reason to have the thought, have the thought! keep that trigger strong.
I get what you are saying about being conscious and I agree (I've also had similar experiences in retail and it is an extremely useful skill to have in that environment) but what I quoted above is the issue I have with what you are saying. How do you make that determination? That's a rhetorical question because you can't. Thoughts happen, and sometimes they are inconvenient or unpleasant, and you certainly don't have to explore everything to the fullest extent, but there is no way to starting sorting thoughts into 'good' or 'bad' categories. I think you mean to say letting yourself get caught up in unpleasant thoughts without consciously looking at them. Like in the example of your old girlfriend, if you had not stopped to become conscious of your thoughts and how you had changed your life for the better you might have spent a good chunk of time sitting in traffic, brooding, and set the stage for an unpleasant day for yourself. That's what I love about 'mindfulness'.
however I make every effort to not think about the humiliation of wearing school clothes 2 or 3 sizes too small because whiskey is more important. why? Because theres no need to be sad about it now, and my body cant tell that theres no danger it just responds and floods my system with stress hormones, and the more you flood it the less you can do about anything!
Isn't that your body's way of telling you that there still is a need to be sad though? If you have to actively try and suppress those thoughts when they come up, that doesn't seem healthy or appropriate to me.
Other than to stop blaming yourself (which is causing yourself unnecessary suffering), what good IS going over your childhood traumas?
To heal them and stop the suffering? I don't think you can say that you have achieved this (acceptance and healing) if the thoughts keep coming up, since the purpose of them doing so is to bring your attention to these issues.I tried meditation, but i find it way too hard to sit completely still and do nothing, so thats why i dont say meditation, instead I call it paying attention.
What?! Haven't you ever enjoyed relaxing and focusing on parts of your body? Like sitting in a hammock and feeling the fibers as they touch your skin.
I think the biggest problem with meditation is how formal everyone makes it appear, with sitting a particular way or whatever. I find my own ability to inhale oxygen fascinating, sometimes I just like taking a deep breath to feel the way my body moves to accomplish it. I think if you are trying to focus on 'meditating' you can end up doing the exactly opposite and tensing up your body, at least that has been my experience of it. -
Well, I live with them right now so when I take on a multi-month project it's hard not to talk about it. Plus I naively wanted to share stuff with them... well, not anymore that's for sure.
Ah that makes sense. Plus there is that natural inclination to want to please your parents and make them proud. I wouldn't beat myself up over it, it's very hard to see things clearly with your parents and it is much harder when they are constantly in your presence. It's not naive to want to do that even after realizing that what they are focusing on isn't in your best interest. (to put it lightly
)I wish you luck with earning your certificate.
-
He doesn't sound like a moron to me. If he is continuing to act a certain way for the benefit of his father, then he must also be getting something out of that interaction, right? You are trying to talk a kid out of eating his candy and then getting upset that he won't listen.
-
The solution to this problem is to install the iptables-dev package. Sorry that this is a bit late, hope it still helps.
-
Ha, all of the things on that list seem pretty easy. If a small amount of money or words is all that is required to cleanse the filthy reputation of the catholic church then I think the pope has made quite the bargain. I'll believe there is a fundamental change when I see priests kicked out, put in chains, and excommunicated for molesting children.
-
This is not the case. We carry a bunch of junk DNA courtesy of the inability of natural selection to cut out information.
Actually it seems that it does occur. (link below for the example) It is odd how in some cases genes are dumped and in other cases (like the capacity of chicken to form teeth) we can activate "junk" dna with careful manipulation. I'm curious what the circumstances for this stuff but I doubt we will know anytime soon.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/05/15/a-genetic-gastric-bypass/
-
I think that what happens once we run out of land, air, or water is not the biggest problem facing humanity at the moment. Besides, that problem exists for statism as much as any other system. We certainly have a finite amount of resources, but that actually strengthens the Anarcho-capitalist argument since the free market is vastly more efficient than anything state driven. So what you see as a fatal flaw I see as the key advantage of the position.
-
What people really mean by "I did this for you" isn't "I acted in your favor" but more like "I busted my ass sacrifying for your sake god dammit!" because "I did this/ for you" in that form is simply oxymoronic.
I get your meaning, but I don't think it is oxymoronic. It's like an affirmation. To me, "I did this for you", makes sense as clarification in the event of a misunderstanding or a correction after someone implies that you acted purely in your own interest. I understand that people use it to mean, "I did this just for you", but that's not the only way to use that phrase.
Thats why i was asking about this...
I was making sure that they where using that phrase as a way to manipulate me.
Can you put it into context? Or were you asking about the pie example? It sounded like you were already clear about that but if not then it was certainly manipulation. If she was honestly just asking if you wanted a pie then she wouldn't have "gone nuts" after you expressed that you didn't, unless she was expecting a particular answer or had some ulterior motive.
-
When I was 17, he found me an internship at a bank in another country, and without my prior consultation or consent pretty much pushed me into it, saying it would be a "good experience". I hated it and resolved not to work in financial institutions. He's even gone so far as to sometimes "joke" that I should become a financial adviser, earn $5 million, buy a castle with a winery in France, and get our entire family settled there. Worst thing is he wasn't really joking.
That is disgusting. I think it's horrible that most parents push their values on their children, but to treat you as an opportunity to make a buck is especially gut wrenching for me.
When I expressed interest in becoming an English teacher a few months ago, both my parents ganged up on me and told me what a terrible idea that was. This lasted about two months, and even after that; whatever country I told them I wanted to work in, they said was terrible. They would only look at the negatives and not the positives.
Why do you think you are still telling your parents these things? It's not like English teachers make a lot of money and moving to another country doesn't benefit them financially, so given that the main driver of approval for them is wealth I'm sure you could have guessed what kind of 'advice' they would give you.
Here's another tidbit: I never call my father "dad". I always call him by his first name. While I will refer to him as "dad" when talking to other people, I will never do that when talking to him. A few times I wondered whether he felt unappreciated because of that and tried to call him "dad", but never could. I felt some kind of actual physical blockage and couldn't do it...
Makes sense to me. You don't want to give him any kind of satisfaction or pride that he might derive from meaning of that title because he hasn't earned it in your opinion; It would be false and a betrayal of your self, and that's what makes it hard to say. I've felt similar when my family would say they love me and expect me to say the same in return.
As a result, I am now procrastinating with finishing my teaching certificate, and feel like i'm wasting my time with something "not worthy of me". Because my father has setup these huge expectations of me and continually rejected whatever I've wanted to do, whenever I engage in something I want to do but that won't make me a millionaire, I feel unhappy and lose motivation.
That is sad. Do you think being in proximity to your parents is making it harder for you? I mean if was trying to become an actor and there were people in my life telling me that it was a waste of time I would find it hard to remain motivated. I don't really see how it could be otherwise, assuming that what you are striving for is challenging and meaningful to you.
-
I don't have anything to add at the moment (this is a problem I struggle with too) but I wanted to let you know I appreciate the reading recommendation.
-
I believe when we are sitting and suffering about past events that have no impact on current or future events...
Why would you assume that? Look I'm with you on negative self-talk. It's important to question your thoughts if they are inconsistent with reality or if they are abusive towards you, but ignoring thoughts just because they are unpleasant isn't a good idea. Let's say for example that you just met someone new and start recalling memories of an abusive family member or friend, that could be your mind telling you that this new person is familiar and not in a good way. Like it or not we are shaped in part by our past experiences and they certainly impact the present and future even if only through our perception of things.
That said I agree with trying to be more aware of your thoughts, specifically when you are dwelling on the negatives so that you can pull yourself out of that vortex.
-
To be entirely selfless is some weird religious concept. It doesn't even make sense taken literally. (When do I not have a self?) Humans are motivated by values, and everything we do is in relation to those values. On the other hand I think, "I did this for you", is a valid statement because you can do something special for someone you care about while also doing it for yourself at the same time, those aren't mutually exclusive. If I buy my wife a ring I can honestly say I did it to make her happy, I just can't say I did it to the exclusion of my own happiness. (since I'm deriving pleasure for myself from doing something for her) It just isn't rational to do things for others without considering your values, otherwise why would we even have values?
-
I don’t want to become the wretched mess that my father was. I should feel lucky for avoiding that fate, but there is something that draws me to that memory. A yearning or fantasy that he would stop being hurtful. That if I change or do something differently or out of spite, he would finally change.
Could it be that I want to excuse my behavior in the past by letting my father off the hook?
If I’ve missed anything, please feel free to comment/ask questions
We all feel that way about our parents. (I mean wishing for them to change) Nobody wants to think that they were in the care of a cold or immature or cruel person for most of their life. We feel that capacity within ourselves of being able to overcome prior false beliefs or knowledge and want everyone else to do the same, but it is irrational to expect them to (mistaking yourself for the world). I think it is more likely that you are feeling the pain of the childhood that you never had; The one with the nuturing and caring parents that always had your back and were available when you needed them to be.
I've heard others on this board and elsewhere in chats talk about 'reparenting your inner child', basically coming to terms with what actually happened and being empathetic with your younger self. I wish I could give you some advice about doing it but I'm still working on it in my own life. I'm happy that I can at least give you some validation of your experience though. The book by Alice Miller, "Drama of the Gifted Child" or something similar is very helpful. I think if you work through those experiences with your therapist to clarify your relationship with your father, you won't have any reason to experience those fantasies. As long as you have doubt about whether or not your father was capable of change, I don't think these feelings will go away.
I hope your therapy session goes well.
Science and Determinism vs Free Choice
in Philosophy
Posted
What standard of behavior can you use to prove that a computer is exhibiting free will rather than sufficiently complex programming? I don't think you can, because any exception you find can be corrected through programming by a being with actual free will to mimic whatever behavior you would expect. The way you know a computer isn't actually thinking is it requires human input to do anything. (by this I mean even an automated system had to be programmed at some point, and a machine can be programmed to program another machine so that can't be the standard either) Imagine trying to prove that a computer is creative based on the unique art that it produces. How would you know whether it has a real imagination or a good random generator programmed by a human being?
Btw this doesn't do anything to advance the determinist position because human beings aren't programmed.