Pepin

Imagine a different universe. If we could call our universe objective, this one would be unobjective. It is difficult to imagine what this would entail exactly, but it likely could not be mathematically described. In this universe, would free will be possible? If free will would be impossible in an unobjective universe and an objective universe, then claiming freewill doesn't exist because of the universe's determinism is a little misleading. It might be possible to say that it isn't possible due to different reasons, but it makes more sense to say that freewill can't exist regardless of determinism or not.. Forgetting all the reasons about why free will doesn't exist in both universes, if free will does exist, what universe would it make more sense for it to exist in? If we answered the same, then what is the difference the objective and subjective universe that makes it more likely for the objective universe to contain free will? I would say that it is because a will can only exist in an objective universe after 3.5 trillion years of evolution, and freedom is a consequence of the consistency of nature. If nature changed constantly and unpredictably, a consciousness would have no freedom to act its own will out in reality. It is only because of the stable state of physics that the whim of the will can be enacted. The will is a conscious desire, and freedom is the ability act in relation with the will. The will is a concept, which means it doesn't' exist in reality. A desire and a dream are pretty similar in their relation to reality. This doesn't mean that the will doesn't exist, rather that no physicist could derive the information from the structure alone. It is like information on a hard disk, a purely physical description will not describe the data that is on it, it needs a precise reading of particular points and the application of many concepts such as binary, encoding, language, file types, and so on to gain meaning of the data. Granted the above, a semi-paradoxical statement can be made. Concepts don't exist in reality, but they affect reality. Or, the will does not exist in reality, but affects reality. If we take this as true having a decent understanding the evolution of concept formation, then it can be said that the the will and its ability to act in reality can only exist in an deterministic universe and operates through concepts. I can write a lot more about this as I am in a rather long article. The argument is not as good condensed and without the sections on perception and concepts, but it may still be convincing without.

To be happy is to perceive a relation between the self and reality. The values may be subjective, yet the relation between the value and reality must be objective. This is to say that if your will is to be in two places at once, that this is incapable of causing happiness because the will has no capacity to be translated into reality. Reason is needed for happiness because reason is the means of knowing reality and of establishing values and action that can be translated into reality. Without reason, choices can have no relation to reality. Virtues are non-contradictory values that are easily translated into reality. They must be consciously chosen and valued by the self. Happiness is a concept that focuses on the self as opposed the rest. It isn't that rest isn't important, for instance being healthy is likely to have an indirect affect on happiness through limiting the capacity to act, but it is like any other specialized field dealing with the human body. Happiness has a strong relation to the concept of self-esteem that Nathaniel Branden describes in his books on the matter.

Really not understanding any of this. None of the different parts really follow, or at least I can't follow them. Perhaps there is something that has gone far over my head.

I really admire this person's ability to write without consequence. Whenever I write something addressing philosophical matters, I have quite the difficult time of refraining from thinking.

There is a lecture series below about it. May not be the best source, but decent enough.

I do believe there is a sort of theory that suggests this. It's the idea that there are certain personality traits and physical ability that occur in humans in some ratio which allows for different specializations. A simple example would be of the warrior type, where someone has great capacity for strength and control of their body. There is also a architect type which is less formidable as warriors, but have greater capability to build shelters and tools. The argument is that this is these different genetic roles have a large impact on the survival of the tribe, and is a reason for their existence. If this theory is true, then it is likely product of humans deciding to segment its population into roles based of the acknowledgment genetic predispositions and this strategy being successful, as opposed to being based in evolutionary mechanisms. I do believe there is a decent amount of evidence to show that there are genetic predispositions to different abilities and to different types of intelligence, so some segment of the population having a natural higher ability to reason and this ability being valuable to people in the tribe doesn't seem too far fetched.

I'd probably look in the mirror a lot more. I'd likely start wearing jeggings. I'd have much better orgasms. Probably receive a lot of attention from men granted my sexual attractiveness caries over, though if my sexual persuasion did as well, this would be rather annoying. I'd likely be a little more confused about various social expectations. I might go dancing. My overly-rationalist mind would likely be much more confusing to others, which I wouldn't like. I'd sit on park benches a little more. I tend not to get or do things because of gender roles, so I don't think I'd have a purse or would wear make-up. I'd likely be pretty annoyed with the whole "a women who's into X" comments. I'd inspect the elastic quality of my breasts on regular occasion, not in a sexual way, but like how one feels compelled to feel soft furry textures. I might have a better understanding of women, though I don't know, because there are plenty of women who are just as clueless as men on this subject. Probably take up tennis. I'd learn to speak in a British accent I might relate a lot more to feminine stories I'd want to go to Italy I'd contemplate the implications of wearing a bra and not wearing one, and would likely understand my ex girlfriend's reasons for always wanting to wear one. I really can't understand why I couldn't convince her to stop wearing them. I might think a little more about the ethics and implications of flashing I'd identify more as a person than my gender. I already have this going on, but I'd push it over the edge. Hopefully get more massages I might carry a knife or pepperspray on me. I'd go skydiving I would dread the prospect of having a child much much more

Be aware of your value and the value that you will bring to job. Most importantly write it down. A lot of us have issues with taking the positive aspects that we have and seeing it as something that others will want, and it really helps to objectively identify what is good about us and to recognize it as a virtue that other people want. Don't be wishy-washy about it. Think about your past jobs and what kind of value you brought to your coworkers, bosses, and the company. It doesn't really need to be connected with what you'll be doing. Like if you are friendly, that really doesn't have anything to do with cooking, but it has a lot to do with being a good employee. In thinking about my current job at a coffee shop, the values I bring to it are: Reliability Friendliness Honesty Resolving conflicts before they occur Not gossiping or talking bad about others Not complaining unnecessarily Getting along with everyone, even those I don't like Being extremely easy to manage Doing my job as instructed Never standing around doing nothing I feel quite good about the value I bring to this coffee shop, and a lot of my coworkers have explicitly stated that they are always glad when I am working.

A decent method for self-knowledge I think is to look at yourself and your beliefs from the point of view of an alien trying to understand the thoughts and behaviors that belong to you. Or if that goes a little too far, look at yourself from the view of someone like Stefan. I'd call it a healthy dissociation because it is meant to bring unconscious actions, thoughts, and beliefs into the conscious realm. As an example, I realized in the last year that I had very sophisticated and subtle ways of being passive aggressive. Unfortunately, a high intelligence in combination with psychological defenses gives the false self quite the ability to obscure its thoughts and actions. So I think the best way to combat this is to pretend like you are looking at someone else and drawing conclusions about them. This is also quite good for unlocking emotions. For a while I didn't feel anything in regard to the spanking I or others experienced, like I'd remember my experience in vivid detail and feel apathetic. I realized this was a problem and set out to fix it. I began making extremely clear what it was and wasn't, the perspective of the child, the neurology involved, and so on. Upon accepting that, I visualized my little nephew going through what I did and became quite angry. I was then able to feel anger in relation to others, but not yet myself. Through reasoning with myself, saying "why would I feel differently about myself than others", I was eventually I was able to visualize it happening to me and feel the anger. It took a few months in total, but was important. I suppose the knowledge I had was that my emotions were not in accordance with reality, and that anger was the solution.

As a journaling resource, I'd suggest this book. The author is a FDR fan as well.

I say "less true" because from what I understand, you are making a distinction between scientific claims and logical claims, such as those in mathematics. Claims and models derived through empiricism can be considered true, but less true than the statement "2+4=6". Maybe a dumb question, but how do you know it doesn't? I'm going to attempt to make a clarification below, so if it feels like I'm sidestepping the issue just keep reading and hopefully I am not. Really, I hope I'm not wasting my time in describing something you already agree with, or an argument you find irrelevant. Anyway. If I say that all knowledge of reality is derived through sense experience, I am somewhat cheating because I would not suggest that precepts and concepts are components of sense experience, rather that they are results of sense experience through about 3.5 billions years of evolution. The first living creatures on this earth had no ability to perceive or to conceptualize, rather they were like little bio-mechanical machines. The organisms had no understanding or awareness, yet through the mechanisms of evolutionary theory, organisms developed sense organs, which are instruments that take in data through physical means and programs an corresponding action to particular data. So some organism that detects blue light of a particular magnitude might swim up to the object and attempt to eat it, and upon detecting yellow light might have an automatic response to travel as fast as possible in the opposite direction. This sort of survival is non-descriptive in that there is no awareness or purpose according to the sensations or reactions, it is just what happens. As life grew more and more complex, the mechanism of accurate sensation became more important for survival. A class organisms that are able to correctly sense reality accurately have far better means for survival than those that don't. Survival is fundamentally based on acting and reacting in accordance to reality as a species that did not behave with any reference to reality would die off in pretty quite time, and since the senses were the means of gaining data of reality, the sense organs evolved to become quite good at sensing objective reality. Through billions of years of evolution life began to gain the ability to perceive as a means of survival, which is ultimately a result of the senses, but is not the same as sense experience. To quote Rand. Unlike early life, these organisms were not bio-mechanical machines that could only act or react to sense data, but rather they had the ability to ascribe sense data to entities. A key feature of this progression is awareness is the ability to ascribe actions to its own entity and to other entities. Due to this, the organism gains an ability to understand what it and other entities are capable of doing, as well as the ability to act on its own behalf in accordance with its perceptual model of reality. Perception arose of course due to evolutionary mechanisms and was built on the foundation of the senses, but it is also good to point out that perception came to be because it described immediate reality well enough. Objects acted independent enough to allow for differentiation, and though there is of course a lot of error involved in this, it provides a far better means of survival through a greater understanding of reality. Important ideas originate from perception. For instance, to an organism capable of perception: a predator remains a predator and does not change into a piece a kelp. Water remains as water and not lava. Structures that can't be passed through such as a mountain continue to have that property. What I am trying to get at is that the organism implicitly perceives that A is A, that this percept is based on a sort of empiricism through the senses, and that it makes total sense for this to be the case. Of course percepts can be invalid, but the organisms that act according to the percepts that most mirror reality will be far more likely to survive than those that have most inaccurate or invalid ones. Once life perceives reality not as a whole, yet rather as separate entities that act, the idea of numbers and concept of relationships follow. It isn't that there is a precise understanding in any sense, rather that the organism has a general sense. For instance, some dinosaur might be able to fight off one or two raptors and stand to fight as it would gain a meal from it, but lack in ability to fight twenty. If coming upon a group of raptors, it would use its visual sense and its action would be based on the number of raptors it perceives. Though the differentiation the might be general in that it sees either "a few" or "a lot", it still has a concept of quantity. The step that follows from this is conceptualization, which again is a result from the senses, but ought not to be confused with sense experience. To quote Rand again. The capacity to reason is a result of reality being objective and the understanding of reality being a key factor for survival. Reason is a means of validating or invaliding sensations, percept, and concepts through concepts. It is evolution's solution to the fallibility of sense and perception. A key feature of conceptualization entails the ability to understand and abstract a property of an object as a thing in itself, disconnected from objects. A man has a percept of length which is the size of an entity when compared to the size of another entity, and the man is able to conceptualize the concept of length into something that does not have anything to do with a particular. Essentially, this is what mathematics is, the rational conceptualization of the attributes of percepts such as quantity, logic, and geometry. New concepts such as irrational numbers, calculus, imaginary numbers and so on may not be based in sensation or perception, but they do not need to be because the validation and invalidation of the claims are based on the abstract concept of truth which already existed as a means to validate or invalidate percepts and sensations. Though this point might be subtle or slightly confusing, mathematics exists because: reality is objective, humans gain knowledge of reality through the senses, humans gain an understanding of objectivity through reality, conceptualization allows for objectivity to be a thing in itself, and mathematics is concept that is based on the concept of objectivity. I hope this response helped in some way. I've been writing an article on a related topic, so I'm trying to avoid another article here, but I seemed to have failed.

At the moment, we would say that particles with mass cannot attain a velocity of the speed of light or faster because the current models of reality and all of the validation of the model through testing demonstrates no reason to believe the contrary. I don't think it makes much sense to say that something is less true because it can be falsified, as falsification is the means by which its validity is accepted. If a discovery is made which contradicts the statement, then the validity of special relativity becomes more constrictive. As a comparison, special relativity did not invalidate classical mechanics, but rather set limitations as to when the model is valid and how much error would be involved in any calculation.

I think that there are some people who prefer solitude or isolation because they are unable to maintain their sense of self around others. I am certain that we've all had the experience of falling into a role and acting on the various expectations it contains. I seldom fall into this trap, but when I do I fall hard and it is almost like I have to stop interacting with that person. Though I am guessing, I would say that some people who choose few contacts do so because they are quite prone to this effect. Why they are prone I think might be obvious: childhood. The development of this habit might be quite rational and healthy at the time, like if your family and others all seem to boils on their skin, it makes sense to not very close. I think where the issue lies is in abstracting the sickness to people in general. Like said in the video, you need people to support you in your life in order to be successful.

Though the reactions are disconcerting, I think there is more to be glad about than anything. The very fact that these sorts of things are entering the public conscious is awesome. I see it as being similar to the fight to end slavery and black and female rights. I don't see this as means to change the current opposition, but rather as a means convince those on the edge and to change the future. It will likely take a couple of generations to see the change due to the nature of biology, but it is coming. Really, I think the best indicator of this are all the comedians who talk about it, Lewis CK and George Carlin being the best examples. I tried posting this comment on the article, but ran into some technical difficulties.

I like the idea, but I think you'd really need to be knowledgeable of the arguments to please the audience. Fans of philosophers are hounds for mis-characterizations, simplifications, and loss of subtlety. On any video on youtube where a philosopher is discussed, at least half the comments are criticisms about these issues. I suppose this wouldn't be an issue if the audience was more casual, and could be marketed in a way that makes it clear to read the philosopher if you really want to know what they believed. Here is a good song.

e Yer, what you are expressing is quite difficult to understand. I don't mean this to say the thoughts don't make sense in your head, but that is an issue in translating your ideas. I mean, I feel like I may know what you are saying, but I don't feel confident enough to make a rebuttal because I am likely to completely misunderstand or misconstrue your argument. I get this all the time, like I'll have this whole mess of reason and evidence in my head that I am quite sure is true, but I completely fail in presenting it others. Please don't take it as an insult because it is quite the opposite, I can see there is a lot of thought and reasoning going on behind the scenes, rather I just think you need some work in structuring ideas in your head and conveying them in a way that anyone could understand. I realize this response might be interpreted as annoying, but I think you should consume the links below. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, it provides a great foundation to forming your thoughts and making arguments. It'll make you far clearer as to what your beliefs are. It is like if you're interested in making movies, you'd likely watch a lot of good and bad movies to get an idea of how to present a story, how to frame a shot, how to makes things clear or ambiguous, and so on. The Meaning of Life Introduction to Philosophy Against The Gods Though supplemental, I'd recommend The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Rand has a vast number of arguments that address the nature of the purpose of man, and conveys it in such an elegant manner. Again, it isn't about agreeing with the arguments, but rather at gaining clarity in your own beliefs, and having great examples of how to express thought to mimic.

I am quite sorry for your past and having to go through what you did. Don't reject it, as doing so would be to reject yourself, as we are an ecosystem of parts. Do not fear that you will act violently, as you won't. Don't fear you will you become sadistic, as you won't. Fear what will happen if you are to live in neurosis. How does a bully know who to bully? More importantly, how does a bully know who to avoid at all costs? Understand it, reason with it, integrate it.

It reflects an aspect of the psychology and/or neural wiring of the person. Though I think that may be obvious or too general, it is the best I can do. I think much of it is unrelated to good or bad, though I likely consider a lot more to be weird than the average person does, but it can certainly be bad in certain circumstances. A simple example would be a girl who exposes herself in public as an adult because in childhood she was forced to strip down in some sort of messed up situation. An example where it is neither bad or good is ASMR which is a sensation people feel in response to certain kinds of sounds, like whispering and tapping. There are hour long videos on youtube of a person tapping on various items, and there are many people that watch this stuff everyday. A somewhat obvious connection is one to projection and to a preference for fiction over reality. The further removed from our own time, the further you wish to be removed from this day. I wish to emphasize that though this can be negative in some ways, it can also be quite healthy. There is a large segment of people who delve into the weird to allow for something they cannot understand to override an aspect of their consciousness, a polarized internalization that allows for balancing. Someone who is hyper-rationalistic might have quite a fascination with nonsensical and trippy movies, abstract art, or the complexities of bebop jazz. It might be conceived as a challenge. Some sensual stimulation is simply analogous to a drug. As an example, when I want to relax I watch massage videos. I get very relaxed and quite sleepy, and in general just feel good. This is just an exploitation of the empathy networks within the brain. Due to brain wiring, some people likely just get strong stimulation with unrelated objects and events that just so happen to trigger it. As of late, I have a strong interest in facial structures and features. I somewhat wish to get a book on it, so I can put a name to what I am seeing. I get a strong satisfaction in looking at a girl's face and dissecting why I find it attractive or unattractive, what features differ from others, how the whole is derived from the parts, what is going on.

Not exactly. What makes rape fail the test of UPB is that the preference cannot be universalized because by definition. Rape requires one person to want the sex, and another to not want it. Since the act of rape requires two preferences that are opposite of each other, the preference for rape cannot be applied to each human being, meaning rape cannot be universalized. Violence is more of a categorical term. Rape is not wrong because violence fails the test of UPB and rape involves violence; rather rape is wrong because it fails the test of UPB, and this is what makes rape an act of violence. If violence is a term to describe unethical interactions that involve the use or threat of physical force, then rape, murder, and the threat of murder would all be considered violent because they involve the use or threat of physical force. Fraud and theft would not be considered violent by this definition as they do not involve the use or threat of physical force, yet this would not at all imply that fraud and theft are ethical, because ethics are determined by the methodology of UPB, not a categorization of its conclusions. According to UPB, any conclusions of a theory apply to everyone. If a victim has the ability to respond to an unethical situation with force, then all people must also have the ability to respond with force universally. For instance, if I am tied up and about to be thrown overboard, you do not need my consent in order to use force against my captors in order to be ethically justified because anyone has the ability to use force on my behalf. There is a part in the book that covers this pretty well. These examples are covered pretty well in the book, so I won't exactly address them. But I will say that when in doubt, use the methodology. Take a behavior and the preferences involved, and then attempt to universalize them, and if it passes, apply other common sense ideas like the coma test.

What is rather confusing about evolution is that the term is used to describe the genetic material changes with time producing a vast array of very different species, and it also used to describe the process by which these changes occur. You can be in full agreement that evolution occurs, but in almost complete disagreement as to the process by which it occurs. I believe in a Dawkin's book, there was a story about how a Christian group got a Paleontologist to explicate on the faults of evolution and to provide reasons as to why it is false. The irony is that the Paleontologist agreed completely with evolution, but disagreed with the process by which evolutionists claim it occurs. It is like if two scientists find a baseball in a toilet. They may disagree on how the baseball got there, but they both agree that there is a baseball in the toilet, and that there is a rational explanation as to how it got there.

Not related to this post, but how do feel about the argument I made? Is there any part of it that feels unsatisfying?

This is what I'd say. We are beings that are made up of a particular configuration of matter. These configuration that currently comprise the human race are the result 3.5 billion years of evolution. Due to many different evolutionary mechanisms, organisms that gained a greater awareness of reality through sense data and an ability to react survived. Through a continuous compounding, it became advantageous for an organism to accurately identify and to conceptualize entities such as other organisms as something separate from itself, and to in turn to have a concept of self. If a T-Rex felt hungry, it would not look at its body and decide to eat its own flesh because it sees its own flesh as different. Consciousness came about as mean for prolonging survival. Consciousness is an internal mechanism that allows an organism to relate actions, thoughts, impulses, and feelings to its originator, otherwise known as the self. Humans are the only species to be specialized in rationality, which gives a enormous ability to identify what they have influence and control over, and what they do not. It provides a mechanism for overcoming the pattern seeking of superstitious, which is to falsely relate actions or internalization with the action or internalization. Self ownership, the ability to internal relate ones actions, thoughts, feels, and impulses exists, and the result of billions of years of evolution. To demonstrate a relation between your thoughts and actions in making an argument against self ownership... is certainly self defeating. To comment on tactics used in my argument. I first establish that reality exists and that we are beings made of matter that are the pure consequence of physics. The use of physics in the argument not only implies empiricism and the scientific method, but also as a validation of the senses being capable of describing reality and the process of doing so, essentially epistemology. I then use evolution, which is a science is that is based on the foundation I've already laid, to establish how self-awareness and consciousness came about. Having already made the point that we are all just configurations of matter, it is then implied that the process of evolution, self-awareness, and consciousness are in the end a result of physics. Now having the basis for reality and evolution, I define consciousness and relate it to the concept of "self", and use the example of the T-Rex to make it clear that emergence of the phenomenon applies to organisms that died off millions of years ago which also had brains the size of a peanut. Though I could technically leave it there, I go on and explain the differences found in humans, and make a furthering argument that shows the capacity in humans for the concept of self is limitless due to rationality. I can understand what you are saying. I'm certain that people have said "all you care about is being rights". I used to get that a lot. Now I realize that they are just projecting themselves onto me. I certainly agree in many respects and it is really quite applicable to a large segment of society, but it doesn't mean you ought not to improve your argumentative ability in order to reach those who can be reach.

Does anyone else get the hint of the "un-corrupted soul" argument in regard to the negative aspects that one can control such as "I am not my own character"? I feel as there is a large amount of internal dissociation occurring which delineates a strong line between the internal and the external. The voices well upside with evidence and conclusion, to which they must cut ties from. The artist intends this to be about societal labels people project upon themselves and dealing with identification and the internalization involved. This is most clear with the "I am not my amputation" as he has a belief that people identify him with his amputation, and like those labeled with mental illness, he may of begun to think of himself as an amputee. The message is hopeful in that it rejects the label. The concept reflects truth in some of these, yet it ventures to a whole other territory with the others "I am not my turban" is quite disappointing because the act of wearing a turban is a conscious act to indicate who you are. It is just the same for a Christian to wear a cross, they are publicizing part of their self because they want to be labeled by it. The societal message conveyed, that all Muslims or people who wear turbans are terrorists, is blatant liberal message and not very interesting. It becomes "look at the plight of the irrational suffered by the irrational" as opposed to intended "look at the plight of one who wishes to exercise their religion in peace by the irrational". "I am not my bulimia" is a dangerous argument because it denies self-responsibility when self-responsibility is the only solution. This sort of dissociation is wretched. I am fully willing to agree with the argument that it was inflicted on her and that she was not the ultimate cause, yet this is not argument being conveyed, it is rather a detachment. "I am not my abortion" is horrifying in so many respects in that the lady is not identifying herself with her actions, and recognizes a societal label of "murderer". This label is similar to the man who was adopted as it is something that a person can't know by just looking at their face, yet the inner turmoil is in their unconscious thoughts projected onto society as a whole. The weight of considering herself to be a murderer that she disowns herself. I think the most effective one was the "I am not my guilt", with the societal label of "warrior" printed over the pre-frontal cortex. The society praises the man for his crimes in war, yet a guilt still rises up in him. Detaching, he rejects his guilt and takes the label people have made for him. The base argument is somewhat reversed in this as the perceived societal label is accepted as the contents of his soul spill out to form the logical equivalent of "I am not who I am'. I felt anger looking at some of these pictures. I might be wrong about the interpretation I am drawing from it, but I feel not.

If it is force and coercion, it cannot be voluntary due to logic. This argument is utterly idiotic in that it fails to focus on the victim and puts all weight on the victim. Don't like the laws in Saudi Arabia? Afraid of being murdered for stating an opinion? Well, by continuing to live there you are agreeing to this, and of course you can leave at any time. Then you can't claim that anarchism is good or bad, because your morality and belief system is just in your own view. Do you believe in a state? Well it is just your opinion, and it holds just as much value as all other opinions, including the one that claims that state is immoral by definition. If someone ever starts running at you with a knife, please stick to your argument and don't use self defense, just stand there. Good, so we are born into slavery, and our master is benevolent enough to grant us various privileges if we conform to their whim.

It certainly isn't a matter of ethics, which is to say you cannot use force against someone for involving themselves with pornography or the porn industry. I really don't know where I stand on this issue, there is a lot of complexity. At the moment, I think my opinion is similar to my stance on drugs in that it isn't necessarily unhealthy, but that it can be.