An Open Letter to the Alt-Right: Exploring an Alternative Solution

[neeeel]

5 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

If we believe in free will then we must also believe in a soul.  

Yes, that is what logically follows from the belief in free will, as I understand it.

[Azrael Rand]

On 9/19/2018 at 9:33 PM, barn said:

Your definition of EI:

"My personal definition of emotional intelligence is an advanced understanding of human nature, integrated into a person's mindset, which then can be effectively used to exercise influence (or 4D Chess if you prefer). "

 

... That's willingly breaching the NAP.

ie. - 'If I told you I was going to steal your watch, I wouldn't be able to nick it. So I must do it secretly...said the pickpocket '

I don't see how using influence to overcome cognitive dissonance, a force that interferes with free will / a culture of self-ownership, can be equated to a violation of property rights. I understand you don't like the concept of influence but why would you oppose using it to break down barriers that prevent individuals from exchanging facts and ideas relevant to their well-being.

For example you could decide to engage a leftist by telling them they are wrong about a certain issue and then state your facts (Ben Shapiro approach) or you could engage the same person, ask them why they believe what they believe, and ask them to play devil's advocate by stating "what if you're wrong?" once you've established a good rapport with the person. I don't believe it's a realistic goal for us to try to persuade anyone in one sitting but actually getting the other person to question the validity of their beliefs, even if only as a hypothetical exercise, can be considered progress in my book because it's something they've likely never done and engages their rational mind.

Remember their belief system was pushed onto them by means of manipulation from childhood onward and reinforced by constant peer pressure and a culture where the only means to succeed as an individual is tied to virtue signaling in an effort to expand the Marxist Overton window. These poor souls never had a choice at free will and the workings of the mind (cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias) ensure that things will stay that way. When I say that human nature necessitates the use of influence techniques this is what I'm referring to.

 

On 9/18/2018 at 4:31 AM, barn said:

The natural consequences of one's poor decision should be more than enough incentive for one to re-evaluate. After that, it's really just a binary outcome.

This is mostly true if the individual grew up in a society that instilled a culture of self-ownership into each of its members (what we used to have) and that in my opinion is the best system we have tried that worked. But this isn't what we have anymore. Today's youth has been brainwashed and sheltered from opposing views. I don't think its fair to make a blanket statement to hold them morally accountable for their actions under these circumstances. I certainly understand the desire to do so because you don't have to care about people who you view deserve what's coming for them but that's not objectively the case here. Then there's the nature of our political system to contend with. We know what it looks like when insane people are holding the reigns over society and today's technology is a lot better than it used to be under previous fascist regimes. So I don't think we can afford to ignore these people.

 

On 9/19/2018 at 9:33 PM, barn said:

People I can't trust (and thereby their ideas as an extension) are for example, believe these are the same. (risk factor, their morality is corrupt)

I think it's bad for you, certainly not going to expose myself to it.

Philosophy, the pursuit of objective truths, certainly isn't for everyone. If moral health is your main goal I would recommend becoming a church-going traditional conservative and never look back. However if you can't for whatever reason remain in that category then the risk of moral corruption is just the cost of doing business in the pursuit of objective truths. What's true isn't always what makes you feel good inside.

[MahtiSonni]

10 hours ago, neeeel said:

how is it dishonest to ask you for proof

Unlike Azrael Rand, I never claimed to have any.  He claimed he can objectively prove his case.  You, on the other hand, made up a claim and asked me to prove it.  That is what is dishonest.

Quote

especially as I just echoed your own words back to you?

I quoted a direct claim to having proof.

Quote

There is nothing dishonest about anything I said.

...if you discount a nonexistent proof claim concerning something you made up.

[ticketyboo]

On 9/16/2018 at 2:07 PM, barn said:

On 9/16/2018 at 1:32 PM, ticketyboo said:

Downvoting your attempts to derail every alt-right thread and downvoting your passive-aggressiveness.

Are you sure? (I know you are wrong but it doesn't matter unless you take your accusations to the test of reason & evidence... me thinks. Or not. That's been always an available option for you. Even now.)

I mean, you could have spent those votes for the last month or so on other stuff... or could have made at least one reasoned argument with some proof at least. You haven't made any here neither. Right?

Would you like to speak of the things you think are proof for you?

The fact that some of your posts have multiple downvotes means that multiple people are downvoting you. Look inward. What does your self-knowledge tell you?

Quote

I cannot recall anyone who has made these complaints ever taking a step back and asking themselves if this is a consequence of their actions.

 

[neeeel]

3 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

 

...if you discount a nonexistent proof claim concerning something you made up.

as donnadogsoth pointed out, a soul, a ghost in the machine, is the logical conclusion of belief in free will. So I didnt make anything up, but as you appear to believe in free will, it follows that you must believe in something resembling a soul.

[barn]

On 09/22/2018 at 7:04 AM, ticketyboo said:

The fact that some of your posts have multiple downvotes means that multiple people are downvoting you. Look inward. What does your self-knowledge tell you? 

Hahaha... c'mon, be serious man!

I have been on the forum for a couple of years and until two months ago I had been at a good standing (around +30). I haven't seen anyone singled out so methodically not before, nor since... but of course, never with any argument just arrows, so I don't care (others experiencing shouldn't neither) about those.

The vast majority (from what I recall) are single votes... and there's a ton of votes on music one after another, though they're different styles. (only 10-15maybe in a thread with 300+ posts, c'mon...)

Or would you say greeting someone is worthy of downvoting?

Or when I quote someone saying something to confirm I properly understood... what a terrible thing, right?! c'mon man, seriously? You think that?

I don't think you are being honest here, due to examples above. (look it up if you don't believe me)

You know that arrows aren't arguments(?) and that no matter how many arrows (be it either type) that does not reveal any substance. I can imagine a whole lot of reasons. One being, them (1-2 ppl) acting cowardly or inept, WITHOUT intellectual integrity or curiosity.

I think these last traits are essential to philosophy, but I can see it isn't the same for everyone. So what? It's their choice not mine (apparently has been yours too). I don't mind a few people being afraid/childish, but I won't just sit there and self-censor. I am not like those people. Hence why you're reading this, right?

Plus, accusations from someone who (wink-wink) isn't providing proof, nor when called out is ______.

You do know that you still haven't made any reasoned argument with some proof at least...¯\_(ツ)_/¯. (as in: calling you out earlier)

It's up to you. Even now. That part has always been. People are what they repeatedly choose. So are you, so am I.

[Azrael Rand]

On 9/20/2018 at 10:34 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

You are still insisting that humans are nothing but robots.  I, too, would like to know how you can prove such a thing.

Based on your example I'd say more like up-gradable cyborgs

Here's what I previously wrote on the subject:

On 9/17/2018 at 10:23 PM, Azrael Rand said:

As a movement, the "right" values facts over feelings. If we value positive outcomes facts are a must however we have to acknowledge that an objective mindset isn't man's default or natural mindset. We're driven by our emotions, not reason, and use our reasoning skills to justify our emotionally motivated actions; see Jonathan Haidt's discussion of the elephant and the rider. Thus when we try to communicate with others that do not share this common mindset (the left) our ideas are rejected by cognitive dissonance and our audience's preexisting world view is reinforced.

Free will operates along the same lines. It's not our natural state of mind but if we do not hold people accountable for their actions society crumbles at the hands of determinism. Free will is a learned cultural mindset that allows us to perceive additional opportunities for applying our reasoning faculty; opportunities that remain unnoticed by our default range of perception. However we cannot say that people are always fully aware of the consequences of their actions; and even if they were aware of the full range of consequences their decisions would still be subject to emotional preference at any given moment.

I think it's fair to say that I disproved the existence of absolute free will in my response to MahtiSonni and I do acknowledge the ability for us to improve upon "practical" free will so I think our positions are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[RichardY]

Essentially I think Military Dictatorship, naked force, no taxation is force BS, straight up pay or die tribute. Libya was the most successful country in Africa despite hit lists, before it got bombed to oblivion over using gold as money. People are too retarded for a Republic (eugenic degradation low birth rate), which I think should be Aristocratic. And no state is fantasy land, although an admirable ideal solution. Mostly though interested in my own neck and no other, although I find the topics more entertaining than amateur gaming.

 

----------------------------------------

I think the "Alt-Right" is more of a revolution than a movement. I remember Stefan saying something like "Organisations drift to the left", which I agree with. In contrast, more right wing groups tend to fragment. I think even Rand mentioned something about right wing ideologues fragmenting, although it could be Mises, might be both.

There aren't many people I would consider Alt-Right. I think the meat of the topic is the race & IQ, genetics and the idea of a warrior gene, kill or be killed stuff, or at least have freedom of association.

I think it's obvious that the numbers of people being born into this world (3X f*cking times in the last 50 years, in some 3rd world countries) and migrating to the West, is going to end in catastrophe. How best to articulate that to westerners & whites that double down on and move closer to a wider collective. Speak the truth, sure, but in a Darwinian World(kind of a recurrent theme) with stubborn universalism, what difference is it going to make.

Instead of Right vs Left. more a case of, individualism(Nationalism) vs collectivism(Globalism), there is an element of each other in both, and they are relative. In addition may also affect how a person processes information. Or whether someone can transcend the paradigm completely?

------------------------------

Might be going entirely off base, but being a bit of a gamer, the cult classic Command & Conquer had two main factions. GDI (The Globalists) & NOD (The Brotherhood). Thought it was interesting because they actually ripped off some of the lore from the book "1984" the "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." just replaced control with command & conquer. The symbolism of the factions GDI The Eagle, generally a conscientious symbol, whether used in Rome or Germany. And NOD a scorpion, a non-conscientious symbol. The Land of NOD being a phrase associated with sleep or the unconscious. Anyway within the context of the game both factions fight over corruption or Tiberium (an alien crystal, named after the first really corrupt emperor..... or according to the game a river).

-----------------------------

Problem, I'm selfish to the extreme, also not social. I don't agree with Rand that selfishness is a virtue, it maybe a strength in certain circumstances. Altruism maybe far more useful, especially if considering the idea of the selfish gene, being generous as being far more useful socially, especially in a resource rich environment, which given modern technology shouldn't be a problem, if altruistic. 2 or 3

How does it concern you?

-----------------------------

 

[Donnadogsoth]

4 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I think it's fair to say that I disproved the existence of absolute free will in my response to MahtiSonni and I do acknowledge the ability for us to improve upon "practical" free will so I think our positions are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I'm not sure.  Consider the difference between meaning and emotion.  Emotion is an an impelling charge or force, irresistible without free will.  Meaning might be termed the colouration of the Logos.  The more meaningful something is the closer it is to the Logos.  Absolute free will means the ability to choose between emotion or meaning, between robotic circuitry or accordance with the design of the Logos.  The human emotion associated with the choice could be considered the Holy Spirit, the spirit of agape or divine love.  So there is an emotion associated with free will but is it irresistible?  It allows us to choose to rise to an "upgraded" personality, temporarily or characteristically. The people who don't feel this divine emotion are generally called psychopaths.  If agape is not irresistible then what regulates its strength?

[RichardY]

Thought I might mention my above post above post was mostly a mix of ideas that I usually have come to me, but find difficult to process, the first paragraph was recent the rest kind of trying to understand society psychologically, through a bit of symbolism and genetics. Perhaps a Jungian Archetype in a way being the equivalent of a meme. So not really complete, but what the hell.

[ofd]

Quote

I think it's fair to say that I disproved the existence of absolute free will in my response to MahtiSonni and I do acknowledge the ability for us to improve upon "practical" free will so I think our positions are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong though. 

As Donnadogsoth and Neeeel have pointed out, you can't believe in naturals laws that determine outcomes from prior states and free will at the same. The causal chains go forward and backward with nothing in between them. If you want to find an entity that has "free will" it has to be supernatural or, in other words, a soul that is not part of the causal links but can influence the physical world.

[RichardY]

8 minutes ago, ofd said:

As Donnadogsoth and Neeeel have pointed out, you can't believe in naturals laws that determine outcomes from prior states and free will at the same. The causal chains go forward and backward with nothing in between them. If you want to find an entity that has "free will" it has to be supernatural or, in other words, a soul that is not part of the causal links but can influence the physical world.

Psychologically how is saying that I have freewill a benefit?

In saying that, haven't I already limited myself to hypothetical choices within my conscious awareness?

In saying that I have freewill, doesn't it necessarily hold that you follow the maker and taker dichotomy, that Stefan often uses instead of the have's and have not's. Matter must after all be created by something in order for creativity to have any merit, and freewill to be possible. In doing so doesn't that effectively blindside you while conferring a certain amount of clarity. Instead why not leave freewill as a mute point something akin to what Aristotle does? As opposed to affirming freewill, more akin to Ayn Rand.

In contrast I have observed that Determinists often have double-think. If there is a trade-off however, and I must choose one, I would choose freewill. Although I don't really believe in either. 

[Azrael Rand]

15 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Although I don't really believe in either. 

This is why I prefer framing it as a culture of self-ownership rather than free will, which is factually incorrect.

----

@ Donnadogsoth,

I think we can come to an agreement on free will if we settle on a place somewhere between Ayn Rand's rational man and a leaf blowing in the wind.

[RichardY]

I like the idea of self-ownership, responsibility not that keen on, especially factoring in liability, all to often seems like an excuse for passing the buck. Reminds me of Dr Jordan Peterson using "Bucko" a lot.

22 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

I think we can come to an agreement on free will if we settle on a place somewhere between Ayn Rand's rational man and a leaf blowing in the wind.

This isn't a place for agreement. Fight!!!!

I think Ayn Rand was wrong about a few things.
1) Rejection of the Freudian unconscious in favour of a subconscious mind.
2) "The Virtue of selfishness." Aristotle often has meanness as opposed to prodigality a worse vice in Nicomachean Ethics. She also didn't have any children, which she might have had if altruistic.
3) "What is good for man's life, is good for man."
4) Dogmatism as Objectivism being a complete system.

[Donnadogsoth]

58 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

This is why I prefer framing it as a culture of self-ownership rather than free will, which is factually incorrect.

----

@ Donnadogsoth,

I think we can come to an agreement on free will if we settle on a place somewhere between Ayn Rand's rational man and a leaf blowing in the wind.

I have nothing better to offer at current, so I agree.

[Azrael Rand]

44 minutes ago, RichardY said:

I think Ayn Rand was wrong about a few things.
1) Rejection of the Freudian unconscious in favour of a subconscious mind.
2) "The Virtue of selfishness." Aristotle often has meanness as opposed to prodigality a worse vice in Nicomachean Ethics. She also didn't have any children, which she might have had if altruistic.
3) "What is good for man's life, is good for man."
4) Dogmatism as Objectivism being a complete system. 

I certainly agree with you that Objectivism isn't perfect as-is but she was certainly on the right track. If you account for human irrationality and other factors not scientifically proven in her time you've got something very useful to work with. It's kind of sad that Objectivism didn't evolve alongside the scientific discoveries up to today but with Ayn Rand's personality setting the tone for the movement it's not surprising.

[RichardY]

8 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

I certainly agree with you that Objectivism isn't perfect as-is but she was certainly on the right track. If you account for human irrationality and other factors not scientifically proven in her time you've got something very useful to work with. It's kind of sad that Objectivism didn't evolve alongside the scientific discoveries up to today but with Ayn Rand's personality setting the tone for the movement it's not surprising.

I think Objectivism is useful especially the epistemology side. Finding contemporary alternatives to Rand though seems difficult. Either crazy French Or some totally unfamiliar logical games in American or English philosophers. I think listening or reading Aristotle, is better then reading Rand's "updated" version. Yeah there's probably confirmed error's in it but the bulk seems Good. His name even means the Best. 

Became aware of it fairly late, looking originally at economics, first Chicago School, then saw book reviews on Amazon saying Austrian Economics was the way to go. So Ludwig von Mises, then I became aware of Rand. I did find might self totally rejecting the notion of the unconscious after reading Rand, so things like "The Sh*test" "Cognitive dissonance" "double think i.e hate speech" don't mean much if you accept the subconscious theory of the mind. The idea "man has the choice to think or not to think" and that's it. A large part of what a person does occurs unconsciously, but accepting that, I don't think people, and I myself didn't like to think there could be influences beyond my initial control or awareness.

[MahtiSonni]

21 hours ago, neeeel said:

as donnadogsoth pointed out, a soul, a ghost in the machine, is the logical conclusion of belief in free will. So I didnt make anything up, but as you appear to believe in free will, it follows that you must believe in something resembling a soul.

Like I said in no uncertain terms, sure, I believe we are souls, and that our operating system is the body we have.  I never claimed any proof for it.  I don't have any inclination to even begin justifying that belief to you, as you're still lying about not making a proof claim you expect me to back up.

[MahtiSonni]

10 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I think it's fair to say that I disproved the existence of absolute free will in my response to MahtiSonni and I do acknowledge the ability for us to improve upon "practical" free will so I think our positions are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

As I stated, by adding the previously unmentioned qualifier you made an oxymoron of the term, which is hardly a proof of anything except linguistic trickery.  It was a refutation of a position no one has ever had on the subject.

[neeeel]

5 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

This is why I prefer framing it as a culture of self-ownership rather than free will, which is factually incorrect.

 

How can you have a culture of self-ownership if there is no self and nothing to own. If determinism is true, a culture of self ownership would be similar to saying that a PC owns its keyboard and mouse

[neeeel]

2 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Like I said in no uncertain terms, sure, I believe we are souls, and that our operating system is the body we have.  I never claimed any proof for it.  I don't have any inclination to even begin justifying that belief to you, as you're still lying about not making a proof claim you expect me to back up.

Im not sure what you mean. You are saying that I made a proof claim? Or that I said that you were making a proof claim? its not clear. I think calling me a liar is extreme, did you, or did you not, say "Our will is free in the sense that we make our decisions", and was I not correct in logically deducing from that that you believe in free will, and therefore a soul? 

If your issue is that you werent making a claim, whats the difference between making a statement ( "Our will is free in the sense that we make our decisions") and making a claim? If you make a statement, can I not ask for proof that your statement is true, and how does asking for proof suddenly make me a liar?

 

Sure, you can say that you dont have proof, in which case I can dismiss your statement. None of this makes me a liar.

 

 

[ofd]

Quote

Psychologically how is saying that I have freewill a benefit? 

It's an useful illusion that makes it more likely for you to act in a social way by increasing the worth you ascribe to your agency. You are much more than a bundle of neurons that have come up with a decision before you are aware of it.

Quote

Instead why not leave freewill as a mute point something akin to what Aristotle does?

If our understanding of the world is incorrect we will make bad decisions. In the Medieval Ages, animals were condemned by trials for committing evil acts. Today we see that as ridiculous, perhaps in the future our descendants will think the same about our understanding of human nature.

[MahtiSonni]

6 hours ago, neeeel said:

Im not sure what you mean.

I mean that unless my English is absolutely worthless, "I can't wait to see the proof" implies two things: i) that the proof mentioned isn't introduced to the subject by that sentence and ii) a claim to having proof has been made.

I did neither. You tried to make it sound like I did, which is dishonest.  Lying about other people having made claims they have not made is lying, obviously.  There are very few things I despise more than people trying to put words in my mouth.

[neeeel]

3 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

I mean that unless my English is absolutely worthless, "I can't wait to see the proof" implies two things: i) that the proof mentioned isn't introduced to the subject by that sentence and ii) a claim to having proof has been made.

I did neither. You tried to make it sound like I did, which is dishonest.  Lying about other people having made claims they have not made is lying, obviously.  There are very few things I despise more than people trying to put words in my mouth.

you made a statement. How is that different from "making a claim"? Why can I say "I cant wait to see proof" when you make a claim, but not say it when you make a statement?

saying "I cant wait to see proof" is not the same as saying "You said you had proof, now show me it" , I have never claimed that you SAID you had proof, I ASKED you for proof. Do you see how they are different? 

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it is actually a language issue

 

[MahtiSonni]

5 minutes ago, neeeel said:

Why can I say "I cant wait to see proof"

Another lying by omission.  Too many times to be an accident.  That's all I needed.  Bye.

[neeeel]

2 minutes ago, MahtiSonni said:

Another lying by omission.  Too many times to be an accident.  That's all I needed.  Bye.

Nope, not lying at all.

 

Did you, or did you not, say "Our will is free in the sense that we make our decisions". Did you agree that this implies that you believe in a ghost in the machine, or soul?

How is it lying to ask you for proof? ASK you. Asking you for proof is not a claim that you have proof, or that you said you had proof.

Its becoming clear that you are the passive aggressive dishonest one.

 

[Azrael Rand]

16 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

As I stated, by adding the previously unmentioned qualifier you made an oxymoron of the term, which is hardly a proof of anything except linguistic trickery.  It was a refutation of a position no one has ever had on the subject.

I put the previously unmentioned qualifier in there to clarify what I meant with my previous statement(s). Free will means different things to different people (secular, non-secular context, absolute vs non-absolute, etc); I have no way of knowing what everyone's idea of free will is so I defined it in a way that made it clear. Now I know Stefan draws an intelligent audience but I didn't want to make any assumptions. If I didn't disprove what you believe free will to be then we're likely in agreement.

This is what I said I can agree to as it pertains to free will:

20 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I think we can come to an agreement on free will if we settle on a place somewhere between Ayn Rand's rational man and a leaf blowing in the wind.

----------- break -------------

18 hours ago, RichardY said:

I think Objectivism is useful especially the epistemology side. Finding contemporary alternatives to Rand though seems difficult. Either crazy French Or some totally unfamiliar logical games in American or English philosophers. I think listening or reading Aristotle, is better then reading Rand's "updated" version. Yeah there's probably confirmed error's in it but the bulk seems Good. His name even means the Best.

My takeaway from Objectivism was that it was designed to be the perfect ideology by embracing objective truths and human nature as it exists and using this information to our advantage in any and all of our endeavors. My thinking was that if you're an Objectivist you'd always be correct since you had the truth on your side so when I took a look at the Objectivist movement of today and saw what essentially boiled down to an Ayn Rand book club I started looking for answers myself. If you're not getting the results your looking for you're obviously not accounting for one or more relevant facts and therefore aren't on the objective path yet.

18 hours ago, RichardY said:

A large part of what a person does occurs unconsciously, but accepting that, I don't think people, and I myself didn't like to think there could be influences beyond my initial control or awareness. 

Yeah that's the part about accepting human nature as it exists as opposed to how you'd like it to exist and it again goes to prove the very point you've highlighted: Subconscious influence, cognitive bias, etc... The truth is that each and every one of us is impacted by these issues. The people that think they're exempt are the worst off imo. If you read Ayn Rand and became emotionally attached to her exact words you start to discount & dismiss conflicting information that by today's standards is pretty much common knowledge. I've seen Yoran Brook do this many times and it's why I don't consider myself part of the "official" Objectivist movement.

[RichardY]

19 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

My takeaway from Objectivism was that it was designed to be the perfect ideology by embracing objective truths and human nature as it exists and using this information to our advantage in any and all of our endeavors. My thinking was that if you're an Objectivist you'd always be correct since you had the truth on your side so when I took a look at the Objectivist movement of today and saw what essentially boiled down to an Ayn Rand book club I started looking for answers myself. If you're not getting the results your looking for you're obviously not accounting for one or more relevant facts and therefore aren't on the objective path yet.

I would say "the perfect ideology is based on survival" to quote the X-Files movie. But survival of what? According to Rand survival of man qua man. But hypothetically what if through surgery an organ biological or mechanical could be implanted to allow for a collective consciousness? So instead of using mirror neurons to interpret empathy, you get direct feedback via telepathy from another. Wouldn't a collective consciousness be superior to an individual one? This would not be the equivalent of the borg(collective unconsciousness), but instead something like the movie "Scanners", or Cyborgs.

30 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

Yeah that's the part about accepting human nature as it exists as opposed to how you'd like it to exist and it again goes to prove the very point you've highlighted: Subconscious influence, cognitive bias, etc... The truth is that each and every one of us is impacted by these issues. The people that think they're exempt are the worst off imo. If you read Ayn Rand and became emotionally attached to her exact words you start to discount & dismiss conflicting information that by today's standards is pretty much common knowledge. I've seen Yoran Brook do this many times and it's why I don't consider myself part of the "official" Objectivist movement.

She outright denies the concept of instinct, she had me going for a while. I do find the theory of the unconscious vs subconscious mind interesting though, things like projection I don't think would be possible without an unconscious mind, and things like Affirmations should in theory be super effective, if the subconscious mind were true.

[RichardY]

11 hours ago, ofd said:

It's an useful illusion that makes it more likely for you to act in a social way by increasing the worth you ascribe to your agency. You are much more than a bundle of neurons that have come up with a decision before you are aware of it.

If our understanding of the world is incorrect we will make bad decisions. In the Medieval Ages, animals were condemned by trials for committing evil acts. Today we see that as ridiculous, perhaps in the future our descendants will think the same about our understanding of human nature.

"Those who understand evil pardon it." - George Bernard Shaw. I'm not sure I really want to pardon evil. Is there anything evil that can not be understood? Brings to mind some pretty dark questions.

But if freewill is an illusion, and we are correct in assuming that, how is it useful? Sam Harris calls it an outright delusion, meaning virtually everyone on the forum, (with exceptions to hard determinists with doublethink imo) are definitively insane.

I think people who take freewill for granted tend to be more pumped up. I too tend to think in bundles of neurons rather than a brain as such, a good number being located in the gut, heart, feet etc.

[Azrael Rand]

On 9/18/2018 at 4:31 AM, barn said:

You put forward in your pm-s:

° UPB isn't the same for everyone

° Stefan's book on UPB is a modified clone of Objectivism w/o the state

Decided to take the opportunity to express my views on UPB that were briefly quoted by barn (from our PM discussion) earlier in this thread.

I think it's common knowledge in this community that Stefan considered himself a devout Objectivist before creating UPB. As an Objectivist Stefan noticed a logical contradiction within Objectivism: It advocates for the NAP but advocates for a limited state which in itself violates the NAP. If I recall correctly Ayn Rand's view was that if human nature necessitates a limited state so be it, but she also acknowledged a scenario may come to pass where citizens would voluntarily donate sufficient tax revenue out of of rational self-interest thereby eliminating the conflict. Stefan eliminated compulsory taxation and the state with UPB to make Objectivism logically and morally consistent.

The problem with both Objectivism and UPB is that both are derived by focusing on only the selfish / individualist aspect of humanity and discards our groupish nature (natural in-group preference). The cognitive method used by Stefan to create UPB is also based on an individualistic desire to create a universal standard for the sake of logical consistency and ease of application which sounds very much like a product of the consistency bias. We don't want to be wrong and we don't want to expend energy agonizing over each and every decision therefore we take something we understand to work for a certain set of applications and apply it universally. Then we rationalize away logical inconsistencies. This is how both Objectivism and UPB came into existence.

Because ideologies such as Objectivism, UPB, and others are built upon an ideal that only acknowledges a specific aspect of human nature (to the exclusion of others), we will eventually arrive at a time and place where our beliefs are challenged by reality and we arrive at the logical conclusion that if we as a group aren't able to respect and live up to our ideals, then we as a group don't deserve to survive. This is the conclusion Stefan arrived at in this video. Note I also highly recommend viewing PhilosophiCat's rebuttal videos (part 1 & 2).

If the logical conclusion to your belief system in the face of an existential threat is that its members don't deserve to survive for essentially acting in accordance with their nature then it was never a belief system meant for human beings in the first place.

I understand Stefan has acknowledged the need for in-group preference (haven't we all in these trying times) but he hasn't done the hard work of fully integrating this aspect into his philosophical framework. I don't believe that patching up UPB to account for in-group preference is the intellectually honest thing to do.

Leaving Stefan to his own devices by letting him hang on to UPB for emotional support isn't doing him nor us any favors. No one is exempt from cognitive biases, not me, not you, not Stefan or Ayn Rand. We all make mistakes. We can't change things for the better if we're holding on to a conflicting belief system that impacts our actions for the worse (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, etc).

In my opinion it would be more productive for Stefan to focus his philosophical explorations on finding a balance between selfishness and groupishness appropriate for our in-group. Asking people to completely suppress their group identity or asking them to be expendable pawns to be sacrificed to the collective are both extreme views that discard one part of what it means to be human. I think it's fair to say this is the approach Japan has taken. Could they have done things better, sure, but when the s*** hits the fan they'll unite and come together to face their problems as a group whereas we know what's in store for us if things don't change soon.

In a previous post I mentioned that the need to embrace influence is a philosophical implication of us being led by emotions not reason. Another important implication is the need to be open to constructive criticism. We see the mistakes of others much more clearly than our own because we don't have a dog in the fight. If we did, we'd be just as biased as the other guy. High IQ does not exempt us from this reality.

I suspect that there are a number of actions Stefan decided not to pursue to protect his world view. One of them may have been the decision not to reach out to prominent members of the Alt-Right. If true, I believe this to be a mistake. There are many young, talented, and passionate figures on the Alt-Right, but no one is perfect and we all stand to benefit from collaborating with each other.

Ironically, this is what the left fears most as put on public display with the recent Alternative Influence piece. What they fear is an organized network of influencers in collaboration to take them down (the same strategy they used on us). This is their greatest fear because it is their greatest strength: Organization and Influence. Let's be sure to take notice and do all we can to give those bastards a run for their money.

[MahtiSonni]

7 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I put the previously unmentioned qualifier in there to clarify what I meant with my previous statement(s). Free will means different things to different people (secular, non-secular context, absolute vs non-absolute, etc); I have no way of knowing what everyone's idea of free will is so I defined it in a way that made it clear. Now I know Stefan draws an intelligent audience but I didn't want to make any assumptions. If I didn't disprove what you believe free will to be then we're likely in agreement.

This is what I said I can agree to as it pertains to free will:

I do not agree with it.  A leaf has no will at all.  Neither does the theoretical Rational Man, who is (IIRC) merely a machine for less than defined self-interest and can't act freely.

No one ever, anywhere, argues in favor of absolute free will, because the concept is an oxymoron, as absolute freedom would require freedom from itself.  The only meaningful definition of free will is that no outside force makes the decision for the individual.  It does not mean outside forces can't influence the decision - in fact, making actual choices requires it.  One can't be free from oneself and to expect that would be absurd.  That's why arguing against "absolute free will" is a cop out pretending to be an argument.  I expected a whole lot more.

[ofd]

Quote

I'm not sure I really want to pardon evil.

If there is a dog with rabies, you don't get angry with the dog because it is evil. You understood what caused his behaviour and you treat the dog accordingly, without venom.
 

Quote

But if freewill is an illusion, and we are correct in assuming that, how is it useful?

Your self esteem and what not is higher which might be useful when dating somebody. Reading evolutionary psychology on any topic is disenchanting it shows that what we are attracted to is (in most cases) based on simple stats (wait / hip ratio). An illusion that delivers better results than an accurate representation of the world is selected for.

 

Quote

doublethink imo

How do they engage in double think?

[RichardY]

3 hours ago, ofd said:

If there is a dog with rabies, you don't get angry with the dog because it is evil. You understood what caused his behaviour and you treat the dog accordingly, without venom.

Although I would not make the judgement of the dog being good or evil. I'd probably want it either segregated or put down.

3 hours ago, ofd said:

 Your self esteem and what not is higher which might be useful when dating somebody. Reading evolutionary psychology on any topic is disenchanting it shows that what we are attracted to is (in most cases) based on simple stats (wait / hip ratio). An illusion that delivers better results than an accurate representation of the world is selected for.

 

I guess the highs and low of a dopamine rush might be helpful. Reward and Punishment. So when you say illusion do you also reject determinism as valid or actual? The alternative to the Freewill & Determinism doctrine. Being a Heraclitean or Nietzchean Flux, the unification of opposites. Might be others; but compatiblism or predetermination, is just determinsim plus.

5 hours ago, ofd said:

How do they engage in double think?

Things like "hate speech", "scientific r*cism" or arguing for a welfare state like Spinoza, but then saying it must be maintained by terror.

[Azrael Rand]

On 9/23/2018 at 6:37 PM, RichardY said:

I would say "the perfect ideology is based on survival" to quote the X-Files movie. But survival of what? According to Rand survival of man qua man. But hypothetically what if through surgery an organ biological or mechanical could be implanted to allow for a collective consciousness? So instead of using mirror neurons to interpret empathy, you get direct feedback via telepathy from another. Wouldn't a collective consciousness be superior to an individual one? This would not be the equivalent of the borg(collective unconsciousness), but instead something like the movie "Scanners", or Cyborgs.

I'll settle for the ethics of the here and now but the borg scenario does pique my interest. So would it be collective subconsciousness and an individualist consciousness? In that case there would be no need for the individualist ethics since the "free" actions of the individual would be motivated to serve the collective right? Or is there something I'm missing?

 

On 9/23/2018 at 6:54 PM, RichardY said:

But if freewill is an illusion, and we are correct in assuming that, how is it useful? Sam Harris calls it an outright delusion, meaning virtually everyone on the forum, (with exceptions to hard determinists with doublethink imo) are definitively insane. 

We do have some free will, it may not be perfect or ever present, but it does exist and one's mindset can either enhance or detract from it. Hardcore determinists are easy to deal with. If we can't be held responsible for our actions due to lack of free will and that invalidates any and all rules / morality then what is morally wrong with us gutting the relativist like a fish. Surely they wouldn't object since there is no morality and everything is relevant no?

The best way to deal with liberal ideologues is to deconstruct their belief system and to call them on their BS by pointing out that their stance isn't logically consistent and is merely a rationalization for their emotional preference.  I'll gladly settle on in-group utilitarianism based around the shared characteristics of the group's members as opposed to relativist anarchy.

On 9/24/2018 at 1:38 AM, MahtiSonni said:

No one ever, anywhere, argues in favor of absolute free will, because the concept is an oxymoron, as absolute freedom would require freedom from itself.  The only meaningful definition of free will is that no outside force makes the decision for the individual.  It does not mean outside forces can't influence the decision - in fact, making actual choices requires it.  One can't be free from oneself and to expect that would be absurd.  That's why arguing against "absolute free will" is a cop out pretending to be an argument.  I expected a whole lot more. 

People will believe in just about anything as long as there's an emotional motivation driving them to do so (think of the religious context that gave rise to free will in the first place). Also sorry if I couldn't live up to your expectations; I hear Stefan's new book will cover the topic of free will so maybe you'll find what you're looking for in there.

--- break ---

Note, I posted my analysis on UPB a few posts up but its still being held for moderation; it's one of those hidden posts with purple outline only the author can see. Hopefully it'll pop in soon.

Edit: Post now shows up a few posts up or just click here.

[RichardY]

23 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I'll settle for the ethics of the here and now but the borg scenario does pique my interest. So would it be collective subconsciousness and an individualist consciousness? In that case there would be no need for the individualist ethics since the "free" actions of the individual would be motivated to serve the collective right? Or is there something I'm missing?

The collective unconscious is a Jungian theory. The subconscious is dismissed as not a useful distinction, by psychoanalysis. 

It is more like the collective unconscious is what exists already. So Borg cubes if you will, are Tenement and Tower blocks. It's what the unconscious mind uses in the absence of consciousness. However it is always active, but can be made conscious by consciousness. Things like astrology, days of the week, names of people and places are often noticed by a collective unconscious. The idea being that in larger groups there is more pressure to subordinate individual consciousness to the will of the collective, to acquire resources and perpetuate itself. The unconscious being more capable with brute empiricism.

I think the point of an individualistic ethic is to maintain a consciousness that would allow for the interaction between others of an out-group and other individuals. Helping to perpetuate consciousness.

If the subconscious theory of the mind is held as true, then consciousness and pre-consciousness still would have to be explained some how, if you hold a subconscious theory of the mind. The best from determinists seem to be it's a fluke, or from Christians that it is part of the will of god, for consciousness. And pre-consciousness that it's either Instinct, which Ayn Rand rejects flatout. Or Tabula Rasa.

By definition Good is superior to Evil. However, as Good is superior to Evil, why does Evil appear to pre-dominate, perhaps you disagree? Why would evil even exist in the first place if good is stronger? But as you said settling for the Ethics of the here and now, sounds reasonable to me.

23 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

We do have some free will, it may not be perfect or ever present, but it does exist and one's mindset can either enhance or detract from it. Hardcore determinists are easy to deal with. If we can't be held responsible for our actions due to lack of free will and that invalidates any and all rules / morality then what is morally wrong with us gutting the relativist like a fish. Surely they wouldn't object since there is no morality and everything is relevant no?

The best way to deal with liberal ideologues is to deconstruct their belief system and to call them on their BS by pointing out that their stance isn't logically consistent and is merely a rationalization for their emotional preference.  I'll gladly settle on in-group utilitarianism based around the shared characteristics of the group's members as opposed to relativist anarchy.

Which is why utilitarianism predominates.

The distinction of in group utilitarianism means nothing, anything a group can utilise it will.