Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

Wes, I have read your whole post, but my point is brief -

Not at all.
All a person needs in order to establish criteria for utility, is a goal.
Everything is then divided into two groups: That which brings the person closer to the goal, and that which doesn't.
Everything else (including notions of objectivity and subjectivity) is circumstantial.

I would neither agree nor disagree.

The "objective existence of an individual" is a notion rife with assumptions that have been taken for granted. As such, it is not a good basis to start one's inquiries on or to refer to.
(Philosophers have been struggling with that for millenia.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IMO, this is an excellent expression of utility. Practically, I agree with it for the most part, except I'm probably too much of a pussy to want to kill people over this shit unless they are a real threat to me in the immediate now.

I'm just trying to understand a scope larger than if I am offended by someone's assenine claims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well as I see it there is no goal that isn't a byproduct of value, so value is the basic criteria for utility... *shrug*

By whom? Why? Is that reflective of what happens in a mind or you just trying to keep classification as simple as possible? What is everything? You mean "all possible decisions"? Goals are dynamic. Evaluations are flawed. Where do these two groups exist? I think I see you're trying to keep it as simple as possible, but in my experience what you've said isn't necessarily reflective of thought at all.

I beg to differ, in that without a notion of subjectivity - at least as I see it - there is nothing for which it to be circumstantial (to me you've missed an implicit assumption of importance). The fact (as I establish in my own context) that you stated something necessitates you existing independently of me (at least in the statement you made) and subjectively derived (however inspired) your statement. You objectively, subjectively valued it and offered a statement as to it.

If you deny this, it seems to me you invalidate that you made a statement in the first place, which is why I insist that this tangent is relevant. Please bear in mind that to me this is just a fairly straightforward consequence of the assumption of self, and self is assumed as I've repeatedly stated.

Because you reject the notion of objective/subjective alltogether?

Such as?

Assumptions are at least tentatively taken for granted or they aren't assumptions.

The utility established by an individual's value function determines the acceptance or rejection of assumptions.

To me, you're trying to put something that is inherently a subjective cost-benefit analysis in the framework of an absolute... or is that me doing that? Lol. Damnit man, I can't tell!

Here's my logic, perhaps we just start here and you tell me why I'm wrong or what assumptions I've missed.

'i am'

this I assume, but reserve the right to doubt given evidence that compells me to do so.

to me, the above is a different way of saying:

'i exist'.

- since if I am, I must exist.

if however I exist (which I've assumed), there exists a medium of whatever sort in which I do so.

i conclude:

'there is a medium of whatever sort in which i exist'

i accept it, and reserve the right to question it should I find myself compelled to do so.

So:

"I exist in some medium"

I observe: in this medium i seem to have perception.

i further observe: my perception seem to be reflective of the medium in which i exist.

after much experimenting, i conclude there is indeed some relationship that sometimes seems to have some form of structure or prectability. i find that if I stop breathing i experience discomfort, no matter how many times I try it, the result is eventually to breath again. i suspect strongly that if I were able to stop breathing for longer, i may never breath again.

I think it all comes down to economics really.

the thing is: what is the opportunity cost of your skepticism? what experiments can you afford to entertain given your (anyone's) apparently limited time and resources?

the logic above works fantastically for me because at all the places you might reject assumptions, i've found myself compelled to accept them for the sake of my own economy. if you bring up reasons that I find compelling to reject those assumptions, it'd be a done deal.

personally, what is the worst for me is that i cannot fathom that you would not agree that regarding your own ideas - if I've properly communicated myself, such as those you utilize in attempting to rebut me, which ensnares you as performing per my claims of how this all works. if you disagreed I'd probably think you dishonest, perhaps to my own shame. of course i'd never know for sure. *sigh* i may just chalk it up to "he has a different model", but "that he has his own model does nothing but support most of what I was saying". Gawd it's a sticky web.

Of course, and I'm trying to perform a meta-analysis of their struggles really, and my own - which of course only a fool would attempt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course what I'm saying is not reflective of what usually happens in a mind. The mind is usually pretty chaotic and more or less useless.

But if a person focuses on a goal, then at that time of the focus, what I said earlier applies.

It's relevant to you, yes ...
Odd this, when two metaphysical systems meet.

No, but because I hold that notions like "individual", "objective", "subjective" don't apply. Which I have been trying to work out so far, but I'm not sure I'm getting across to you. In fact, I don't think I can get this across to you, because we're working with different metaphysical systems here.

I think you are doing that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can't say you're "wrong". Within your own metaphysical system, you are right, but the claims that you make (that apply within your own metaphysical system) do not necessarily apply in or translate to another metaphysical system. We could even go so far as to say that a claim made within one metaphysical system necessarily doesn't apply within another metaphysical system.

Damn those self-fulfilling systems!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That remark about philosophers was both sarcastic and yet with a heavy heart.

 

how about a substitute....experience of self? more conventional i think tho the other is not inapplicable

play with that phrase. is there something implicitly accepted in that?

 

As a substitute for what specifically? Not sure if you mean something in the sentence you quoted or to what it was referring.


The only implicit acceptance I see on first glance is something to possess or house the experience... which is a little snag maybe but not sure of your context.





Greenburg: I tried to hammer out a response but couldn't muster the words quite yet. I ended up with too many tangents. I'll revisit it soon.

 

ja
what can be said about that?

 

made me smile for some reason.

ok...

"experience of self"

a) What did the experiencing?
b) How do you know you have a self?

Of course to me the answer to both questions is almost exactly the same. And if you'd like we could delve annoyingly into the semantics of it, as we should really question each definition unless we're reasonably satisfied that we are actually communicating, in which case fuck it.

A) Self did the experiencing.
B) I presume self and have experienced nothing that compells me to reject it. Its utility outweighs abondaning it.

Further and more importantly perhaps; If you reject the notion of self you slide onto an infinitely slippery slope IMO, as everything you utter is inconsistent with everything else. I think logic is ultimately exactly a transform thats output is wholly dependent upon its input. A simple utterance of any sort in an of itself has an unstated implication of self. Yet if we accept the naked, ungrounded truth of millenia of philosopher you'll conclude there cannot be proof of this simple implied acceptance. To me this really solidifies the nature of logic as a tranform (noting that without some grounding point you can reach no conclusion), and that really - all knowledge is based upon at least the ramifications of one simple, unspoken common assumption that is perhaps unwittingly cemented in the act of any assertion, observation or commentary whatsoever.

Without some reasonable assumption about something, there is nothing to analyze - nothing to be transformed, and applying the method yeilds variable output.

And then there's the matrix tangent, which as I see it is only defeated by extending our initial assumption, but perhaps it's really just an extention of it. It depends on how you define self I suppose, what you mean by it I mean. Anyway (logically), we have to presume that there is some relationship between what our senses tell us about our environment and the environment itself. We don't have to presume exactly what the relationship is, just that it exists. Basically, it would seem the question is ultimately moot. Certainly we may be in a matrixish whatever, but honestly who gives a shit if there's no way to tell the difference, because by definition there's no difference and thus, it's indiscernable and impossible to differentiate and stuff.

On a cheesy tangent: This is as I see it, an undeniable basis of our commonality - our faith in our assumptions (whether we realize it or not). The rest is just rationalizing how we react to our circumstance.

 

To do a bit of drive by skepticism:
B) 1) Perhaps utility is the problem with positiing a self. It places everything else in potential utilitarian terms. How are these other things - including people - useful. Whereas if you do not posit a self, and merely not phenomena - internal and external - perhaps much of the side effects of believing in selves might also be cured.
2) This b) could be a good foundation for a belief in God.
3) Perhaps periods of abandonment should be tested to see if the second sentence of B) is actually true.

And then to look at
A) Self did the experiencing. The use of the verb 'did' implies that it was active and yet often experiencing is taken as passive. Might it not be better to say: 'Self experienced.' The nice thing about this is that the verb can be past tense or a particle - though in this latter case the sentence is incomplete in English grammar, being the equivalent of 'window smashed.' But what if this apparent incompleteness is just that. And actually you experienced something and then we divvy it up into self and other. This part was me and this was what I experienced. When in fact there was just experience.

(actually I believe in selves, but I woke up in a devil's advocate mood)

 

Utlitity is a nuetral term though and is defined by self.

That is determined by self. Emotional gratification comes to mind.

Hmm. I'm not trying to resolve side effects. I'm tryign to understand something objective through my excruciatingly limited subjective perspective. If I am as honest in my reflects as all my will can muster, I find self. I report my findings to the forum.

It has been observed. I cannot honestly "unpositit". Yes I just smashed those words together so it would say "tit" at the end.

Which is why I USED to hate religions and god folks. Now, not. Not on the basis of that belief. Really what's fascinating as shit to me if that if what I've said is pertinent, they couldn't abandon it really, as there is nothing that could overwhelm its utility, that is if they really, really assume it. Lol, assume me hard baby! Oh yeah! Gawd I suck, pardon. That was a dumb way to put it but hopefully you get the idea.

personal choice, but I try to do so sometimes and find it utterly impossible. it's vexing.

YFTFM, thanks.

Oh man I so suck at all that stuff, I do appreciate your input though. Looks like you don't suck at it nearly as much. I like it. I'll try to soak it up but regardless, yeah your way is better, certainly.

No no quite allright I enjoyed it.

 

i think the default mode is to observe a dichotomy. a distinction
a reasoned mode is to deny it iow the experiencer and that which is experienced are one and the same

the latter appears untenable. why remove the distinction?
semantics allows for it, ja?

 

ahh
nicely put. awesome
ye wes of old

 

I don't understand the bolded sentence.
Why is that "not" there, the one I underlined?

 

can you do this and remain consistent?

active/passive is irrelevant. a needless characterization i think?

 

If something would be truly you or yours, you could control it, right?
You could create it and you could destroy it.

Do you know of any such thing that is fully under your control, fully up to you to create it or destroy it?

 

Of course.

You can make statements such as:
There is perception.
There is joy.
There is stress.
There is a sense of I.
There is talking about the I.

 

well, true
but i see no denial of self there. merely affirmations

 

Sure, you could speak a kind of haiku. It seems like some Buddhists come from this outlook, also.

I don't know. It was exploratory. If you identify simply with consciousness
I think the source of activity, even what we consider, our own, is not clear. Action takes place and is noticed in the field of experiencing.

We are so used to the grammar of subject verb that we tend to assume things must be this way. The whole thing could be gerunds.

I am not going to push this. It's not my philosophy. I would call it a skepticism which shows my stance. However for someone who comes from this outlook
positiing a self
is much like positing a God.
An extra that Ockham's Razor would suggest we test for later - cough, cough, never.

 

do you posit?
if so what?

wow
the spin

i say the law of parsimony demands one accept that wysiwyg
denial is the unnecessary complication
and there is no god in sight

 

It's a poor sentence and taking out the not doesn't do enough, i believe.

'and simply posit phenomena' makes it better, I think.