Your Function

[wesmorris]

Getting deep

/I see where you come from, but I am saying your "praise' was inevitable.

Why? It wasn't inevitable until it happened. Relative certainty can only be had in relation to one's past. Before an event, the likelihood of its occurence is wholly probabalistic in terms of predicting forcoming events. Certainly action leads to reaction, but you can't be sure the action happens until it does. (and of course you can't be SURE of anything, for the purposes here I mean know as in "are as sure as you can be". The same applies to choice. If you refer to the future, you have free will because you can choose now to strive meet with a moment in the future that matches your vision of it now. Maybe it boils down to a matter of will. If you have vision and will yourself to make it so, isn't that choice? If not please show exactly how it isn't. Seems to me the only way you can justify that it isn't would be through your perspective on time.

/Besides, if you say that it is the most "enlightened thing" you've 'read in" your "life", then 'choices' become limited.

Of course, a psuedo-sysetematic (so to speak, as actually this is based on the structure of your mind, which (very interestingly) is directly and indirectly shaped by the resultant of this process) culling of options. Choice.

/The final solution is merely the integration/end process of related paths.

"merely"?

You seem to miss the significance of the limitation of the moment. As the present consists of no time, as in it is "dt", an infinitessimal slice of time, I find the "final solution" to be resolution to a possibility that preceded it in time, being resolved in the now. Passing into scrutiny such that it can feed back into itself - optimally tuning that particular (whatever choice it was) "algorithmish" thing such that it improves the minds ability to predict and process future input. I don't think you can deny choice as it is simply a juxtaposition of abstracts in time, experienced in the present.

Choice is the abstraction of future experienced in the now, based on one's estimate of outcomes based on their experience. You choose now what your conscious aspect of self deems to be the path to get you where it wants you to be, given the limitations (including that which it places on itself).

Habit is part of this cycle. You learn things that gratify you. Depending on your leanings toward particular gratifications.. hmmm.. rather, your habits are tricks you learn to accomplish things. Your "muscle memory" (they type of memory that allows you to drive a car for 500 miles while you're not really paying attention) so to speak even extends to your thought patterns in terms of the ability to influence your behavior?

Why? Because to form a habit is to forgoe the analysis.

Why? Because you already know the outcome because you've learned it and done it and repeated it and it is part of your being in the moment. You surrrender your option to analyze your choice in lieu of a known mode. Does that mean you didn't have a choice? I don't think so. I think it means you sacrificed your choice to a perception of gratification offered by completion of your habit (or ritual, as a habit (depending on its flavor and intensity) has with it a built in reward system, based on your personal tastes and what really scratches the sweet-spot in your personal mental structure.

/Precisely, the future is an abstract. The past however is the amalgamation of all realizable experiences.

Don't forget the sub-conscious! (I'm sure you weren't)

/It can still be experienced in the present.

It is always experienced in the present. It seems Einstein showed us that a POV indeed determines the present, as it must be the fundamental reference point in time. It's always right now damnit.

/People "see" a "choice" in the future because a future solution is still a variable as it depends on conditions that are uncontrollable by the individual.

Right on, pretty much what I was saying.

/Choice however implies conditions that controllable by the individual. I disagree.

So quick to disagree? You should agree. Choose to agree. Isn't that point enough? What's worse is that during your eperience you, as I, will mostly likely agree and disagree. It's always "hey brain, what have you done for me lately?" isn't it? Heh. Anyway. It's exhausting to have simultaneous contradicting opininons, as keeping that structure patched requires effort. I suppose an interesting note is that apparently most people wouldn't bother, as lying seems to come somewhat naturally to the socialized human. IMO, that simply contributes to their poor mental health. For the sake of over-all effiency though, it is much more convenient for most people not to bother maintaining integrity, as it's a pain in the ass. Blah.

/The thought processes depend on past processes that are shaped by outside influences undetermined, and biological processes already determined.

"soul man" is bitching about the limitations of biology regarding conscious decision making? Hehe, I'm sure you know in your schema why that isn't contradictory, and I'm sure you probably realize why it seems that way to someone who just noticed the relationship.

I think I've covered this already. The biology of the human mind is highly flexible and in a constant state of re-writing the details of its function. I don't think your assertion of biological processes contradicts my explanation of choice above. Choice is an abstract.

/All uncontrollable variables exist outside the individual.

What about the controllable variables? Oh there aren't any? If there are controllable variables then there necessarily exists choice right?

/But there is no choice, because the individual does not control the outside influences.

I don't believe you've shown that at all.

/(hmm-- this is tricky. Can the individual control the outside influences or not? I have to think more...As of now, I think not)

I can choose a lot of things about my influences. Haven't you heard the addage "never stay where you're not appreciated"? You think it bullshit because you have no choice of where you stay? Can't I move a few inches to the left if I choose? There. I just did. Only because I typed it. I thought it. I chose to act it. I moved a few inches to the left. It was sweeeeet. Meh.

/No, not really. Denial would be telling yourself that every decision you made was the best under the context-- thereby absolving yourself from any responsibility.

How does that absolve you from responsibility?

DUDE. Denial is when you pretend that you DIDN'T make the best decision given context, oh man. It's when you pretend to yourself that some other context was really what you should have or were thinking about, so what actually happened is okay because you didn't really mean it, then you go on with your day without having learned a fucking thing from it. That's why smoking isn't necessarily denial. If you actually know something and are ignoring it, that is acceptance. If you should know something, but pretend that the something is something else in order to protect yourself from the anguish of acceptance, then you are in denial.

Hehe, it's okay, you're a liberal you can't help it. LOL. Pardon.

/Actually I think it is the reverse-- assuming the individual has one of the true beauties of denial -- choice, in place.

It's those opposite definitions again eh? Hell no, superior analysis! Teasing of course.

/If you say whatever you do is the best, even if you have one 'choice', then whatever decision you made was clearly to the best of your ability and thus nothing really should be changed.

You ignore output. If in retrospect the choice did not align with intent, you are in denial if you pretend nothing should be changed, because obviously the outcome did not meet expectations.

/This would lead to complacency and I think it self evident the psyche does not work that way.

No, your perspective leads to complacency because you have no choice. Choice and complacency meet at laziness. Lack of choice? Maybe that's ultimately Nihilism (wouldn't the god people love to hear that! I guess most of them believe in free will). I refute it profusely.

/In the present or in the moment, even in your model, there is no categorization-- merely a decision.

What? Where did this come up? Categorization? Who?

/From your model, categorizations can only be made in the abstract-- after the event.

Yup. See what I mean now?

 

[thefountainhed]

Why? It wasn't inevitable until it happened. Relative certainty can only be had in relation to one's past.

This is wholly a matter of perspective and does not affect the overall concept. It is comparable to saying that my death is not inevitable until I die. For all practical purposes, we know that any stimulus will necessitate a response. Therefore, a response can be thought of as inevitable.

Before an event, the likelihood of its occurence is wholly probabalistic in terms of predicting forcoming events. Certainly action leads to reaction, but you can't be sure the action happens until it does. (and of course you can't be SURE of anything, for the purposes here I mean know as in "are as sure as you can be".

Again, you are changing the context. I am not talking of a solution that the paths will converge to, as I do not know as of now, all the uncontrollable factors that affect any action.

The same applies to choice. If you refer to the future, you have free will because you can choose now to strive meet with a moment in the future that matches your vision of it now. Maybe it boils down to a matter of will. If you have vision and will yourself to make it so, isn't that choice? If not please show exactly how it isn't. Seems to me the only way you can justify that it isn't would be through your perspective on time.

How is it choice when one, the external factors governing this “choice” are unknown? Using the train of though you presented in your previous block about the probabilistic nature of the final solution, how can there be a ‘choice’? A choice would imply that the solution is guaranteed, but the solution is not guaranteed. It is “chanced.” Two, the “choice” you made to strive for this aim you presented is the convergent solution of many paths that stemmed from the convergent solution of many paths that stemmed from .. . . until birth.

Of course, a psuedo-sysetematic (so to speak, as actually this is based on the structure of your mind, which (very interestingly) is directly and indirectly shaped by the resultant of this process) culling of options. Choice.

No, of course it is based on the structure of your mind which is at first, a biological set with certain hereditary functions that affect and dictate future actions, and also an environment that provides the stimulus that directly will necessitate certain actions that in turn will restructure your mind. Analogous to a difference equation given the initial conditions. There is no ‘choice”.

"merely"?

Yep. It allows for my brain to further accept the illusion of choice.

You seem to miss the significance of the limitation of the moment. As the present consists of no time, as in it is "dt", an infinitessimal slice of time, I find the "final solution" to be resolution to a possibility that preceded it in time, being resolved in the now. Passing into scrutiny such that it can feed back into itself - optimally tuning that particular (whatever choice it was) "algorithmish" thing such that it improves the minds ability to predict and process future input. I don't think you can deny choice as it is simply a juxtaposition of abstracts in time, experienced in the present.

So let’s see: you make a choice in the present and then as “time” goes by, this choice gets refined to fit the contexts so presented.

No, this is not the case. You start with one a tree with all paths initially set and independent of outside conditions. As outside conditions affect a particular node, a different path is taken or created; another is destroyed. Eventually, you end up with a sequence—or a path that may or may not differ from the original. The solution set is contextually finite and deterministic. No choice.

Choice is the abstraction of future experienced in the now, based on one's estimate of outcomes based on their experience. You choose now what your conscious aspect of self deems to be the path to get you where it wants you to be, given the limitations (including that which it places on itself).

Choice as I know it is no such thing. Choice is the abstraction of a future of course experienced in the now, regardless of one’s estimate of future outcomes. You choose now what you think you can do in the future. It is an illusion of a solution that ignores all outside factors and the inherent structure of the tool that enables the abstraction in the first place.

Habit is part of this cycle. You learn things that gratify you. Depending on your leanings toward particular gratifications.. hmmm.. rather, your habits are tricks you learn to accomplish things. Your "muscle memory" (they type of memory that allows you to drive a car for 500 miles while you're not really paying attention) so to speak even extends to your thought patterns in terms of the ability to influence your behavior?

Habit is merely a finely tuned path of one solution, mostly because the environment is set—and when biological, regardless of the environment.

Why? Because to form a habit is to forgoe the analysis.

There never was any analysis(choice). Of course subconscious analysis as in mental calculations it takes to actually perform the habit still takes place.
It is merely a relegation to the subconscious.

Why? Because you already know the outcome because you've learned it and done it and repeated it and it is part of your being in the moment.

Correct

You surrrender your option to analyze your choice in lieu of a known mode. Does that mean you didn't have a choice? I don't think so. I think it means you sacrificed your choice to a perception of gratification offered by completion of your habit (or ritual, as a habit (depending on its flavor and intensity) has with it a built in reward system, based on your personal tastes and what really scratches the sweet-spot in your personal mental structure.

This is an overt simplification I can live with. No not really... This means that a choice is not made when the action is taken. The original path may have been a “choice”— accepting choice. I believe this is what I said originally...

It is always experienced in the present. It seems Einstein showed us that a POV indeed determines the present, as it must be the fundamental reference point in time. It's always right now damnit.

Yes, yes of course. The context was that the past was experienced in the past—as in the in present of that past-- simple time shift

Right on, pretty much what I was saying.

Then there is no choice; the conditions are uncontrollable.

So quick to disagree? You should agree. Choose to agree. Isn't that point enough? What's worse is that during your eperience you, as I, will mostly likely agree and disagree.

I had to disagree because I am on a path of disagreement set my opinions set by opinions set by opinions influenced by opinions based on facts or perceptions, down to blah.

It's always "hey brain, what have you done for me lately?" isn't it? Heh. Anyway. It's exhausting to have simultaneous contradicting opininons, as keeping that structure patched requires effort. I suppose an interesting note is that apparently most people wouldn't bother, as lying seems to come somewhat naturally to the socialized human. IMO, that simply contributes to their poor mental health. For the sake of over-all effiency though, it is much more convenient for most people not to bother maintaining integrity, as it's a pain in the ass. Blah.

Heh. By your original argument, shouldn’t integrity be nonexistent in the first place? –considering how much of a “pain I the ass” it is…

"soul man" is bitching about the limitations of biology regarding conscious decision making? Hehe, I'm sure you know in your schema why that isn't contradictory, and I'm sure you probably realize why it seems that way to someone who just noticed the relationship.

Hmmm. I read the above three fucking times and got three different takes. Explain

I think I've covered this already. The biology of the human mind is highly flexible and in a constant state of re-writing the details of its function. I don't think your assertion of biological processes contradicts my explanation of choice above. Choice is an abstract.

Heh. But of course of it does—the abstraction is done in the head. And of course it is flexible, and constantly rewriting itself; the important thing however, wes, is that the initial conditions are known.

What about the controllable variables? Oh there aren't any? If there are controllable variables then there necessarily exists choice right?

I see no presented controllable variables. Even if there are some, or even one controllable variable, then it merely implies a probabilistic “choice”; choice would be absolute if all variables were controllable.

I don't believe you've shown that at all.

Ah, so you control the conscious source of what you are currently reading… reading…reading…. Ha. Thought not.

I can choose a lot of things about my influences. Haven't you heard the addage "never stay where you're not appreciated"? You think it bullshit because you have no choice of where you stay? Can't I move a few inches to the left if I choose? There. I just did. Only because I typed it. I thought it. I chose to act it. I moved a few inches to the left. It was sweeeeet. Meh.

LOL. It was sweet eh? Your mind was merely deluding itself further with this notion of choice. Wes, my point is that you moving from where you aren’t “appreciated” is the resultant of many factors that converged to that action. Much like scratching your ass if it itches. The normal, natural state would be scratch that son of a bitch. Putting environmental factors that influence this state or structure of your mind-- say you are at a presidential debate, you will not scratch that ass.

How does that absolve you from responsibility?

What? I insulted and punched that son of a bitch? Well, I simply did the best for me at that time, man.

DUDE. Denial is when you pretend that you DIDN'T make the best decision given context, oh man. It's when you pretend to yourself that some other context was really what you should have or were thinking about, so what actually happened is okay because you didn't really mean it, then you go on with your day without having learned a fucking thing from it.

The context Wes, is your premise. What you did was OK, because it was a best.

That's why smoking isn't necessarily denial. If you actually know something and are ignoring it, that is acceptance. If you should know something, but pretend that the something is something else in order to protect yourself from the anguish of acceptance, then you are in denial.

Of course. Which is why if I accept your premise that I am always doing what is best—thereby superior, bla bla for me at any given time, insulting and slapping my wife is perfectly fine.

Hehe, it's okay, you're a liberal you can't help it. LOL. Pardon.

Yea, I am a liberal and I cannot help being a liberal. The factors necessitating that orientation should be self-evident.

It's those opposite definitions again eh? Hell no, superior analysis! Teasing of course.

Precisely, superior analysis on my part.

You ignore output. If in retrospect the choice did not align with intent, you are in denial if you pretend nothing should be changed, because obviously the outcome did not meet expectations.

There is no retrospection! You always do the best for you at any given time, remember?

No, your perspective leads to complacency because you have no choice. Choice and complacency meet at laziness. Lack of choice? Maybe that's ultimately Nihilism (wouldn't the god people love to hear that! I guess most of them believe in free will). I refute it profusely.

See that is the mistake you are making—based on a presumption necessitated by a worldview, a beautiful path indeed. . I know there is no choice but accept that I have a choice. I do this because I am human, and millennia of evolution of my species have given me that ability; and this illusion necessary for my sanity.

What? Where did this come up? Categorization? Who?

Here: “An individual weighs all the choices they become aware of. That could be a huge number or zero, wholly dependent on the scope of the individual. “

Also opportunity costs and the like…

Yup. See what I mean now?

Yea, but one thing you forgot: I don’t accept your model. HA.

 

[wesmorris]

/So let’s see: you make a choice in the present and then as “time” goes by, this choice gets refined to fit the contexts so presented.

Are you playing your game where you refute just to refute?

You know what in retrospect that really annoys me that you would accuse me (earlier) of being a stubborn blah blah when by your own fucking admission half of your posts are just excercises by which you take a position opposite your true position for the sdake of debate.

I'd swear you must think I'm a fucking moron. You actually present that shit up there as an actual refutation of my argument? You think I'm so fucking stupid as to miss the arrow of fucking TIME????????????????????? Man this lack of respect is sick. I can't believe you would except just to refute for the sake of refuting, or you think I'm an absolute idiot.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you again:

How can a choice in the past get refined? It doesn't. It's in the past and no longer a choice. What it is in the present is input to your model of "I do A and B happens". In the present, you can tweak your model of reality such that next time A or something like it happens, you'll see B coming. You remember that whole part about expectatoin and outcome? Yeah.

You know what, keep believing that choice is an illusion. Have fun with that.

 

[thefountainhed]

Be a bastard if 'tis what you want.

Why can't you simply ignore that I am refuting just to refute as an excercise.

Too many times you present arguments that are fucking obvious. What fucking choice do I have??????????? Son of bitch.

I cannot stand it when people see through my intentions. Fuck you.

 

[Mephura]

Alright, this might be a bit of a late entry, but I'll bite.
Know ye now that I will probably end up rehashing something that has been said before, but I'm bored, so deal.

Originally posted by wesmorris
By the mandate of your existence, at any given time you do what is best for you in the way that you've learned and currently think is the way that works best for you to do it. This is your function.

You cannot deny or escape it. It's happening to you right now.

I would disagree. (And why am I seeing a link to something else we've talked about here wes?)
Best for me in who/what's opinion?
I do alot of things that aren't the best thing for me to do in my own opinion, and most would agree that alot of what I do isn't productive/best for me.
If this is the same ole same ole, I thought function was defined as being that which something(someone) does as only they can do it. No reference of the comparitive term.

This reflects onto society in a direct function of the impact of each instance of the above in accordance with its true level of influence/impact on that society, considering the feedback of that society upon each instance of function as described above.

I'm going to attempt to translate that and you tell me how close I get.
the more a part of influencing society something is the more it is influenced by society. This means that as I function, I aid in society's overall functioning and vice versa.

It is echoing the fuction of the universe thing and the bit about whether or not we can know the trut, so I'll agree if I got the translation from wesmorrisian right.

Organizations do the same except on a larger scale and "once removed" so to speak as in there is a functional, palpable resultant of the the conglomeration of will of the individuals that effects those that interact with it.

The orginization act a a collective. Think back to the whole "can we know the truth" bit. Subsystems and all that.The organization can function as an entity in that line of discussion, so it would almost be acceptable to say the organization acts as an being in that respect.
I think I get the once removed bit. Even though they act as such, they aren't quite the same. In a way, they create their own little subsystem.

Hence the world you see before you, exactly how only YOU can see it.

I think I must have gotten lost in the translation somewhere.
I agree, but don't see how they relate entirely.

Note of interest: Optimally, I think function and purpose are equivalent.

Thoughts?

The whole optimally thing makes that extremely sticky for me.
Must stop to consider how this would function in my beliefs.
.
.
.
I give it a tentative yes.

As for my thoughts, there they are.

 

[gendanken]

Ele:

I am very uncomfortablw ith the way the initial thread is written- enough so that i find it hard to concentrate on what is said. The harsh practicality is anethema to me. I guess i dont agree with whatever it is the writer has to say, becaus ei cant even bring myself to read all the way through it

Its not the 'harsh praticallity' of wessy’s ontological rationales inherent in his philosophical abstracta ad nauseum, Ele.

edit: this was a joke. Poking fun at the philosopher's habit of playing leggos with language ad-nauseum and ad doodat Tessie style.

Its much simpler: Reading Wes is a motherfucker.

True enough one has to ferret through a tangled semantic nightmare but a point *is* a point and we are here to discuss what I believe to be Wessy’s current pet theory: a man’s circumstance is the pinnacle of historical choice. And that choice is always the best only by way of definition. His.

Yes?


Wess:

This reflects onto society in a direct function of the impact of each instance of the above in accordance with its true level of influence/impact on that society, considering the feedback of that society upon each instance of function as described above. Organizations do the same except on a larger scale and "once removed" so to speak as in there is a functional, palpable resultant of the the conglomeration of will of the individuals that effects those that interact with it.

Oy.

Translation: society is a complex of liberated multinationals reflecting the individuality of man.

I really do hate the oversimplification of slapping things with ‘subjectivity” and ‘relativity’. But I was asked to come here:

In a commune where tradition and myth account for all actions we can safely say the existence is a lie.
Actions are theoretical. The bonds a man has with his ‘self’ and his brothers exist through moral artifice so long as he buys into that program.

The 'best' is no longer done for real reasons, but for 'good' ones. Therefore, theoretical equality always conceals factual inequalities.

Yes?

But given the political freedom of the Western mind, we exaggerate the idea of individuality to such a degree that what usually happens with such philosophical liberty does- man becomes selfish to a fault.

No longer in pursuit of sterile demands he chooses himself. No abstract ideals, humanitarian dystopias, or dissatisfied clinging can take away one atom from a choice that he's made as best for himself.

This would be his function, his freedom of mind to live out his life consumed with the experience that no matter what choice he makes from a network of possilbilities, that choice is his most selfish best despite the absurdity to an outsider.

Gazillion dollars or a pinky hacked off by a gendy, no matter so long as the choice was best for his sanity. Not yours.


I may be getting ahead of myself but this is the only way I can think of getting out of that rinky dink bullshit common with proles“ *Sigh * It’s, like, all relative ya know?” *flips hair *


Wessy:

You know what in retrospect that really annoys me that you would accuse me (earlier) of being a stubborn blah blah when by your own fucking admission half of your posts are just excercises by which you take a position opposite your true position for the sdake of debate.

A gargoyle is a kind of devil so really woop dee doo does it surprise anyone that the little nighmare is playing devil's advocate?

Nice try fuglyboy. Aneimic but nice.

Wessy, break his bones. I'll clip the wings.

Meph:

I do alot of things that aren't the best thing for me to do in my own opinion, and most would agree that alot of what I do isn't productive/best for me.

Then your selfish gene is a placebo.

 

[gendanken]

Am I babbling?

:: wonering who's got the chutzpah to answer with a "yes"::

 

[gendanken]

yes, you are

....said the little piggy I could easily singe down to pork rind.

Get away from me Mephura.

 

[gendanken]

You only got about two options
Neither is all that impressive

Don't know about you but the gold of silence is by far the most impressive thing on my planet.
Maybe the black mood has you counting in doubles.


Make that three options.

 

[Mephura]

Got me there. three options. That third wouldn't be burning me as much as starving me.
my appologies

 

[thefountainhed]

fat bitch,

A gargoyle is a kind of devil so really woop dee doo does it surprise anyone that the little nighmare is playing devil's advocate?

Nice try fuglyboy. Aneimic but nice.

Wessy, break his bones. I'll clip the wings.

And according to protocol around here, the gendankass is back on the HED's dick. It never ceases to amaze me the stamina you have when you straddle this black spear. It's good that I am 23 and have tons and tons of reserves.

And anemic? Oh please! There are some very good objections put forth, but when is a "judgement' on anything by the HED gonna receive its truth critique from you? BAH. A little to left woman, and ride that sucker right... yea yea, that's it. Good bitch.

As for your pathetic attempt at expansion.... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

 

[gendanken]

Now, wes, its true I've got thse nasty habits of philosophizing at the most opportune times

(as in last night on the shitter reading Oprah)

but I could at least be shown to have some point.

I'll stop these habits if you'd like me to. Of course I'm lying but.....

In short: throw me a fucking bone here.

 

[wesmorris]

I'll come back for meph, but since Gendy needs a bone.

/Its not the 'harsh praticallity' of wessy’s ontological rationales inherent in his philosophical abstracta ad nauseum, Ele.

LOL. Man I simply love your gift with words. Sometimes it's all like, drama club kind of gay, but fuck woman, you have impressive talent.

/Its much simpler: Reading Wes is a motherfucker.

*shrug*

Yeah, I'm guessing that's way too true.

/True enough one has to ferret through a tangled semantic nightmare but a point *is* a point and we are here to discuss what I believe to be Wessy’s current pet theory:

A tangled semantic nightmare? That bad eh? Damn.

/a man’s circumstance is the pinncacle of historical choice.

For the most part, yes. I would reword as follows: "the controllabe aspects of a person's circumstance is the sum of their choices."

/And that choice is always the best only by way of definition. His.

/Yes?

I think so, I'm not sure I'm exactly catching your drift. It's very close, but I'm not sure. My point is more toward the fact that (within yourself) your conscious opinion of what is best does not at all matter in the context of your actions. By choosing an action, you make the statement "this is my best option as of this moment". If your conscious mind tells you "no it isn't" then you must realize that you are lying to yourself. If what you were doing wasn't the your preferred option (given the set of constraints on your choice) you simply would have done something preferable. You chose what to do even if you didn't consciously choose. You are responsible for your choice. You necessarily chose the action that satisfied your perspective. Try it out for a second. Why did you respond? The entire scope of your actions is a conscious or deferred choice (which is the same as choosing). Your mind is fundamentally obligated to your survival well beingl. Your mind frames your choices for you. It produces the action that it deems best, by definition. If your conscious mind disagrees with its choice, you have yourself a little conflict...

For instance if your mind hates something. Why does it hate it? Can you follow me? I'll break here and call this a bone...

I'll work on part 2

 

[gendanken]

Wes:

LOL. Man I simply love your gift with words. Sometimes it's all like, drama club kind of gay, but fuck woman, you have impressive talent.

The abstracta bullshatta was a parody on how most folks dump their purse out when it comes to sophisitry.

Laugh with me.

A tangled semantic nightmare? That bad eh? Damn.

Not as bad as it could be but all jokes aside.....including the fulgyboy......

One:

I think so, I'm not sure I'm exactly catching your drift. It's very close, but I'm not sure. My point is more toward the fact that (within yourself) your conscious opinion of what is best does not at all matter in the context of your actions.

So then with you opinions work on a completely different plane than the action carrying it out?

Some kind of idea of what should be chosen yet blindfolded soon after action overrides its existence?

What would be the point of 'intent', then? mental furniture?

You chose what to do even if you didn't consciously choose. You are responsible for your choice. You necessarily chose the action that satisfied your perspective.

I would say uncounscious choices are only those driven by emotion. Opinions pale to raw hate, love, need, joy, lust.
These all could put you in denial, working you instead of you working them.

But every thing we choose for individuality is detached from these base emotions and driven by survival. Only the best for me will get me to the finish line. Screw you.

The means for survival are always calcluated. And so conscious.

Only traditional confines could override these. See?

If your conscious mind disagrees with its choice, you have yourself a little conflict...

Sho nuff.

For instance if your mind hates something. Why does it hate it?

Because that's what gendanken's fucked up little pscyche does.

 

[wesmorris]

How's this for hard to read (my prepologies)

/Laugh with me.

Don't boss me bastard. I was already laughing ah ha, ha. (ha)

/Not as bad as it could be but all jokes aside.....including the fulgyboy......

Uh huh. :bugeye:

/So then with you opinions work on a completely different plane than the action carrying it out?

Yes. Your mind determines your actions, conscious or not.

/Some kind of idea of what should be chosen yet blindfolded soon after action overrides its existence?

Your mind determines your actions, conscious or not.

/What would be the point of 'intent', then? mental furniture?

You can use intent however you like. For instance you can use it to attempt to make the outcome of your actions to be what you expect. The thing is you probably aren't very good at this. Maybe you are. If you are, you your model will be re-enforced by your forthcoming analysis. If you aren't, your model will be questioned. If your model isn't questioned (and I don't even mean consciously, your mind will re-enforce whatever model you are getting as long as the input supports it or you've learned to filter your input in such a manner that it's supported, or you have to change your mind. The mental structure is supported by re-enforcment. Contradictory input is necessarily damaging to a structure unless you can successfully pretend that the input isn't damaging to the structure, e.g, you short circuit some contradictory existing structure, playing it down such that your assertion to yourself that supports some other, more preferable premise. The preferable premise is as such due to your current mental structure. That's the whole thing. This is intent vs. action. If you think you didn't intend to choose your actions (at least those which you can choose), you're incapable or lying. "I didn't want to smoke because it might hurt me but I did it because I was in denial!". BULLSHIT. You did it because you fucking wanted to, why you wanted to is your fucking problem. Either accept that you want to, quit, or experience poor mental health.

/I would say uncounscious choices are only those driven by emotion. Opinions pale to raw hate, love, need, joy, lust.
These all could put you in denial, working you instead of you working them.

Not entirely untrue as most people find it difficult to exert choice over emotions. That doesn't mean that ultimately your emotions are a resultant of your experience, of which a large compenent is amalgam of your choices. You can choose to love, or choose to hate by choosing an environment which you find promotes either. Certainly sometimes you have no choice over your present environment, or really a lot of your environment until you're an adult or at least capable of reasonsibility. The rest of the time, well, like I said.

/But every thing we choose for individuality is detached from these base emotions and driven by survival. Only the best for me will get me to the finish line. Screw you.

That's not necessarily true. What if my survival and happiness depend on you - at least as long as I'm able to interact with you? What if my survival isn't really just my survival, but our survival in normal operation? Of course if I'm drowning, it could swing either way depending on a lot of things, but that is a negligble percentage of typical scenarios. In other words, if it's my last smoke, fuck you.. but until then we're in this thing together damnit. Hell I might even share my last one if we're close ya know? Anyway.

I'm just saying that yes, your point has merit but it is not the entire potato, it can go differently. Actually I think for long term mental health it HAS to go differently, argh, that's a long conversation I'd think if you don't see it up front. I must admit though, mental health by my defintion my be something like "normal operational paramaters" as in, you're not physcially or chemically challenged in some manner, minimized denial and maximal correlation of intent with result, and maximal conceptual continuity - all terms given the actual (likely unknown) constraints of the mental structure in question.

/Because that's what gendanken's fucked up little pscyche does.

LOL. Liar. Okay maybe somewhat, but that's not its only function I'm sure.

 

[wesmorris]

Meph.

/Alright, this might be a bit of a late entry, but I'll bite.

Always happy for input, many grassy asses in your general direction.

/Know ye now that I will probably end up rehashing something that has been said before, but I'm bored, so deal.

Hehe, don't boss me bastard.

/I would disagree. (And why am I seeing a link to something else we've talked about here wes?)

It's all fucking intertwined man. Sheeeeeez. It's quite a cobweb I've got going.

/Best for me in who/what's opinion?

It's not a matter of opinion, it is the resultant of your mental structure evaluated at any time = the present.

/I do alot of things that aren't the best thing for me to do in my own opinion, and most would agree that alot of what I do isn't productive/best for me.

I know what you mean, but I'm saying that you're pretending you think certain things are best for you but your actions (of course again, given your contraints, if you don't have a million dollars, blah blah) say differently eh?

/If this is the same ole same ole, I thought function was defined as being that which something(someone) does as only they can do it. No reference of the comparitive term.

What comparative term? I've missed it. I mean it just as you said. Function is the resultant of a relationship of mechanisms (or structures if you follow me).

/the more a part of influencing society something is the more it is influenced by society. This means that as I function, I aid in society's overall functioning and vice versa.

I'd say that's pretty much it. I think it's important to dilineate that 'society' doesn't really exist as an entity except abstractly, yet that abstract is implemented on the subjective level in a capacity completely contradictory to that fact. While society is merely an abstract, the subjective interpretation of it creates a myriad of impressions as if the interpretation is not subjective at all. I find that fascinating really.

/It is echoing the fuction of the universe thing and the bit about whether or not we can know the trut, so I'll agree if I got the translation from wesmorrisian right.

Yes yes there is a lot of correlation yes. It's pretty much the same vein of though just applied to a different context. It's somewhat also the "perfection of imperfection" really.

/The orginization act a a collective. Think back to the whole "can we know the truth" bit. Subsystems and all that.The organization can function as an entity in that line of discussion, so it would almost be acceptable to say the organization acts as an being in that respect.

I only have semantic issues with that bit, as an "organization" doesn't really do anything, it's a bunch of people doing things while considering themselves part of an organization. Pardon for the nitpicking but I think it's an important distinction.

/I think I get the once removed bit. Even though they act as such, they aren't quite the same. In a way, they create their own little subsystem.

Totally, but actually the subsystems are the extent of the system, but to an observant and time-aware - time-persistent POV, there are a lot of them so there necessarily exists an abstract a larger system, implemented in each subsystem if you will. Bah, sometimes I sound so full of shit to myself. I really believe what I'm saying but putting myself in the hypothetical other person's POV makes me look like an ass to me sometimes. Ack.

/The whole optimally thing makes that extremely sticky for me.
Must stop to consider how this would function in my beliefs.

Hmm.. I thought about optimizing stuff a lot in college, as I'm an IE and that's kind of what we do. Man I wish I could just show you my mind so you could dig on what I mean, it's fan-freakin-tastic from here. Hehe. Ah christ.

/I give it a tentative yes.

Okay I mean if your function doesn't match your purpose I think that puts you in conflict with you. I should have said that the first time, but I just thought of it.

/As for my thoughts, there they are.

Much appreciated. Your turn if you choose to take it.

 

[Mephura]

Re: Meph.

Originally posted by wesmorris
It's all fucking intertwined man. Sheeeeeez. It's quite a cobweb I've got going.

Yeah, I am seeing this. It is useful though, as it becomes fairly self contained and gives us a skeleton to work with.

It's not a matter of opinion, it is the resultant of your mental structure evaluated at any time = the present.

There is your damn IE nature shining through. I am going to say evaluated by who. I think you are using the word more in the lines of an equation. Something that can it black and white and can be evaluated by anyone (with the proper knowlegde) with out getting a subjective spin on it.

As far as practicality goes, I have this slight problem. As soon as you start to evaluate the structure, time has moved forward. There really is no stable 'present' to evaluate it from.

I know what you mean, but I'm saying that you're pretending you think certain things are best for you but your actions (of course again, given your contraints, if you don't have a million dollars, blah blah) say differently eh?

I think I get you. Yes...
Its that damn IE slant of yours. No wonder this shit reads so weird. Had to change mind sets to make it work. At anygiven present, we are only capably of having/possessing a limited number of thoughts/feelings. That being the case, the variables that we have to deal with get slashed down to just a few.

In any imediate moment, we are acting on urges that we think are best for us, but the actions that result from this aren't always best for us when looked at from a condition where t=a set of values. If time passes, we are able to better codify our responses into 'good' and 'bad' for us.
Take smoking. When I light that cigarette, I am doing so because of an immediate urge to do so. After that frame has passed, that urge can be replaced by a question of whether or not that action was a good one.
In other words, the only reason this (theory) works is because we are limited in our ability to process data and because we exist in time.

interesting.

What comparative term? I've missed it. I mean it just as you said. Function is the resultant of a relationship of mechanisms (or structures if you follow me).

Best is the comparative term. Irrelevant now I think.

I'd say that's pretty much it. I think it's important to dilineate that 'society' doesn't really exist as an entity except abstractly, yet that abstract is implemented on the subjective level in a capacity completely contradictory to that fact. While society is merely an abstract, the subjective interpretation of it creates a myriad of impressions as if the interpretation is not subjective at all. I find that fascinating really.

Very true. We make it what it is and in doing so we give it an existance slightly removed from our own. Probably has to do with the time thing. Our existence in society helps define that society. Yet, when we are gone, that society continues on and is not deminished by our loss. This would imply some sort of limit, I think, as to minimum population sizes or some such.
(hopefully you see where I got that from. It is being visualized as more of a reaction point. )

Yes yes there is a lot of correlation yes. It's pretty much the same vein of though just applied to a different context. It's somewhat also the "perfection of imperfection" really.

Consistancy is nice. It removes alot of the bullshit and backtracking from the picture.

I only have semantic issues with that bit, as an "organization" doesn't really do anything, it's a bunch of people doing things while considering themselves part of an organization. Pardon for the nitpicking but I think it's an important distinction.

Look at your bit on society up there. It acts the same way. Disney, for example, owns things. The corporation puts out movies, etc. It does things, but at the same time those things could be traced back to individuals.

Totally, but actually the subsystems are the extent of the system, but to an observant and time-aware - time-persistent POV, there are a lot of them so there necessarily exists an abstract a larger system, implemented in each subsystem if you will. Bah, sometimes I sound so full of shit to myself. I really believe what I'm saying but putting myself in the hypothetical other person's POV makes me look like an ass to me sometimes. Ack.

For a second I was thought I was reading one of my posts. All the talk of systtems and subsystems....
I think I understand this one. Don't give me a pop quiz or nothing though. It would be so much easier with a diagram....
Clarify that a bit if you can.

Hmm.. I thought about optimizing stuff a lot in college, as I'm an IE and that's kind of what we do. Man I wish I could just show you my mind so you could dig on what I mean, it's fan-freakin-tastic from here. Hehe. Ah christ.

That would be a bad idea. I look in your you look in mine, pretty soon we are both nuts... Not pretty.

Okay I mean if your function doesn't match your purpose I think that puts you in conflict with you. I should have said that the first time, but I just thought of it.

I will have to lay out my personal 'beliefs' sometime for you. Then you might see why I am a bit unsure of how that fits in to my scheme of things.
As far as your web goes, and with it being restated, I agree..

Ball 's yours.

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Re: Meph.

/Yeah, I am seeing this. It is useful though, as it becomes fairly self contained and gives us a skeleton to work with.

I'm not sure, but screw it man, I'm taking it as a compliment!

/There is your damn IE nature shining through. I am going to say evaluated by who. I think you are using the word more in the lines of an equation. Something that can it black and white and can be evaluated by anyone (with the proper knowlegde) with out getting a subjective spin on it.

There is no "who" in the sense of the evaluation excepting that YOU are the who who IS the evalutation. The universe's properties are the "evaluator" and "YOU" are the resultant of said evaluation. Know what I mean?

/As far as practicality goes, I have this slight problem. As soon as you start to evaluate the structure, time has moved forward. There really is no stable 'present' to evaluate it from.

Hopefully you see that I meant it slightly differently. Close, but kind of once removed from what it seems you're saying. Regarding time though, I had a beautiful expression of it in a post I started to reply and then got distracted and accidentally erased. Somethink like "consciousness is the resultant of stretching of time from the actual present to the relative present, blah blah but that's not even close. MAN is was one hell of a statement too I'm pissed about the deletage.

/I think I get you. Yes...
/Its that damn IE slant of yours. No wonder this shit reads so weird.

*kowtow*

pardon, it's just who I've become. To me, the IE programs was/is philosophy you know.

/Had to change mind sets to make it work.

I appreciate the accomodation. I believe few capable.

/At any given present, we are only capably of having/possessing a limited number of thoughts/feelings. That being the case, the variables that we have to deal with get slashed down to just a few.

Relative to the entire you, agreed.

/In any imediate moment, we are acting on urges that we think are best for us, but the actions that result from this aren't always best for us when looked at from a condition where t=a set of values. If time passes, we are able to better codify our responses into 'good' and 'bad' for us.

Fuck yeah! Man someone gets it! For the most part anyway. I'd say more specifically as time passes.. well, you're right, but really we're codifying whether or not our expectations matched the resultant of our actions. This is done as "good" and "bad" such that future behavior is modified to match what we consider "good" unless of course we lie to ourselves regarding what we thing "good" is. Bah, something close to that! I think you're on it!

/Take smoking. When I light that cigarette, I am doing so because of an immediate urge to do so. After that frame has passed, that urge can be replaced by a question of whether or not that action was a good one.

YES!

/In other words, the only reason this (theory) works is because we are limited in our ability to process data and because we exist in time.

Well, it's somehwhat more complicated but in general: Indeed!

/interesting.

I think so too!

/Best is the comparative term. Irrelevant now I think.

Somewhat, but really it's pertinent to recognition of a difference in our expectation and the results of our actions. If we do not realize that we really did what we assumed was best for us at the time, we might have a hard time determining what lies we are telling ourselves!

/Very true. We make it what it is and in doing so we give it an existance slightly removed from our own. Probably has to do with the time thing. Our existence in society helps define that society. Yet, when we are gone, that society continues on and is not deminished by our loss. This would imply some sort of limit, I think, as to minimum population sizes or some such.
(hopefully you see where I got that from. It is being visualized as more of a reaction point. )

I think I see what you mean. I'm sure there is a minimum of sorts and a graduated effects all the way up the scale of society sizes. The ability to store and communicate information plays a huge factor..

/Consistancy is nice. It removes alot of the bullshit and backtracking from the picture.

*kowtow*

/Look at your bit on society up there. It acts the same way. Disney, for example, owns things. The corporation puts out movies, etc. It does things, but at the same time those things could be traced back to individuals.

You're digging, I dig that.

/For a second I was thought I was reading one of my posts.

I was trying to accomodate your style.

/All the talk of systtems and subsystems....
I think I understand this one. Don't give me a pop quiz or nothing though. It would be so much easier with a diagram....
Clarify that a bit if you can.

I'll try to come back to it.

/That would be a bad idea. I look in your you look in mine, pretty soon we are both nuts... Not pretty.

Yeah good point.

/I will have to lay out my personal 'beliefs' sometime for you. Then you might see why I am a bit unsure of how that fits in to my scheme of things.

I'll expect a full report!

 

[river-wind]

wes, I applaud you. This is exactly what I've been trying to explain for the past three years.

I have been calling it the "scope" of the problem - the stuff you choose to look at when determining the problem at hand. A step beyond where you have taken your theory is this: If you have alimited set of emotions and knowledge bits that can go into a choice at any moment, how are those emotions and though-bits determined? What makes the call on what information you have available to you at the time?
After much work, I have discovered that while some of it is determined by the situation, a majority of the choice is up to you. you caqn, through constant effort, ensure that the information you need is available to you when it is needed.

Therefore, not only do you get to make a choice, but you also get to choose the information which goes into that choice. If you fail to actively choose, then stuff is still available to you, it is just random thoughts and whatever else happend to be in your mind at that time. Being aware of what you have available for your future descision making is, IMO, the pureness of "mindfullness"

I have a poster somewhere that I painted in chinese a few years back that IMO says this in as few words as I could get it down to :"The scope of the answer determines the question."
[edit: altavista has this, which looks close to how I wrote it: 答复的范围定义问题。 which means roughly "Answer scope define question," according to babelfish. hmm, it seems to do better in Japanese : 答えの規模は質問を定義する, or "Scale of answering defines question."
In more descriptive language, before you are confronted with a choice to make, you can decide what outcome you would most prefer, as all choices are open to you. You can then decide, once the choice becomes available for you to make, what outcome would be best, and make it. This is taking your theory, and then forcing resposibility on the individual involved. When the choices of choices are available to a person, the only way that they can be wrong, IMO, is if they act against what they know. In a case, where, as you put it, they purposely allow themselves to be in denial. Then this denialn will limit their information selection, and effect their choices and actions. These are the only occurances where a choice can be wrong at the time it is made.
Looking back at a choice form the future, where you know more, any choice can be considered wrong - that doesn't change it's rightness/wrongness at the time, you didn't know any better than how you acted at the time. If you act as best that you know based on what choices you have and what knowledge you have avaialble to make those choices, you can't regret anything in your life later. You can only regret that you didn't know more at the time.

So, I completely agree, and have hopefully added something else to the mix. I don't know about the use of the word 'best', as I mentioned in the "Shape of language" thread, but the idea is sound.

 

[Romani]

Mr. Morris, no offense, but I think you are a bit off the deep end on this one. What Mephura was saying seems to make alot of sense. What you are saying, or at least seem to be saying, seems to fly in the face of alot of things.