whining thread

[Resolute]

49 minutes ago, mts said:

"i'm afraid i couldn't possibly disagree with you more! why is it that you insist that every occurrence in the world originates from our "selves" and can be controlled in some way? why can't there be things simply beyond our control? why can't there be things that we can't truly change?"

If it's not projection, what do you imagine is happening in the mind of a hater?

sometimes the hater himself doesn't even know why he doesn't like a certain person (even when that person doesn't remind/resemble anything from the past). he just seems to feel hate/discomfort/uneasiness/anger/rage/etc. towards certain people for no apparent reason.

 

49 minutes ago, mts said:

Aura's suggests to me something ancient and ancestral. A "vibe"? (Stop me if I'm off track.) Even so, why shouldn't something psychological of relevance follow?

it's not ancient or ancestral. it can be hereditary but not always. different individuals of the same family could have very different lives, suggesting that it's not just a matter of heredity. naturally, these things would often have psychological implications, but the psychological effects would be symptoms and not the underlying cause/problem.

 

49 minutes ago, mts said:

Love at first sight can still fail when the person turns out to be someone you dislike. So hate at first sight presumably, could change also. I'm probably stating the bleeding obvious here.

we're not talking about justified changes. we're discussing unjustified feelings/reactions towards certain people (in cases where projection is not the culprit). of course it's not always immediate; sometimes unexplained problems suddenly arise between two--or more--close people. unexplained changes in behavior and so on. each person has a certain aura/state from the time they're born, but sometimes sudden and significant changes mysteriously happen.

[IrmaJean]

Not knowing why, doesn't mean there isn't a reason why, though... It could be buried deeply and unconscious to the person. One might not know another person reminds of them of the past without exploring this further. A lot of this, when it does occur, is unconscious and outside of our awareness until we bring it to our awareness. A lot may be symbolic too. Again, just a concept that may or may not apply.

[Klingsor]

I regret that I broached the topic, I didn't want to cause strife. 

Basically my question was directed at those instances that Resolute describes above:

1 hour ago, Resolute said:

sometimes the hater himself doesn't even know why he doesn't like a certain person (even when that person doesn't remind/resemble anything from the past). he just seems to feel hate/discomfort/uneasiness/anger/rage/etc. towards certain people for no apparent reason.

Certainly there are times when action-reaction scenarios play out and we develop a dislike for a person because of something they've done. I think what I was primarily talking about are cases where the person has done nothing, maybe you've just met this person. 

Sometimes it may be something apparent and apprehensible to the senses...the way they talk, way they laugh, physical appearance, habits, etc...that are immediately apparent. But sometimes it's not. There's nothing remarkable about the person that stands out. 

So I go back to the idea of "identity". An aura may be just another name for an intangible part of our identity, as much as our looks, our body, our clothes, our mannerisms. 

As a specific example, I recently had an altercation involving a person who, ordinarily, would not have elicited any hostility from me based on the person's physical appearance, and might have even merited sympathy. This individual also tried to be friendly with me on numerous occasions. Despite all of that, I never liked the person from the start and never wanted their presence. The individual, as I later discovered, had been making fun of me for some time behind my back and creating antagonisms between me and other people where none existed. So my "hunch" was correct. Also realize that the converse is true: this individual seemed to have developed an instant dislike of me for whatever reason, otherwise this person would never have made the extra effort to attempt to cause so much controversy (in all my interactions with this individual, I never betrayed any dislike or aversion, I maintained my normal monodrone interest). 

[IrmaJean]

That's a good point. Intuition. It's good that you trusted yours. Self awareness can be helpful, I think, even if we don't always understand all the whys.

I can become overly enthusiastic at times when discussing psychological concepts that interest me. I apologize.

I wish you both well. Res, have you done any walking recently? I hope you're feeling better.



 

[Resolute]

1 hour ago, IrmaJean said:

I wish you both well. Res, have you done any walking recently?

thanks. and likewise. unfortunately, the heat, my weight and back pain don't make it easy. maybe i'll lose some weight in the next month or two, and will take up walking again.

 

1 hour ago, IrmaJean said:

I hope you're feeling better.

was i feeling worse?

[IrmaJean]

My h has had back issues for over a decade. Very difficult to cope with and also why he doesn't usually walk with us. He also struggles with his weight at times in part because it's so challenging to exercise due to his back. So that can be tough, I hear you. I hope the heat eases some so you feel more comfortable.

I thought you'd mentioned having some physical issues recently that had worsened, though maybe I misunderstood. 

 

[Resolute]

25 minutes ago, IrmaJean said:

My h has had back issues for over a decade. Very difficult to cope with and also why he doesn't usually walk with us. He also struggles with his weight at times in part because it's so challenging to exercise due to his back. So that can be tough, I hear you. I hope the heat eases some so you feel more comfortable.

ya, your h understands what i'm talking about lol.

 

25 minutes ago, IrmaJean said:

I thought you'd mentioned having some physical issues recently that had worsened, though maybe I misunderstood. 

 

well, i had some pain weeks ago (not the first but was bad), but haven't had an episode recently. the condition is still there, but i can only hope it doesn't decide to strike lol. my health is generally crap (and won't improve), but as long as there's no significant and lasting pain, i can tolerate it for the time being.

thanks for your concern.

[Small]

Hello again gang. Will post soon!

[Small]

Apologies for the sudden leave Res. Work & other things kept me busy and stuffs. I wrote out a response to our determinism discussion but didn't get a chance to post, so if you'd like to see it I'll dig it out. I'm equally happy to drop the discussion too since it seems that you've moved on hehe. I hope you're doing well, all things considered. 

[IrmaJean]

Hi Small. I hope you're well.

 

[Small]

Hey Beth, hope you're doing well too. I'm so so.

[Resolute]

3 hours ago, Small said:

Apologies for the sudden leave Res. Work & other things kept me busy and stuffs. I wrote out a response to our determinism discussion but didn't get a chance to post, so if you'd like to see it I'll dig it out. I'm equally happy to drop the discussion too since it seems that you've moved on hehe. I hope you're doing well, all things considered. 

if you know me at all, you'd know that i never move on lol. so dig away.

i'm doing ok; thanks.

 

[mts]

-

[mts]

-

[mts]

-

[Klingsor]

Never mind. 

[Resolute]

5 hours ago, mts said:

sorry abuot my dumb comments

dammit! i'm late again. what dumb comments lol?

[Small]

Resolute,

 

I think there's a fundamental misundersting here, regarding what I mean by the unconditionable nature of the ego. I'm not saying that the ego platform is uncaused because everything in existence has some sort of a cause. I am saying that the ego is designed in a way which makes it impervious to the moulding or conditioning that other parts of the psyche are subject to. 

 

I'll try drawing on several examples here:

 

Example 1

 

Consider the working memory part of the brain. This is a type of memory that processes and briefly holds onto the information that's required to complete a task. Tying your shoe laces for example requires a memory of the position of the laces and hands, as well as the steps completed in the way of tying them. Without this, you would lack the coherency to tie them.

 

Working memory will also call on long term memory to retrieve information on how to tie them, but it doesn't store this information longer than it has taken to complete the task. It only concerns itself with remembering information that allows for any current task to be completed, but this information can't mould or shape working memory, because it's designed in a way where it cannot be conditioned by external/internal information.

 

Example 2

 

Let's consider a PC. My knowledge is limited here and I draw on this solely for purposes of example. A typical PC has 2 types of memory, for storage, and to run programs (RAM). RAM doesn't hold onto information, and instead lets go of it after a the particular function/program has run it's course. RAM had to have been built by someone, but it is designed in a way where it can't hold on, or be conditioned by information once it no longer has immediate use for it. Unlike the storage memory, which holds on to information and is shaped by it. 

 

Example 3

 

Consider using a marker to write on a whiteboard compared to to paper. The whiteboard is designed in a way where it is able to clear it of all information, whereas with paper this isn't possible. The same marker can be used to write the same instruction by the same person on both surfaces, but one becomes permanently conditioned whilst the other can be cleared of the information. 

 

Conclusion

 

Anyway, like all the examples above, the subject in question has been caused to exist, but has attributes that allow it to hold onto information only when necessary to make a decision, and is able to let go of it. In other words, it is unconditionable by all information and therefore the choices it is able to make are based on actual choice by the person, rather than some past event or variable having effected it.

 

The ego is used to process and choose between a subset of options available by considering the ID, superego, schema, archetype, past events, the external context etc. 

[Resolute]

2 hours ago, Small said:

Resolute,

 

I think there's a fundamental misundersting here, regarding what I mean by the unconditionable nature of the ego. I'm not saying that the ego platform is uncaused because everything in existence has some sort of a cause. I am saying that the ego is designed in a way which makes it impervious to the moulding or conditioning that other parts of the psyche are subject to. 

so we agree that it has a design. and since its design wasn't made by us (we didn't design our own egos), this makes us unresponsible for its choices/decisions.

 

Quote

I'll try drawing on several examples here:

 

Example 1

 

Consider the working memory part of the brain. This is a type of memory that processes and briefly holds onto the information that's required to complete a task. Tying your shoe laces for example requires a memory of the position of the laces and hands, as well as the steps completed in the way of tying them. Without this, you would lack the coherency to tie them.

 

Working memory will also call on long term memory to retrieve information on how to tie them, but it doesn't store this information longer than it has taken to complete the task. It only concerns itself with remembering information that allows for any current task to be completed, but this information can't mould or shape working memory, because it's designed in a way where it cannot be conditioned by external/internal information.

i think i can put my finger on the problem. in this example:

1. working memory, as we've agreed, has a predetermined design (which enables it to process information in a predetermined way).

2. it can only process what is given to it (or what it has access to). it can't process unavailable information nor does it decide what information is and isn't available to it.

conclusion: having a predetermined processing mechanism and the ability to only process available information (which is also predetermined, as has been previously established) makes the outcome completely predictable in theory, and therefor determined.

 

Quote

Example 2

 

Let's consider a PC. My knowledge is limited here and I draw on this solely for purposes of example. A typical PC has 2 types of memory, for storage, and to run programs (RAM). RAM doesn't hold onto information, and instead lets go of it after a the particular function/program has run it's course. RAM had to have been built by someone, but it is designed in a way where it can't hold on, or be conditioned by information once it no longer has immediate use for it. Unlike the storage memory, which holds on to information and is shaped by it. 

in the underlined section, you've clearly admitted that the ego (ram) is temporarily conditioned by external input (information). a billion temporary conditionings in succession amount to one long/permanent conditioning lol.

 

Quote

Example 3

 

Consider using a marker to write on a whiteboard compared to to paper. The whiteboard is designed in a way where it is able to clear it of all information, whereas with paper this isn't possible. The same marker can be used to write the same instruction by the same person on both surfaces, but one becomes permanently conditioned whilst the other can be cleared of the information. 

the marker (or the person controlling it) dictates what is written on the whiteboard. the whiteboard does not have any say in what is and isn't written on it. furthermore, the whiteboard has no say in what is erased from it, and if/when something is erased. it is completely under the control of others (markers, erasers, etc.). unlike the ego, the whiteboard doesn't process anything.

 

Quote

Conclusion

 

Anyway, like all the examples above, the subject in question has been caused to exist, but has attributes that allow it to hold onto information only when necessary to make a decision, and is able to let go of it.

it can only "make a decision" if it has the capacity to do so. such a capacity would have to have been preprogrammed into it. this means that it is already conditioned/programmed with initial instructions. and being programmed means that it cannot do anything but follow its programming, just like a computer. this is why a computer program can never be free. because no matter what it does, it would still be bound by its initial programming. the only difference would be the variables (which are to be processed/computed), which are also predetermined, as we've established.

 

Quote

In other words, it is unconditionable by all information and therefore the choices it is able to make are based on actual choice by the person, rather than some past event or variable having effected it.

i'm not sure where "the person" comes in. the person is controlled by the psyche. the psyche (except for the ego) is preconditioned (based on genes etc.), and the ego has a predetermined processing algorithm (also determined by genes etc.), which also makes it--more or less--preconditioned. the psyche is heavily influenced by external variables (environment, other physical attributes etc.) which are also predetermined. so as you can see, the whole system is completely closed and entirely deterministic.

 

Quote

The ego is used to process and choose between a subset of options available by considering the ID, superego, schema, archetype, past events, the external context etc. 

exactly. it has a predetermined processing mechanism the outcome of which relies solely on the input by "the ID, superego, schema, archetype, past events, the external context etc.".

the ego can't add its own input because--as you admit--it has none. it's synonymous with a processor that can only compute inputted data using a preset mechanism. it can neither manipulate the data nor deviate--in a task--from its initial design. this guarantees a consistently predictable outcome.

 

the bottom line is this:

two things determine human behavior:

1. the psyche controls the person, and the ego is the processing center of the psyche. the ego either follows a predetermined processing mechanism or is ruled by chance. if it follows a predetermined mechanism then its choices/decisions are entirely deterministic. if not, then it works randomly. personally, i wouldn't accept responsibility for the decisions/choices of either type of ego because i had absolutely no role in creating/designing/programming it. and we both agree that the rest of the psyche is preconditioned.

so we are controlled by a deterministic psyche.

2. external factors and events (environment, nurture, other physical traits etc.). and clearly none of these are in our control.

conclusion: we are at the whim of two deterministic things; 1. the psyche. 2. outside events.

[IrmaJean]

I saw a news story recently. Life was discovered in a place where no one thought it possibly could, because the conditions wouldn't seem to support it. But I think life finds a way to adapt in order to come to be and that is the design.

We see many things in life that seem to have a defined purpose and these things go awry at times to work against us. So what I have wondered is if the dominoes were built and set down each with a clear purpose and then let them fall where they may. The design is to adapt and adjust and find a way to survive and sustain life, no matter which way they tumble.

Anyway, pure speculation on my part...I know nothing of the facts.

Edited August 17, 2016 by IrmaJean
Still can't type...

[Resolute]

4 hours ago, IrmaJean said:

I saw a news story recently. Life was discovered in a place where no one thought it possibly could, because the conditions wouldn't seem to support it. But I think life finds a way to adapt in order to come to be and that is the design.

you mean no scientist "thought it possibly could". otherwise, logically, nothing is impossible in principle unless it violates a logical principle.

 

4 hours ago, IrmaJean said:

We see many things in life that seem to have a defined purpose and these things go awry at times to work against us. So what I have wondered is if the dominoes were built and set down each with a clear purpose and then let them fall where they may. The design is to adapt and adjust and find a way to survive and sustain life, no matter which way they tumble.

Anyway, pure speculation on my part...I know nothing of the facts.

again, this comes down to relativism vs absolutism. if we consider everything to be relative and subjective, then any theory would be valid and true. but to us absolutists, certain things (logic, math etc.) are absolute and a deduction based on them is either true or false.

keeping that in mind, one of the main principles of aristotelian logic is the principle of excluded middle. from this principle we can deduce with absolute certainty that something must either be caused to behave a certain way (deterministic) or uncaused to do so (indeterminate). indeterminate things follow nothing but chance.

now, if anyone can provide an alternative possibility (something that is neither determinate nor indeterminate (destroying the law of excluded middle) i'd be very impressed indeed.

"dominoes falling as they may" means that they are indeterminate and random. and as i've stated countless times, randomness is not only logically impossible, but also entails no actual responsibility (the whole purpose of the freewill debate is to determine whether we are responsible for our actions or not).

furthermore, 'having a clear purpose' and 'falling as they may' is contradictory. this violates the law of no contradiction. if they have a clear purpose then they're determinate. if they don't (if they fall as they may) then they're indeterminate. the same dominoes can't be determinate and indeterminate.

[IrmaJean]

The intended purpose that I am thinking of in my mind may be more general than you are probably considering. Or possibly all the variations and outcomes weren't intended, but occured anyhow. I am not saying this is true...I wouldn't know... I'm just considering things. For instance, brain connections help us to learn, but they can also cause problems. Attachment helps infants survive when they are helpless, but if it's insecure attachment, it can also cause some struggles within interpersonal relationships. The intended purpose to help us survive as a species, but are the downsides intended? I don't know. I don't think it has to be random either, there is a cause...but perhaps the causes weren't intended? Again, I don't know. Just thinking.

As for the relativism you speak of, I think (my opinion) that it applies in some circumstances and not in others. I don't dispute that there are facts...I just don't know all of them. Or many of them.

As for the example I used...this went against what scientists have believed would be required to sustain life. If I am recalling correctly, there was no light and extemely cold temperatures. My thought regarding this is that life will find its way to be. I do find it very cool that science is evolving as we learn more. Maybe our actual knowledge at this time is much more limited than we have thought.

It's interesting.

[Resolute]

4 hours ago, IrmaJean said:

The intended purpose that I am thinking of in my mind may be more general than you are probably considering. Or possibly all the variations and outcomes weren't intended, but occured anyhow. I am not saying this is true...I wouldn't know... I'm just considering things. For instance, brain connections help us to learn, but they can also cause problems. Attachment helps infants survive when they are helpless, but if it's insecure attachment, it can also cause some struggles within interpersonal relationships. The intended purpose to help us survive as a species, but are the downsides intended? I don't know. I don't think it has to be random either, there is a cause...but perhaps the causes weren't intended? Again, I don't know. Just thinking.

i must clarify that things like intention, knowledge/foreknowledge etc. are not required for something to be determinate. something must either be caused or uncaused. if a choice/decision is caused then it is not free. if it's uncaused then it's free and random (uncaused=free=random=chance=....); it's that simple.

you might say: a choice/decision is caused by the person himself and that means it's by his own choice and volition. i say that the person himself is designed determinately (just like everything else in existence), and unless the person himself had a say in how he was designed, whatever he does/chooses/decides would not be his responsibility. (this is not a theory. like i said, we must either accept that humans are determinate and therefor not responsible for anything, or indeterminate (subject to chance) and also not responsible for anything)

 

Quote

As for the relativism you speak of, I think (my opinion) that it applies in some circumstances and not in others. I don't dispute that there are facts...I just don't know all of them. Or many of them.

none of us know all of them. so don't worry about it lol. however, i am glad that you accept that there are absolutes.

 

Quote

As for the example I used...this went against what scientists have believed would be required to sustain life. If I am recalling correctly, there was no light and extemely cold temperatures. My thought regarding this is that life will find its way to be. I do find it very cool that science is evolving as we learn more. Maybe our actual knowledge at this time is much more limited than we have thought.

It's interesting.

life sucks lol. my knowledge tells me that wherever life (specially intelligent life) exists there will certainly be--unnecessary--suffering.

[Resolute]

@Small, i'm still waiting to hear what you think. i also see no feedback/comments from klingsor, mts etc.

[Klingsor]

I really don't think I can offer anything constructive to the discussion. The concepts of ego, psyche, etc are really just mechanisms; they may be intermediate causes of certain phenomena and provide the actionable intent for what a person may or may not do in a given situation, but they are certainly not first causes or sufficient unto themselves for defining who or what an individual actually is. I've mentioned before that one's ancestry can be viewed in such a way that every single member of that individual's family line were what they were and nothing else expressly so that the individual himself would be exactly who is and no other. Every member of your family line going back to that Adam and Eve moment met and had sex and conceived the next member of that line just so you could be born. In that sense, heredity itself is just another mechanism. This is obviously an egoistic point of view, but it's valid. 

I am still convinced that these questions proceed from the nature of time itself. These questions would be meaningless if we did not have to live in time from moment to moment - in succession. If we could simply exist in all moments at once - in simultaneity - these questions would not matter because we would see every cause at once as a logical sequence, not a successive, sequential unfolding within time. We would not have to work backwards from effects, we would see all causes and effects simultaneously. It's impossible to imagine such an existence, but it isn't inconceivable: a writer of a book does not have to turn each page in order to know what happens, even though the story proceeds sequentially and the characters themselves must live the story in time. Music also provides another interesting thought experiment - I'm listening to a symphony right now on my turntable; the spinning record itself contains the entire symphony, every measure, every note, simultaneously, but in order to make any sense of it, I am forced to play the music back within time. The record can also be sped up or slowed down, and if I could speed the record up to the point that the needle traversed every groove on the record within a millisecond, what would I hear? Something unintelligible. So it's clear that no matter how fast we live in time, this is not sufficient for experiencing it simultaneously - it requires totally removing ourselves from within time itself so that we do not have to traverse it successively. Some traditions call this the "Eternal Present" - since every moment of time can be subdivided into progressively smaller and smaller units, we can never truly experience the present moment except through simultaneity, which means the present must be eternal and outside of time itself. 

I'm not saying I have any answers or even know how to do this - but mystics and psychics have reported "timelessness" as one of the effects of their experiences, which they normally cannot describe in words (words themselves being conditioned by time). And it's also clear that if by "psyche" one means the animating part of our mentality, then it's just another name for the soul, "animus". Which should make it clear that our souls are as conditioned and determined as the rest of us. It still doesn't answer the question of why I am me and not you.