whining thread

[Resolute]

what type is infj, beth?

i found it; 'advocate' grouped under the diplomats. there's absolutely no doubt as to how well you get along with pretty much everyone here.

i'm grouped under sentinels. i'll read up some more on the subject.

[IrmaJean]

I'm not sure how valid the tests are either, but this one seems very accurate for me and my family. I find it interesting.

[Guest ChinaDoll]

College there sounds so much more interesting compared to the farce taught in my country.

Sorry... this has nothing to do with the discussion. Please proceed.

[Resolute]

I'm not sure how valid the tests are either, but this one seems very accurate for me and my family. I find it interesting.

for me, it hit the nail on the head in some areas, other traits were off though.

[Resolute]

This is the real question: where does responsibility end and victimization begin? Answer that and the causality question is answered.

whose responsibility? my view is that no one other than "god" has any real responsibility for anything.

[Resolute]

what?

[Resolute]

in this world we can consider the existence of artificial responsibility for any action or event based on who appears to be the "bad guy", but no one is truly responsible in the grand scheme of things.

in your example klingsor, i could say that 'artificially' the rapist is certainly responsible, and the victim could also be blamed if she dressed and/or behaved a certain way. we can also 'artificially' blame other parties depending on the situation and circumstances.

Edited September 26, 2015 by resolute

[Resolute]

1- The causality question is answerable and has been answered. All of this is redundant and extrapolation from my point of view. The only question that remains for me, the only one that matters is this:

2- Why is a being itself and not another?

Put another way, why did the piglet get eaten by its mother instead of flunking out of high school and dying from a heroine overdose?

The meaningful answer to this question could quite literally change my life.

1- do you mind sharing?

2- a view exists that says this universe is just one possible version, and all other possible versions also exist.

[Resolute]

Your falling into the Einstein trap. It's all relative if God (Fate) is responsible for everything. Our justice system, ethics, morality is a pointless, useless.

it is in fact useless and pointless. the only point is establishing order in this world, even if it's just artificial order.

[Resolute]

Doesn't this view contradict determinism? If all variables exist due to predecessor variables that cause an exact outcome with no room for chance, how can there be alternate versions of the universe? Wouldn't they be the same every time?

they would all be determined too. the first cause (creator) can cause the initial cause(s) for any universe and that universe would continue on a predetermined path, based on it's initial cause(s). and of course the creator can also interfere at different points causing new causes for different outcomes.

[Resolute]

The universe is a mechanism for the expression of all possibilities - everything that can be made "real" will be made real in the way that suits it's nature. There is no cause for sufficient reason. A being exists because it exists - how it exists and the conditions of its existence is a result of its sufficient reason expressing itself in the manner befitting it's nature.

But existence is comparatively established and without better/worse it wouldn't be real. So the only question one can reasonably ask is, again:

Why am I me and not you?

this view implies the existence of randomness, which i completely reject.

[Resolute]

What I said above can be expressed religiously as God's "divine plan".

screw his "plan" lol.

[Resolute]

No, absolute not. It's the reason the plurality of universes hypothesis can be immediately rejected because every possible outcome will make itself real in the course of the universe. The randomness you speak of IS my question:

Why am I me and not you??

totally unsubstantiated claim, which contradicts logic.

[mts]

they would all be determined too. the first cause (creator) can cause the initial cause(s) for any universe and that universe would continue on a predetermined path, based on it's initial cause(s). and of course the creator can also interfere at different points causing new causes for different outcomes.

Interfere? But I thought "god" was just the logical starting point of a chain of events?

[Resolute]

1- Every possibility that is not an impossibility will be realized in the manner befitting it's nature, even if only virtually. 2- I'm on your side, though I seem to be riling you. Remember what you said about God not being able to contradict himself? That's all I'm stating. I'm a strict determinist too.

3- Neither of you has answered my question.

1- says who? based on what law of logic? by what necessity?

2- welcome to the dark side, lol.

3- i can only indulge in your question if i shared your view of every possible outcome being realized in the same universe, whereas my view is that every possible version 'might' be realized, but in separate universes.

[Resolute]

1- @resolute Do you think the "first cause" (which I'm assuming is the collision of elements) can vary so much from one another, to develop a complete alternate version of reality when these building blocks are essentially the same? 2- If god does interfere and adds new variables at specific moments, then doesn't this undermine determinism? Isn't determinism underpinned by an initial cause, and not systematic new causes? I'm not challenginh it, I'm trying to understand.

1- the 'first cause' is "god", 'collision of elements' might be second, third, or subsequent cause, therefor they aren't necessarily the same building blocks.

2- i'm not saying "god" necessarily interferes, but i don't think that it's impossible for him to do so without undermining determinism, because his interference would've already been decided by him from the beginning to be necessary for a particular outcome. the point of determinism is that we can't actually influence things, not that "god" can't.

[Resolute]

Interfere? But I thought "god" was just the logical starting point of a chain of events?

he is the starting point of the chain(s) of events, but he might not leave it at that. the truth is, i don't really know if he ever interferes or not. either way, we can't change anything in the world except what we were 'designed' to change, in a way that we were 'designed' to change it. we are merely causes (and effects) in the chain of causality.

[Resolute]

What possibilities can have multiple outcomes? The same coin can't be both heads and tails on the same throw, so what's the point of multiple universes?

it can be heads in one universe and tails in another, but of course it wouldn't be on the same throw.

i don't even know the point of one universe, much less multiple ones.

[Resolute]

So essentially, determinism is a theory, that involves the initial & systematic introduction of Inependant variables to design and shape every facet of reality? And humans, are simply passive recipients that interact with variables in a way predetermined by their inherent psyche to produce a desired set ot outcomes which in turn, create new outcomes?

yes, except that i'm not certain whether there are any introduced variables or not.

[Resolute]

How can the same coin maintain two existences? It would be the same coin.

a similar coin, not the same. no one thing can have multiple existences, but different 'copies' if you will, are possible. i'm not necessarily a proponent of this multiple universes theory though; i just think it's possible.

[Resolute]

These are roughly my thoughts on the topic, so I needn't prepare a post....

damn, klingsor can read minds.

[Resolute]

@ Klingsor, I will only add though, that our "nature" isn't necessarily singular. If the human psyche does indeed comprise of an ID, ego, superego, subconscious, pre conscious, cognition, and cognitive schemas then I think we have more choice or free will than it seems, although I concede, each of these facets may have a predetermined nature although they generally operate im similar ways to that of their peers.

The very notion that humans can be conditioned implies the ability to change within reason, and doesn't this also allude to free will?

the illusion of free will, not actual free will.

[Resolute]

Yeah, I see the non falsifiable nature of this topic. That's why it's simply my opinion and I could very well be wrong.

you are, lol.

[Resolute]

Let me approach this at a different angle with you resolute, 1- and then I'm pretty much done. 2- You get 3 sets of groups, that are picked at random other than age and gender and placed them in the following conditions:

Controlled: Fair reinforcement

Negative: Negative reinforcement towards productivity

Positive: Positive reinforcement towards productivity

These people are placed in a house, in alongitudinal experiment where they are appropriately rewarded or punished for hard work. Most studies yield and conclude that the negative group will show decreased immediate and prolonged productivity, whilst the positive group will prove to adopt productive behaviours. The control will generally show no change.

Knowing this, if I rewarded myself thoroughly for working hard, I will most likely see a gradual change in my attitude to work. Not just consciously, but on an instinctive and conscious level, to some degree.

Doesn't this show, that should I want, I can condition myself to behave in certain ways? If so, don't I have a choice in my actions?

1- i hope not. i love proving you wrong, repeatedly. just kidding. but i do love discussing stuff with you guys.

2- the point is, you wanting or not wanting to do anything, depends entirely on internal (genetic, biological, etc.) and external (conditions, circumstances, etc.) factors, which makes your will essentially 'unfree'.

[Resolute]

it seems that klingsor has left the building.