Akrasia

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 06:48 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Because you have at other times is not any guarrantee that it will happen again. Everything is different, a different universe, every moment. It is not necessarily irrational, necessarilly. But you seem to draw much conslusion from very tentative and scanty data.


Okey dokey, then...
Actually, I don't much 'think about' whether or not I will be able to pick up the spoon, I just watch my hand and a spoon is either picked up or not. The moment in itself is sufficient. Life happens.

So you think it is irrational for you to believe that you can pick up that spoon? Never mind whether you think about it.



span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#[URL="javascript:void(0)"]000000[/URL]; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
[/quote]

span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 06:50 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Because you have at other times is not any guarrantee that it will happen again. Everything is different, a different universe, every moment. It is not necessarily irrational, necessarilly. But you seem to draw much conslusion from very tentative and scanty data.


Okey dokey, then...
Actually, I don't much 'think about' whether or not I will be able to pick up the spoon, I just watch my hand and a spoon is either picked up or not. The moment in itself is sufficient. Life happens.

span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
[/quote]

So, regardless of whether you think about it, is it irrational for you to believe that you can pick up that spoon? That means you have absolutely no reason to think so.





span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#[URL="javascript:void(0)"]000000[/URL]; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#[URL="javascript:void(0)"]000000[/URL]; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 02:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;35840 wrote:
So, regardless of whether you think about it, is it irrational for you to believe that you can pick up that spoon?

Depends on how you define 'believe'.
Is a 'belief' a necessity of 'rational thought'? I say, hardly!
It is non-rational (not necessarily 'irrational') to 'believe', it is 'rational' to 'think. Very weak beliefs can often appear rational, but the act of belief in itself is non-rational, and the stronger the belief, the more obviously non-rational but egoically emotional and needy.
Critical thought is 'rational'.

Quote:
That means you have absolutely no reason to think so.

Things do not happen for 'reasons', things happen, and some see reasons and causes and values and beauty and evil where one will as per Perspective. 'Reason' that you find/see is the 'reason' that you imagine, that exists in your thoughts.
Do you understand 'probabilities'? The notion of a 'working hypothesis'? 'Belief' is unnecessary to 'thought'. There are 'probabilities' that a spoon will fall if released from your hand above the ground, all things being equal. Generally, on the earth's surface, the spoon will 'fall' to the ground whether you 'believe' or not. The probabilities are such that it remains a 'working hypothesis', which is not the same as 'belief'.
'Beliefs' are symptomatic, often pathologically so, at any level of strength (of belief) beyond the weak and superficial. People identify with their 'beliefs'. That can easily be viewed as 'pathological'. Critical thought and examination and evaluation of evidence is not applicable to a 'belief' to the extent of the strength of that 'belief' (the strength of the 'identification').
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 02:49 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;35816 wrote:
...doesn't saying that philosophy based on time is crap also imply that science based on time is crap?

Yup!

Quote:
- which dumps an enormous chunk of science down the crapper! ...

Yup! Newly discovered 'truth' dumps many lies down the crapper. Quantum dumps an awful lot (of 'classical physics' and 'philosophy') down the hole. It changes everything, informs all the branches of science (or they are become obsolete)!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 06:33 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Depends on how you define 'believe'.
Is a 'belief' a necessity of 'rational thought'? I say, hardly!
It is non-rational (not necessarily 'irrational') to 'believe', it is 'rational' to 'think. Very weak beliefs can often appear rational, but the act of belief in itself is non-rational, and the stronger the belief, the more obviously non-rational but egoically emotional and needy.
Critical thought is 'rational'.


Things do not happen for 'reasons', things happen, and some see reasons and causes and values and beauty and evil where one will as per Perspective. 'Reason' that you find/see is the 'reason' that you imagine, that exists in your thoughts.
Do you understand 'probabilities'? The notion of a 'working hypothesis'? 'Belief' is unnecessary to 'thought'. There are 'probabilities' that a spoon will fall if released from your hand above the ground, all things being equal. Generally, on the earth's surface, the spoon will 'fall' to the ground whether you 'believe' or not. The probabilities are such that it remains a 'working hypothesis', which is not the same as 'belief'.
'Beliefs' are symptomatic, often pathologically so, at any level of strength (of belief) beyond the weak and superficial. People identify with their 'beliefs'. That can easily be viewed as 'pathological'. Critical thought and examination and evaluation of evidence is not applicable to a 'belief' to the extent of the strength of that 'belief' (the strength of the 'identification').


It was you who said it was irrational to believe "one could do anything other than what one does. All the evidence supports what 'is', and there is NO evidence that anything else could ever have been done. It's irrational."

Well here I am about to eat my soup. and I am about to pick up a spoon to do so. Although I have successfully picked up a spoon to eat soup many times in the past, it follow from your principle that irrational to believe one could do anything other than what one does, that it is irrational for me to think that I can now pick up that spoon. Isn't that right? It would be, then, contrary to reason, like using a feather to try to open a bank vault? So, since "all the evidence supports what is, and no evidence supports that anything else could be done" then it follows that I have no evidence that I can pick up this spoon to eat my soup, for that has not (yet) been done.








span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#[URL="javascript:void(0)"]000000[/URL]; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#[URL="javascript:void(0)"]000000[/URL]; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 10:00 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Yup! Newly discovered 'truth' dumps many lies down the crapper. Quantum dumps an awful lot (of 'classical physics' and 'philosophy') down the hole. It changes everything, informs all the branches of science (or they are become obsolete)!


... I don't think science works that way ... there are many things explained by general relativity for which quantum mechanics has nothing to say (and vice versa) ... so the two are complementary, even if interpretationally contradictory (a situation that is to be expected to occur over and over again in the never-ending advance of science) ... and given that the jury is still out on whether or not one or more interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics can make time "go away" (which is very much speculation at this point), I think a philosophy grounded in time cannot be said to be "crap" as it remains intensely relevant from the perspective of general relativity ...
 
William
 
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 07:18 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
An individual suffers from akrasia when they form an all-thing-considered judgment that they should do one thing (i.e. that they have strongest reason to do that thing) and then without changing their mind do something else instead. Sartre uses the example of an akratic gambler that cannot stop gambling even though they judged that they should stop gambling, and then say they cannot help themselves to highlight this feature of human nature.

How is it possible for you actions to come apart from you self-conscious commitment (e.g. I will no longer smoke, but smoke a cigarette anyway)?

This question goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. According to Socrates, it is not possible to do something that you didn't believe is the best thing for you to do, because you must not have believed it in the first place. According to Aristotle it is possible, but only when one's thinking is distorted.

A better form of the question may be, how is it possible for your self-reports to come apart from what you really believe?


In all honesty, theaetetus, I don't think "change" comes that easy to us. We all have security blankets we carry around to protect us as we find control more attainable and predictable within the confines of those blankets. Anything that requires effort sucks. No one likes to be left out and those who don't have what the status quo requires will find away to exist that will give meaning to their lives or shelter them from the alienation they feel from others who have something to offer. It, IMO, is not so much what will allow us better health, but what will allow us to be a contributor to that life itself. For what good is that which give us better health, when there is nothing to look forward to except living a longer vacuous life. Give a man the opportunity to contribute, he will rid the security blanket himself whatever that "crutch" may be. What good is a long life, if that life is void of a quality it needs.

We are creatures of our environment and will adapt in any way we can to survive in that environment. Good, bad or indifferent. It is a defense mechanism, IMO, that provides a contentment, even if it is only for the moment as we are not qualified to ascertain what the future holds as the best laid plans often go awry and usually due to no fault of our own. Whether it is good for us or not, at least it is within our control regardless of how little that control it requires. The more control it requires, the more freedom we lose and we will not allow that. More often than not we will attempt to solicit others to adapt to "our" way, so we will not feel such alienation. Truth is not being alienated in any respect whatsoever, IMO. As long as those "security blankets" only affect the individual, no harm, but when they cause a detriment to the lives of others, then we have a problem. Those are what create our plagues, wars and bloodshed. IMO.

To a degree nameless is right on the mark concerning freewill. Change the environment, the will of man changes with it. We have no idea of what that will mean, but it safe to assume, it will be better than what we have now, whatever it is. For what it's worth, my two cents.

William
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 01:31 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;35902 wrote:
... I don't think science works that way ... there are many things explained by general relativity for which quantum mechanics has nothing to say (and vice versa) ... so the two are complementary, even if interpretationally contradictory (a situation that is to be expected to occur over and over again in the never-ending advance of science) ... and given that the jury is still out on whether or not one or more interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics can make time "go away" (which is very much speculation at this point), I think a philosophy grounded in time cannot be said to be "crap" as it remains intensely relevant from the perspective of general relativity ...

Do a search on 'time'. I offered plenty of links (the 'eternity' thread).
There might be much 'speculation', but every day science is denying the universality of 'time'. The trend is increasing continually with every equation, every experiment and observation. Naive realism has been refuted (except for it's 'cultist believers' who have bought into and identified with such a sensory notion, as 'reality' beyond 'their' Perspective). 'Time' only exists for the observer. Like 'motion'. A matter of Perspective. Quantum isn't the first to understand this, it's merely catching up to what the mystics have inderstood for millennia. Many distinct paths converge at this understanding, and now 'science' is catching up; an evolution of consciousness is underway. Science is now uttering terms such as 'scientific enlightenment'! A fresh and new day dawns...

I never said that quantum replaces anything, it must 'inform' every other branch of inquiry, though, with a 'critical update'. Without it, other branches will spiral right into obsolescence, as has alchemy and astrology (for the most part). They were well respected in their days, like 'classical physics' and Newton.

'Time' will tell, eh? *__-
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 01:54 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Do a search on 'time'. I offered plenty of links (the 'eternity' thread).


I didn't find your links very useful or very authoritative. One of the pages had section headings for Matrix, conspiracy, and aliens. Seems like fine truthiness to me.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 03:15 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;35892 wrote:
It was you who said it was irrational to believe "one could do anything other than what one does. All the evidence supports what 'is', and there is NO evidence that anything else could ever have been done. It's irrational."

Ok...

Quote:
Well here I am about to eat my soup. and I am about to pick up a spoon to do so. Although I have successfully picked up a spoon to eat soup many times in the past, it follow from your principle that irrational to believe one could do anything other than what one does, that it is irrational for me to think that I can now pick up that spoon. Isn't that right?

You are confusing time parameters.
That quote refered to the Now! Not the possible 'later'. What is done Now! is what is. If you pick up the spoon, that is all that you could have possibly done at that moment, and there is, nor can be, any evidence that you could have done anything else at that moment. There is no evidence of a 'choice' being made other than your 'feelings' and 'thoughts'.
Rationally/logically speaking, to assume something like 'choice' when there is no evidence whatsoever, nor has there ever been, to support such a 'belief'/assumption is error. Idle speculation at best.. I think that falls under the definition of 'irrational'? Non-rational at best. Illogical.

Quote:
So, since "all the evidence supports what is, and no evidence supports that anything else could be done" then it follows that I have no evidence that I can pick up this spoon to eat my soup, for that has not (yet) been done.

Actually it is done already. See Feynmans quote again. All moments are synchronous. All is a done deal. Every moment of your existence is already a done deal with no alteration possible. 'Free-will' and 'choice' are just warm ego supporting 'feelings'!
You can 'assume' and 'believe' but you cannot ever be close to sure until the moment in question actually is, exists (for you)! It is Now! that you find what is real (Now!) and what is 'idle speculation'; Now! and Now! and Now!!
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 03:31 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;36018 wrote:
I didn't find your links very useful or very authoritative. One of the pages had section headings for Matrix, conspiracy, and aliens. Seems like fine truthiness to me.

Perhaps what is sought is what is found? If you already walk in with an agenda, in this case supporting your opinions/understanding, you will naturally do as you did. If you put your agenda aside and made the attempt to see, you might have an easier time learning something, at least broadening youPerspective a bit. Believe as you like. I think there was a simple mathematical explanation that balanced! Perhaps you are unable to understand that language. It is rather unequivocal...
I think you aren't being intellectually honest, and that you are merely supporting your horse. Those links had lots of nutricious food for thought if actually interested in learning/understanding something beyond your current 'beliefs'. Anything I might say or offer on this subject will, I'm sure, be similarly dismissed. That is a symptom of 'belief'.
Your apparent intellectual dishonesty, your 'belief', is too large an obstacle to your understanding of what I offer. 'Understanding' is an active energetic process. You have to want to try to understand, which you are obviously not doing. So, before our conversation repetitiously spirals down the crapper (and wastes more time with 'is' /'is nots'), wisdom tells me that I'm going to have to duck out now.
Sorry, perhaps another topic where 'beliefs' are not involved...
Peace
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 04:37 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
... but every day science is denying the universality of 'time'.


... agreed - even general relativity implies that time is, well - relative! ... but isn't that a far cry from saying that time simply doesn't exist? ...

nameless wrote:
'Time' will tell, eh? *__-


... yep! Wink
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 04:57 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;36039 wrote:
... agreed - even general relativity implies that time is, well - relative! ... but isn't that a far cry from saying that time simply doesn't exist? ...

Everything exists, in context. Existence is context. 'Time' exists, in the mind as a concept arising with our particular perceptions. It is not an omniversal constant, not a 'universal truth'. But it is rather like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Where one sees beauty, another is guarranteed to see ugly.
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective."

From the Perspective of science, 'time' is being considered an illusion born of limited senses and memory. Not 'real'.
Science seems to be instrumental in the shaping of world-view, but the point is not about 'time's universal existence or not' (Perspectives that manifest 'time' cannot be talked out of their 'reality' as they perceive it) but what it's (scientific) absence implies; all 'happy' stuff; no 'free-will/choices' and hence, no responsibility, no guilt, no punishment, no revenge...

From 'this' Perspective, 'time' and 'motion', although only perceived by certain Perspectives, the omniverse at the moment is completely defined by the sum total of all Perspectives. So from some Perspectives, 'time' is 'real', from another, it is illusory, and so on. Every Perspective necessary to manifest the omniverse in it's Completeness; a much larger picture than any single (limited) Perspective can perceive.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 01:08 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Ok...


If you pick up the spoon, that is all that you could have possibly done at that moment, and there is, nor can be, any evidence that you could have done anything else at that moment.



I could not have picked up the fork lying next to the spoon instead if I had chosen to? Why on earth not? The fork and the spoon were about of equal weight, and neither was too heavy for me to lift. Maybe you mean that if at the time I picked up the spoon, then I could not at the same time have picked up the fork (unless I used the other hand, of course). Well I suppose that is right. It would be logically self-contradictory to do the two things at once using the very same means. Is that what you mean? But that, of course, does not mean that I could not have picked up the fork rather than the spoon if I had chosen. The first would have been logically impossible; the second logically possible, but I just did not choose to do it. You may be mixing the two up.








span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#[URL="javascript:void(0)"]000000[/URL]; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 01:59 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Perhaps what is sought is what is found? If you already walk in with an agenda, in this case supporting your opinions/understanding, you will naturally do as you did. If you put your agenda aside and made the attempt to see, you might have an easier time learning something, at least broadening youPerspective a bit. Believe as you like. I think there was a simple mathematical explanation that balanced! Perhaps you are unable to understand that language. It is rather unequivocal...
I think you aren't being intellectually honest, and that you are merely supporting your horse. Those links had lots of nutricious food for thought if actually interested in learning/understanding something beyond your current 'beliefs'. Anything I might say or offer on this subject will, I'm sure, be similarly dismissed. That is a symptom of 'belief'.
Your apparent intellectual dishonesty, your 'belief', is too large an obstacle to your understanding of what I offer. 'Understanding' is an active energetic process. You have to want to try to understand, which you are obviously not doing. So, before our conversation repetitiously spirals down the crapper (and wastes more time with 'is' /'is nots'), wisdom tells me that I'm going to have to duck out now.
Sorry, perhaps another topic where 'beliefs' are not involved...
Peace


Its not about beliefs, it is about things that are unknowable to the human mind. While the links you offered did good thought, most of it attempted to fill in the unknowable gaps of human understanding. It all sounds great and could be true, but it is not any proof of the way things are. You are also using the concept "belief" while denying such concept. Sorry, but you cannot just make up rules that make exceptions for your own thoughts, to diminish others thoughts. Not to mention, you have totally derailed my thread with your anti-choice, anti-belief, anti-freewill comments that serve as examples of choices, beliefs, and some resemblance of apparent freewill.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 02:33 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;36146 wrote:
Not to mention, you have totally derailed my thread with your anti-choice, anti-belief, anti-freewill comments that serve as examples of choices, beliefs, and some resemblance of apparent freewill.

I say nothing 'anti-belief', i simply observe, and call a spade a spade.
My offering does not violate or tangentialize the topic of your thread, I do, though, refute your OP quite effectively. Since you seem uninterested in 'truth' but rather validation of your already held 'beliefs'/thoughts, I'll unsubscribe from it now, and you can find support and agreement as you must.
Peace
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 08:16 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
Not to mention, you have totally derailed my thread with your anti-choice, anti-belief, anti-freewill comments that serve as examples of choices, beliefs, and some resemblance of apparent freewill.


... my apologies for my complicity in this Sad
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 08:50 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;34965 wrote:
How is it possible for you actions to come apart from you self-conscious commitment... a better form of the question may be, how is it possible for your self-reports to come apart from what you really believe?
Isn't our inconsistency, our caprice, one of the things that makes us human?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:51:37