GENIUS FORUMS

Orenholt wrote:Sometimes "rewards" can be neutral. Like if you're being tortured with salt in your wounds the "reward" is when it stops for a moment. Sure it's not MUCH of a reward but it's good in contrast.

Then lets not call it "reward" or satiffaction just because the torture stops. All what you prove here is that it's not about reward but attachment and value. And contrasts. Rewards are just one particular way to affirm an attachment or evaluation. Pain is the negative version. A groove, neurological pathway or habit are other causes. And so on.

Explain how it's possible to value anything without it giving a "reward" of some kind.

Valuing comes first. The reward is set-up to (possibly) happen after the conditions are set first. Take for example behavior in place through natural selection. Even if there is no "reward" for the individual or the species (because of changed environment for example) the behavior is still in place simply because of earlier causes. Does it matter that once upon a time it was beneficial? And not even to the individual at times but just to the species or the genes?

The moment you have identified behavior in men which is completely disconnected from personal reward or reasonable evaluation, your whole theory becomes useless!

Yes, humans are creatures of habit. They do this because they feel what they are doing is working for them thus far so they continue to do it again and again.

They might think it's working for them because they value the repetition. There does not have to be any link to reality here, not any actually benefit or reward. And even the thought or reward might not even be there when the habit takes over. It's for your theory completely unimportant by the way if someone would believe it's beneficial in some intellectual way. That might just as well be justification on that level and therefore serves just as an reinforcing of the activity already in place. In other words: ignorance.

If people were more concerned with long term happiness than short term the world would be a better place. The answer isn't to get rid of desires, it's to train them to be intelligent.

That's called I believe sublimation. But it's stretching again "desire" to include impulses and instincts. Again, before we know it we are talking about molecules having ego again! It's not useful, it's just a proven bad definition and you must realize it by now.

Orenholt wrote:Ok I will try.

Say for example you were dissatisfied with the state of the world maybe there were some people you really really hated and wanted to kill because they were acting in an evil manner. But then you thought that you could do far more to stop those kinds of people by getting into a position of power. So instead of just lopping off their heads you work for years to become a leader of some kind and along the way you have some realizations about the world because you want to be the very best like not one ever was. Then you use those realizations not to get revenge but to make the world a better place and rehabilitate those that would do harm to others.

I'm sorry if that's not what you were looking for.
Feel free to ask for specific details that you want because I'm not sure what details you would like.

Thanks for that, but you gave me an example. I want to understand the process that produces the example.

If you want to stick to the notion that ego arises solely as a product of the corporeal brain, you will need to rely on current scientific knowledge. Yet, you use terms like "evil" and "good" and "realisations". These terms are distinct from scientific knowledge. Purely for the sake of contrast, they are spiritual terms; and, if you are going to use them, you need to engage in philosophy.

What you are doing is attempting to give scientific theory a spiritual edge, and in doing so you are doing neither competently. As a result, nobody knows what you're talking about—well, some of us do, but that has more to do with us than with you. (:

PS: What that means is, as your friend Getoriks (I believe), has said in more general terms to you; you need to let go of what you think you know and try to understand what others are saying to you.

Leyla Shen wrote:
Thanks for that, but you gave me an example. I want to understand the process that produces the example.

If you want to stick to the notion that ego arises solely as a product of the corporeal brain, you will need to rely on current scientific knowledge. Yet, you use terms like "evil" and "good" and "realisations". These terms are distinct from scientific knowledge. Purely for the sake of contrast, they are spiritual terms; and, if you are going to use them, you need to engage in philosophy.

Well it's all by causality and the ego (which itself is caused). Is there something wrong with using current scientific knowledge?
Good and evil are subjective to the brain/ego. They aren't spiritual. If you like something it's good (to you). If you dislike something it's bad (to you).

It's common sense, isn't it?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:]
Then lets not call it "reward" or satiffaction just because the torture stops. All what you prove here is that it's not about reward but attachment and value. And contrasts. Rewards are just one particular way to affirm an attachment or evaluation. Pain is the negative version. A groove, neurological pathway or habit are other causes. And so on.

Reward simply IS the lack of suffering though.

Valuing comes first. The reward is set-up to (possibly) happen after the conditions are set first. Take for example behavior in place through natural selection. Even if there is no "reward" for the individual or the species (because of changed environment for example) the behavior is still in place simply because of earlier causes. Does it matter that once upon a time it was beneficial? And not even to the individual at times but just to the species or the genes?

How can value come first? How can you know you like ice cream until you try it?
Yes, it does matter. Squirrels store nuts for the winter because it is beneficial. If there was global warming so that winter would never come (assuming everything didn't burn to death) the squirrels would still hide their nuts because their instincts tell them they should for survival.

The moment you have identified behavior in men which is completely disconnected from personal reward or reasonable evaluation, your whole theory becomes useless!

No it doesn't because the fact still remains that they still WANT to do it. The Squirrels feel compelled to hide their nuts regardless of whether they need to or not.

They might think it's working for them because they value the repetition. There does not have to be any link to reality here, not any actually benefit or reward. And even the thought or reward might not even be there when the habit takes over. It's for your theory completely unimportant by the way if someone would believe it's beneficial in some intellectual way. That might just as well be justification on that level and therefore serves just as an reinforcing of the activity already in place. In other words: ignorance.

Repetition of behavior can be from ignorance but I'm certain that it's also because they do perceive it as beneficial or at least "safe".

That's called I believe sublimation. But it's stretching again "desire" to include impulses and instincts. Again, before we know it we are talking about molecules having ego again! It's not useful, it's just a proven bad definition and you must realize it by now.

Yes, it is sublimation.

I don't see why it's a bad definition if Buddhism uses the word desire to equate with suffering.

Well it's all by causality and the ego (which itself is caused). Is there something wrong with using current scientific knowledge?

Only that you are not using it when you think you are.

Good and evil are subjective to the brain/ego. They aren't spiritual. If you like something it's good (to you). If you dislike something it's bad (to you).

It's common sense, isn't it?

Yes. Nobody is arguing you don't have plenty of that.

Orenholt wrote:Reward simply IS the lack of suffering though.

And what is then the lack of happiness? You were acknowledging the reward cycle as valid just a bit earlier which is completely based on positive and negative loops. The negative being suffering while the positive being pleasure. I think you're dancing around your own untenable position now.

If there was global warming so that winter would never come (assuming everything didn't burn to death) the squirrels would still hide their nuts because their instincts tell them they should for survival.

Yes and since they are ignorant about themselves in relation to their larger environment and do not possess reasoning skills THEY DIE OUT, simply because the proper thing to do would be to migrate away as the nuts will disappear with the climate change and other better adapted animals move in for the kill. If they only had the awareness to ignore the run to their version of happiness! Which is where ego kicks in according to the Freudian model but not yet delusion.

It's a bad example though because we do not know if the squirrel experiences any happiness or sorrow. Instinct is just the machinery and the next thing you suggest is that the tree is desiring to drop the nuts and gravity is smiling doing its thing.

Repetition of behavior can be from ignorance but I'm certain that it's also because they do perceive it as beneficial or at least "safe".

Well, you're introducing a lot of weasel terms this way. Re-affirmation is a way to extent existence. Desire means prolonging or repeating for its own sake.

That's called I believe sublimation. But it's stretching again "desire" to include impulses and instincts. Again, before we know it we are talking about molecules having ego again! It's not useful, it's just a proven bad definition and you must realize it by now.

Yes, it is sublimation.

I don't see why it's a bad definition if Buddhism uses the word desire to equate with suffering.

Because Buddhism links desire to a craving for what "is not", whatever the experience or object, or a desire for the reverse, to not be whatever is or is experienced at that moment.

Translated to your terms it's about craving the experience of satisfaction/unsatisfaction or ̶r̶e̶f̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ the lack of the experience of satisfaction/unsatisfaction. In a way it's a feeding on the reward cycle itself by attaching to a part of it as a heavy load. Engaging in that is suffering and not nature itself.

(edit: removed the word "refusing" since one can crave the experience or its absense. A desire "not to be" as in the line preceeding it).

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: And what is then the lack of happiness? You were acknowledging the reward cycle as valid just a bit earlier which is completely based on positive and negative loops. The negative being suffering while the positive being pleasure. I think you're dancing around your own untenable position now.

The lack of happiness is suffering. Isn't that obvious?

Yes and since they are ignorant about themselves in relation to their larger environment and do not possess reasoning skills THEY DIE OUT, simply because the proper thing to do would be to migrate away as the nuts will disappear with the climate change and other better adapted animals move in for the kill. If they only had the awareness to ignore the run to their version of happiness! Which is where ego kicks in according to the Freudian model but not yet delusion.

Yes, they do die out. The ones that don't store their nuts are the ones that survive and thus their behavior evolves.
But that doesn't change the fact that the ones that died out thought that storing up nuts for the winter would have a benefit.

It's a bad example though because we do not know if the squirrel experiences any happiness or sorrow. Instinct is just the machinery and the next thing you suggest is that the tree is desiring to drop the nuts and gravity is smiling doing its thing.

Uh... no. Trees don't have the capacity to desire to drop their nuts on the ground and gravity isn't anthropomorphic.
You don't know that any other humans experience happiness or sorrow for that matter.

Because Buddhism links desire to a craving for what "is not", whatever the experience or object, or a desire for the reverse, to not be whatever is or is experienced at that moment.

Yes, I realize that.

Translated to your terms it's about craving the experience of satisfaction/unsatisfaction or refusing the lack of the experience of satisfaction/unsatisfaction. In a way it's a feeding on the reward cycle itself by attaching to a part of it as a heavy load. Engaging in that is suffering and not nature itself.

I'd say it's more about craving satisfaction and refusing dissatisfaction. Simple as that.

desire is at the root of our life force.
yummy yummy, yuk,yuk

its impossible to get rid of desire and continue living.

I wonder to what extent "will to power" is being conflated with ego based desire in this discussion. The latter is a form of expression of the former but they are not synonymous.

The ones that don't store their nuts are the ones that survive and thus their behavior evolves.
But that doesn't change the fact that the ones that died out thought that storing up nuts for the winter would have a benefit.

What is your evidence for this based on evolutionary theory!? Or is there some other proven scientific theory upon which you are arriving at this conclusion?

Ego is repression and/or displacement of desire. That's why animals, scientifically speaking, are not egoistic.

At the very base level of all things, which is causation, there is no such thing as will. It is all merely mechanical processes; causes and effects. Even the ego operates in this manner, when broken down to its most basic processes. The Buddha knows this and in realizing it, will, and therefore desire, is rendered meaningless.

Russell wrote:At the very base level of all things, which is causation, there is no such thing as will.

That's certainly true. Will is merely a phenomena whipped up by causality, like all things. The most contentious thing to do with "will" as we ordinarily define and understand it, is the degree to which its applicable to a given circumstance. How much and what type of intelligence does it take to be able to "will" in a conscious sense? Will is a funny sort of notion, more particularly when we attach the idea of "freedom" to it.

It is all merely mechanical processes; causes and effects. Even the ego operates in this manner, when broken down to its most basic processes.

Indeed.

The Buddha knows this and in realizing it, will, and therefore desire, is rendered meaningless.

Yes, and that realisation is an important step in the process of eliminating the triggers that causes such things to arise.

Leyla Shen wrote: What is your evidence for this based on evolutionary theory!? Or is there some other proven scientific theory upon which you are arriving at this conclusion?

Ego is repression and/or displacement of desire. That's why animals, scientifically speaking, are not egoistic.

It's just an example of how animals adapt to their environment.

Ego is repression and/or displacement of desire now instead of just plain old desire?

It's just an example of how animals adapt to their environment.

Yes, which is why I see statements exactly like this in every scientific journal ever written relating to evolution and natural selection:

The ones that don't store their nuts are the ones that survive and thus their behavior evolves.
But that doesn't change the fact that the ones that died out thought that storing up nuts for the winter would have a benefit.

~

Ego is repression and/or displacement of desire now instead of just plain old desire?

Yes. It's what results from the id-superego interaction, not your idiotic non-concept of ego.

Re-read what I have written on the subject personally. If you suddenly develop a modicum of reasoning power, you'll be able to work out how it's consistent.

It's just an example of how animals adapt to their environment.

Yes, which is why I see statements exactly like this in every scientific journal ever written relating to evolution and natural selection:

The ones that don't store their nuts are the ones that survive and thus their behavior evolves.
But that doesn't change the fact that the ones that died out thought that storing up nuts for the winter would have a benefit.

Edit: Not to mention the plethora of statements and assertions regarding the differences between courts of law and how and why different species have different philosophies regarding criminal law, plea bargaining and insanity...

~

Ego is repression and/or displacement of desire now instead of just plain old desire?

Yes. It's what results from the id-superego interaction, not your idiotic non-concept of ego.

Re-read what I have written on the subject personally. If you suddenly develop a modicum of reasoning power, you'll be able to work out how it's consistent.

Leyla Shen wrote:
Yes. It's what results from the id-superego interaction, not your idiotic non-concept of ego.

Re-read what I have written on the subject personally. If you suddenly develop a modicum of reasoning power, you'll be able to work out how it's consistent.

My concept of the ego is simply the result of conflicting desires and coming to an action as an outcome for the purpose of pursuing satisfaction. That's all there is to it.

Even if you personally are consistent why do you say that it's about the repression and/or displacement of desire instead of desire itself?

I would consider repressing or displacing a desire to be a desire in and of itself.

My concept of the ego is simply the result of conflicting desires and coming to an action as an outcome for the purpose of pursuing satisfaction. That's all there is to it.

Yes, it tells us so much about everything. It's blindingly insightful! I don't know why nobody has ever thought about it before, or why anyone (including Freud) would beg to differ. You?

Even if you personally are consistent why do you say that it's about the repression and/or displacement of desire instead of desire itself?

In the abstract, it's called discernment; thinking. That means that there are reasons for it (which have already been pointed out to you).

I would consider repressing or displacing a desire to be a desire in and of itself.

Of course you would.

Orenholt wrote:The lack of happiness is suffering. Isn't that obvious?

Since you said that the whole "reward system" is basically the ego "because it is the source of desire", we can conclude that happiness as well as the lack of it, being part of the mentioned reward system is for you also ego and the source of desire. Therefore happiness is also suffering? If so, yes.

You don't know that any other humans experience happiness or sorrow for that matter.

Yes, we are all just experts on what squirrels desire and think! You need to get consistent. Ultimately it's true we just apply labels like "happiness" while whatever is experienced might be very hard to qualify and will differ between people. Another reason to not make the term the center piece of any explanation. Desires yes, but what is desired exactly at the level we're talking about, the mentations?

Translated to your terms it's about craving the experience of satisfaction/unsatisfaction or refusing the lack of the experience of satisfaction/unsatisfaction. In a way it's a feeding on the reward cycle itself by attaching to a part of it as a heavy load. Engaging in that is suffering and not nature itself.

I'd say it's more about craving satisfaction and refusing dissatisfaction. Simple as that.

More like craving existence and refusing non-existence. Conditions will be satisfied and give rise to new unsatisfied conditions: but that's not the same as craving yet.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Since you said that the whole "reward system" is basically the ego "because it is the source of desire", we can conclude that happiness as well as the lack of it, being part of the mentioned reward system is for you also ego and the source of desire. Therefore happiness is also suffering? If so, yes.

Nope. Ego is the source of both suffering AND happiness. 2 sides of the same coin. That is the whole point of this thread.
I'm saying it's unfair to vilify the ego when it also brings the experience of happiness too.

Yes, we are all just experts on what squirrels desire and think! You need to get consistent. Ultimately it's true we just apply labels like "happiness" while whatever is experienced might be very hard to qualify and will differ between people. Another reason to not make the term the center piece of any explanation. Desires yes, but what is desired exactly at the level we're talking about, the mentations?

Even rats have a reward system in their brain. But without getting into an argument about whether squirrels have desires or not can you at least see how it could be applicable to an anthropomorphized squirrel?

More like craving existence and refusing non-existence. Conditions will be satisfied and give rise to new unsatisfied conditions: but that's not the same as craving yet.

For most mentally healthy people that's true but think about suicidal people. They're equating existence with suffering so they want to avoid that.
I think "craving" is a strong word. Not all desires are that strong. Like mild boredom is still mild suffering.

Orenholt:
Even rats have a reward system in their brain. But without getting into an argument about whether squirrels have desires or not can you at least see how it could be applicable to an anthropomorphized squirrel?

LOL!

Yes! Especially purple ones with big, bushy tails that have displaced their nuts!

Dan:
The most contentious thing to do with "will" as we ordinarily define and understand it, is the degree to which its applicable to a given circumstance. How much and what type of intelligence does it take to be able to "will" in a conscious sense? Will is a funny sort of notion, more particularly when we attach the idea of "freedom" to it.

That's for sure!

Orenholt wrote:Nope. Ego is the source of both suffering AND happiness. 2 sides of the same coin. That is the whole point of this thread.

It's one coin so you're indeed saying that happiness is suffering. That's what it means when you place them on one coin and spin it. This means all desire is suffering too in your own words when you follow through on them.

But without getting into an argument about whether squirrels have desires or not can you at least see how it could be applicable to an anthropomorphized squirrel?

Some anthropomorphized squirrel looking suspiciously like an ego. I can go with that :)

More like craving existence and refusing non-existence. Conditions will be satisfied and give rise to new unsatisfied conditions: but that's not the same as craving yet.

For most mentally healthy people that's true but think about suicidal people. They're equating existence with suffering so they want to avoid that.

Yes, I had to edit a big error in my original post, although it was still right in the rest of the post:

• it's about craving the experience of satisfaction/unsatisfaction or r̶e̶f̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ the lack of the experience of satisfaction/unsatisfaction

Craving for existence if the flipped coin of craving for non-existence. Which explains the suicidal: he just flipped his desires to the undoing. And sadly enough there's a surplus of that available so nothing to really stop it but some basic drive supplied by desperation.

I think "craving" is a strong word. Not all desires are that strong. Like mild boredom is still mild suffering.

It's a very good word because it points to the act of "grabbing" and "not letting go". This is at the core a strong attachment which only barely resembles the ordinary "desire". At the surface all might seem calm and bored. Like the north Pole or some iceberg.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's one coin so you're indeed saying that happiness is suffering. That's what it means when you place them on one coin and spin it. This means all desire is suffering too in your own words when you follow through on them.

Yes, all desire is suffering but desire can lead to happiness when you do something about the suffering.
It's more like desire and suffering are on one side and happiness is on the other.

It's a very good word because it points to the act of "grabbing" and "not letting go". This is at the core a strong attachment which only barely resembles the ordinary "desire". At the surface all might seem calm and bored. Like the north Pole or some iceberg.

Ok, I get what you mean. So if you're bored you're still "craving" some kind of stimulation.

Orenholt wrote:It's more like desire and suffering are on one side and happiness is on the other.

That division ends up being a slight of hand. If desire would be like the tilted Earth's yearly cycle around the sun then suffering and happiness would be like the seasons. It depends were you happen to be on the globe. And one does move around a bit in real life!

So if you're bored you're still "craving" some kind of stimulation.

Yes, it's like a momentum: something still has to "happen" or "keep existing" through stimulation and experiencing. Younger people are therefore naturally more often bored as there is a natural desire to "exist", to define their ego and come to terms with it. But that's not the end of it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: That division ends up being a slight of hand. If desire would be like the tilted Earth's yearly cycle around the sun then suffering and happiness would be like the seasons. It depends were you happen to be on the globe. And one does move around a bit in real life!

How is it a slight of hand? There are differences between summer and winter...