GENIUS FORUMS

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

For rocks and mountains perhaps. But men is always moving around the globe, around life. This is where relativity kicks in.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

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

For rocks and mountains perhaps. But men is always moving around the globe, around life. This is where relativity kicks in.

I have read this post like 6 times and I still don't get it.

Could you explain it another way?

Oren, I'll go back to your original statement which sparked it:

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

Flip that coin and spin it fast! By placing the two as opposites on that proverbial coin, they literally are "causing" each other now! Remove one and the other one doesn't exist. So by introducing the coin you have to go with happiness equaling suffering since it doesn't matter which side comes up eventually seen from any larger perspective (it does matter to the receiving end I suppose). But it's causal to the circumstance as the receiving end might just as well flip the experience on its head and see pain as some kind of reward.

Desire is a feeling which can arise during crossing the gap between lack and completion. Or more like a dictionary: any experience of wishing for something that seems to be within reach. But not as cause but as effect and in some cases as feedback or control loop, as amplifier or regulator of a present drive. But it should be clear that this cannot equal the totality of habits, drives, reflexes and motivators. What if a lemming experiences ecstasy when diving of a cliff? But more importantly, what if it wouldn't feel anything at all? This whole concept of "desire" is really something that is not needed to be able to explain the complex set of impulses and each element of behavior. It's better to save it for a specific occurrences and link it to a false sense of self and a false conception of the worlds where "things" need to be gained or owned. It's a conceptual error with the only benefit that it provides control. For others especially, think for example of advertisement techniques. You might want to argue for beneficial uses of ego, control and desire but the way you are approaching it just doesn't work since you keep mixing up categories basically (the famous "category error").

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Flip that coin and spin it fast! By placing the two as opposites on that proverbial coin, they literally are "causing" each other now! Remove one and the other one doesn't exist. So by introducing the coin you have to go with happiness equaling suffering since it doesn't matter which side comes up eventually seen from any larger perspective (it does matter to the receiving end I suppose). But it's causal to the circumstance as the receiving end might just as well flip the experience on its head and see pain as some kind of reward.

Ok I think I see what you mean. You can't have one side without the other. This is true.
Happiness is caused by suffering (because you're doing something about it to change it).
Suffering is caused by happiness (because you're wanting the happiness you don't have).

But it should be clear that this cannot equal the totality of habits, drives, reflexes and motivators. What if a lemming experiences ecstasy when diving of a cliff? But more importantly, what if it wouldn't feel anything at all? This whole concept of "desire" is really something that is not needed to be able to explain the complex set of impulses and each element of behavior. It's better to save it for a specific occurrences and link it to a false sense of self and a false conception of the worlds where "things" need to be gained or owned. It's a conceptual error with the only benefit that it provides control. For others especially, think for example of advertisement techniques. You might want to argue for beneficial uses of ego, control and desire but the way you are approaching it just doesn't work since you keep mixing up categories basically (the famous "category error").

But our desires are mostly impulses and instincts. Everything we do has a basis in survival because that's how we evolved.
What would you say are beneficial uses of the ego?

Orenholt wrote:But our desires are mostly impulses and instincts. Everything we do has a basis in survival because that's how we evolved.

What do you think you are you doing at this forum then, which "instinct" underlies it? Does it make you fitter or cause a mutation? Or are you just passing time?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: What do you think you are you doing at this forum then, which "instinct" underlies it? Does it make you fitter or cause a mutation? Or are you just passing time?

Well this in particular may or may not be related to instinct. I'm not sure. But we cannot escape the fact that we are caused to do all the things we do because of genetics.

Although I could argue that learning philosophical truths makes me more mentally fit instead I will say that it is simply a product of my genetic programming that I do post on this forum.

Orenholt wrote:Well this in particular [posting here] may or may not be related to instinct. I'm not sure.

But would you say you "desire" to post here?

But we cannot escape the fact that we are caused to do all the things we do because of genetics.

And because of the sun in the sky. Hard to escape unless you happen to be Voyager 1.

The question of course is if genetics help you to understand why you'd do something in particular and not the next best thing.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But would you say you "desire" to post here?

I sure would.

But we cannot escape the fact that we are caused to do all the things we do because of genetics.

And because of the sun in the sky. Hard to escape unless you happen to be Voyager 1.

The question of course is if genetics help you to understand why you'd do something in particular and not the next best thing.

As I stated in the other thread about "why are homo sapiens better?" all actions are based in fear/desire.
My genetics tell me that I fear being bored and not knowing things. So it's my instinct to find ways to A.) entertain myself and B.) learn.

Orenholt wrote:As I stated in the other thread about "why are homo sapiens better?" all actions are based in fear/desire.

Each action has some cause and effect. You seem to substitute causality with fear/desire, both as supreme causes with fear as "from" and desire as "towards". What do you think?

My genetics tell me that I fear being bored and not knowing things.

You don't seem to know much about genetics, like the phenotype, gene expression and the complex interactions and responses to the environment ("extended phenotype"). It just has nothing to do with science or philosophy to mention any genes telling us things. It's a category error: there's just too much between the 'world' of genes' and the world where your decisions happen. There are causal links but why not for example talk about a meme or some disorder, drug trip or brain damage causing behavior (like irrational fears)?

Possibly you're just bored because you don't need to struggle for survival right now and knowing "things" is giving the illusion of control, some idea of what might be happening, a little structure to hide in from the wolf with the destructive breath!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Each action has some cause and effect. You seem to substitute causality with fear/desire, both as supreme causes with fear as "from" and desire as "towards". What do you think?

It's not denying cause and effect. It's just stating that fear/desire are one cause out of many in the world. It just so happens that love and fear are key feelings that govern human and animal behavior.

You don't seem to know much about genetics, like the phenotype, gene expression and the complex interactions and responses to the environment ("extended phenotype"). It just has nothing to do with science or philosophy to mention any genes telling us things. It's a category error: there's just too much between the 'world' of genes' and the world where your decisions happen. There are causal links but why not for example talk about a meme or some disorder, drug trip or brain damage causing behavior (like irrational fears)?

There may be no specific genes discovered yet that cause fear and curiosity but I'm sure that they are genetic behaviors considering that most if not all humans have them. Yes, there may be contributing factors to fear like a disorder or a drug trip but they're genetic also. A mental disorder like paranoia may be caused purely by one's own genetics or by environmental factors working on those genes. Drug trips would be an example of an "outside" substance working on the brain to cause different behaviors, they're not changing the genes, they're just activating certain mental processes and all mental processes are the result of genes interacting with the environment.

Possibly you're just bored because you don't need to struggle for survival right now and knowing "things" is giving the illusion of control, some idea of what might be happening, a little structure to hide in from the wolf with the destructive breath!

Pretty much. Oink. lol

Orenholt wrote:It just so happens that love and fear are key feelings that govern human and animal behavior.

Are love and fear both feelings or actions? And how would those relate? Reminds me of the classic marital problem. She: "you don't love me, you never say it or make me feel loved anymore". He: "but I'm doing so many things, all these sacrifices just for you!".

There may be no specific genes discovered yet that cause fear and curiosity but I'm sure that they are genetic behaviors considering that most if not all humans have them.

But amoeba for example move away from heat or cold. Would you call the behavior "fear" or can we call it fight-or-flight response? And what if the amoeba reacts the same without there being any heat or cold. Would it be called ignorant?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Are love and fear both feelings or actions? And how would those relate? Reminds me of the classic marital problem. She: "you don't love me, you never say it or make me feel loved anymore". He: "but I'm doing so many things, all these sacrifices just for you!".

They're both feelings. Basically fear=dissatisfaction and love=satisfaction. Only fear is when you think about things in the future that might dissatisfy you.

But amoeba for example move away from heat or cold. Would you call the behavior "fear" or can we call it fight-or-flight response? And what if the amoeba reacts the same without there being any heat or cold. Would it be called ignorant?

Do amoebas not have genes?

Orenholt wrote:They [love and fear] are both feelings. Basically fear=dissatisfaction and love=satisfaction. Only fear is when you think about things in the future that might dissatisfy you.

But feelings are generally referring to the human or human-like experience. And thinking about potentially bad things in the future doesn't sound like a proper definition of fear. There's not much thought about anything if you recoil from a sudden loud sound for example.

Do amoebas not have genes?

No, the question was: are you saying amoebas can experience "fear" or even be "ignorant" just because they have genes?

The answer is clear: you are abstracting the idea of "fear" into a clockwork realm where a simplistic version of causality is operating and thereby suggesting you have somehow framed the issue in a way that's more understandable for others and yourself. But in reality you have been muddying up the issue from the start. And I'm not sure if you are able to go further with it this way.

I don't know, I think we have discussed enough for now because it's becoming repetitive. Better for you to return to the very first comments people gave and wonder if you really understood the criticisms so far. Because I get the sense you have been skipping a few things. Good luck!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But feelings are generally referring to the human or human-like experience. And thinking about potentially bad things in the future doesn't sound like a proper definition of fear. There's not much thought about anything if you recoil from a sudden loud sound for example.

It's true that being startled doesn't require much thought. Maybe I'm over stretching the limits of the word fear.

No, the question was: are you saying amoebas can experience "fear" or even be "ignorant" just because they have genes?

I don't think they have the chemicals necessary for what we recognize fear but it's built into their genes to go away from things that are harmful to them. With humans it's the same only more sophisticated.

The answer is clear: you are abstracting the idea of "fear" into a clockwork realm where a simplistic version of causality is operating and thereby suggesting you have somehow framed the issue in a way that's more understandable for others and yourself. But in reality you have been muddying up the issue from the start. And I'm not sure if you are able to go further with it this way.

I don't know, I think we have discussed enough for now because it's becoming repetitive. Better for you to return to the very first comments people gave and wonder if you really understood the criticisms so far. Because I get the sense you have been skipping a few things. Good luck!

Well I appreciate how much you've talked to me about this subject.