Anders Breivik declared sane

[Terxpahseyton]

The overarching problem is to make the assumption that consciousness is even a thing. Rather than merely an abstract qualification, like justice, which has no inherent properties.
Meaning, it just helps to deal with circumstantial happenings based on others circumstantial happenings based on causations beyond any individual control.
In short: People ultimately can not master themselves, but will always remain slaves to whatever the universe pushes down their throat.

 

[Borachio]

Wait, you think your own consciousness is just an abstract qualification?

How does that work, for you?

I think of my consciousness as my very self.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am glad that you wondered Because:
Oh, I do, too! I think of myself as a sovereign entity. With sovereign I mean, no one but myself has any direct say over what I do.
That may seem entirely contradictory to what I said.
Yet, it isn't. Because I do not make the mistake to confuse my self-perception with "objective"* perception. No one has a say. Things do. Ultimately. And absolutely .
Subjectively, I in deed do think of consciousness as a thing. A thing which is I, which is you, which is whatever third person. Based on this, I will also call out people on what I perceive to be their responsibility - their (kind of[/I] free) choice.
Objectively, I think of myself as a gear of the universe. As well as of you and any third person.

The core issue is here is the problem of being a part of a system (which constitutes the state of subjectivity). Being a part of the system, you do not directly realize whatever happens outside of the system. All reality I establish by the system and whatever matters to you is part of the system. Yet, for all we know, there IS a system of which our consciousnesses are merely a part of. Neurons firing, genes controlling, hormones conditioning, electrons flowing, atoms swinging. We - and that means our consciousness - is from what we know merely a gear in the cosmic fabric. Yeah, we can perceive ourselves. Yet: How[/I] we do so is not up to us. Not in the slightest.

BUT: How we perceive us and what we are and in what environment we are existing in determines our choice. And NONE of it is up to us to decide. If we you want ACTUAL free will, you have find something beyond that which is merely up to us.
But there is nothing.

To only be able to think and perceive WITHIN a system means the illusion of actual freedom. To be able to conclude the exterior of this system (READ: objectivity) means to be able to conclude the objective illusion which is inherent to this system.

So responsibly doesn't matter? Just an illusion of ignorant gears?
NO!
It DOES matter.
Because our valuations moves WITHIN the system. What we value is defined by the system (read: emotions). And ALL meaning comes from - fundamentally IRRATIONAL - values to begin with. Everything else is (admittedly arguably - be redirected to moral philosophy) irrelevant. What objectively is true does in the end only matter in so far as it is relevant subjectively. Which leads you back to the system.

*objective under the assumption that I can trust my basic sense (i.e. I am not living some bizarre matrix)

 

[Angst]

You might wish to reformat that post SiLL.

For a rephrase, Borachio, consciousness has a very hard time being a self-governing proponent according to our understanding of the universe and how everything basically is a reaction to the Big Bang. Rationally, it would make the most sense to assume fatalism is a thing, even though you may have the illusion of being self-governing.

However, none of that actually matters much in regards to the subjective proponent, yourself: as you are the consciousness of yourself, and that consciousness has the illusion of free will through strange computing, you will never experience anything but yourself making choices, and you cannot wake up from that state of irrationality. So existentially it pretty much ends there and that for example Sartre still has points you should consider regardless of his illusion of free will.

Where it matters though is that if a human's actions is merely an advanced range of computations of that human's environment, you can input experiences into him to actually influence his choices. This is done in almost every part of society already and the constant insistence on free will and choice always saving the day in the end doesn't grab the problems by their roots. It's merely an apologetic indifference in regards to human mistakes imo.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You might wish to reformat that post SiLL.

Oh well, I might, maybe should. But I in this case rather give leeway to my choices as they were.

For a rephrase, Borachio, consciousness has a very hard time being a self-governing proponent according to our understanding of the universe and how everything basically is a reaction to the Big Bang.

"Hard time" (to emphasize) as it corresponds to being hard to accept the determining role of natural law. Or in other words: Being hard to accept the lack of magic.

Where it matters though is that if a human's actions is merely an advanced range of computations of that human's environment, you can input experiences into him to actually influence his choices.

And this is the crux of the matter. Because "responsibility" is its own kind of input. It is the reinforcement of the illusion of free choice. So the matter isn't decided with weather free choice is a thing. The matter depends on the benefits and drawbacks this assumptions entails.

 

[Angst]

"Hard time" was actually a term I used as an understatement. It is to me rationally impossible for a consciousness to be self-governing.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I know, but I was magically drawn to make an emphasize. And when I thought of the magic-allegory - I had to post.

 

[Borachio]

It is to me rationally impossible for a consciousness to be self-governing.

Therefore it was impossible for you to do other than write the above?

Therefore it was impossible for me to not write this reply?

Post hoc this must be true.

But..at what moment of time do you think you exist?

 

[Angst]

Of course it's not impossible for anyone to write anything. If you got your head around it properly, you'd understand that (to answer your two first questions) you wouldn't write your reply if your brain did not recognize an argument to reply to and compute a response to the very same argument. It's really not that hard to understand, so don't play silly again with that time stuff, whatever that'd mean.

 

[Borachio]

Oh well, then I've simply misunderstood your drift. I was actually trying to understand.

The sentence:

It is to me rationally impossible for a consciousness to be self-governing

seems to demand serious consideration. And yet makes no sense.

 

[Angst]

Well, why doesn't it make any sense? If your consciousness is only computing reaction to input, how can it transcend that and make choices on its own?

You're a machine, not a god.

 

[Borachio]

I see.

 

[Angst]

Neat neutral tone. Could be both sarcastic or not. Did it make sense?

Right now I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to have you understand the sentiment.

 

[Borachio]

Entirely neutral, I assure you.

Does your experience lead you to suppose that you are either a machine or a God?

 

[Angst]

What experience exactly?

My point is that in order to be self-governing and have a "free" mind that was not merely a complex line of computations, we'd have to defy the way everything else acts; as a reaction in accord to some kind of force or provocation. If we were self-governing, we'd defy these laws and be gods, to use a strong word for it. I don't see it being so, I don't think the human mind is so marvellous it transcends the physical universal rules that created it. So I must assume I am a machine, again, to use a strong word for it.

I know I'm repeating myself, but yes, you are a machine, or you are a god.

Or a god from the machine.

 

[Borachio]

Either I have free will indeed, or what I think is my free will is an illusion. What would be the evolutionary advantage of such an illusion? Or, if none, how would such an illusion arise in the first place?

 

[Snorrius]

Either I have free will indeed, or what I think is my free will is an illusion.

Well, last scientific research seems to show that "free will" at least in the strong meaning is indeed illusion. I refer you for Sam Harris' books - he mention this topic almost every time, also he have wrote a separate book on this subject under the name "Free Will".

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I have heard of him. Just not got round to reading the book, yet.

But then you see, do I have the free will to read the book or not, to accept what it says or not, to understand anything or not?

Are you free, or not, to answer my questions?

 

[Snorrius]

But then you see, do I have the free will to read the book or not, to accept what it says or not, to understand anything or not?

Probably not. Especially in areas of accepting and understanding. If it says anything transgressive for given person, people can rarely transgress themselves even if they try to exercise their "free will". Take any hot topic on CFC OT - abortions, politics, modern pseudopaedophilic simulacrum, different feminist perversions - people rarely make rational claims and even if they try to do - it is more about rationalizing their unconscious beliefs (see thread about circumcision for example). You can hardly expect coherence in person's views, which "free will" you are talking about? People are automatons as Gurjieff said.

Are you free, or not, to answer my questions?

Of course not. No one sane person with a real free will would have spent even a minute on a such useless activity as chatting on the web forum. I certainly would not do it if I was acting based on reasoning and rationality and not on my mood.

 

[Borachio]

Probably not. Especially in areas of accepting and understanding. If it says anything transgressive for given person, people can rarely transgress themselves even if they try to exercise their "free will". Take any hot topic on CFC OT - abortions, politics, modern pseudopaedophilic simulacrum, different feminist perversions - people rarely make rational claims and even if they try to do - it is more about rationalizing their unconscious beliefs (see thread about circumcision for example). You can hardly expect coherence in person's views, which "free will" you are talking about? People are automatons as Gurjieff said.

Did Gurjieff say this automatically?

But I do agree people rarely change their views because of what anyone else may say, calmly and "rationally", to them. Rather they entrench their views.

Of course not. No one sane person with a real free will would have spent even a minute on a such useless activity as chatting on the web forum. I certainly would not do it if I was acting based on reasoning and rationality and not on my mood.

Acting solely on reason and rationality would lead you nowhere. Yet you can still choose one action over another. You may decide to eat strawberries today or any other day (within the realm of possibility). But on no day would such a choice be determined by reason.

Reason and rationality are useful tools only once you have decided on some particular course. They cannot determine that course.

I'm not sure what your point is, and why that means you don't have a free will. Especially you, Snorrius, who subscribes to doing what you wilt. The very essence of free agency. Or do you dissemble?