FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
The term "sheep" is inescapably condescending, because it implies that a "sheep" is all someone is, and that generally is not true. A more accurate way to put it would be that with regard to some things, especially very complex things that generate a lot of epistemic learned helplessness, people can get pretty sheep-like. In any case, the people in question almost certainly are not accurately described as sharks, or any other form of predator.
The people quoting John Stewart to each other generally are not ideologues, and they certainly aren't pod people looking to point and shriek at the first identified heretic. They're doing a pedestrian social thing, and if you're at the point where it's grating, it's easy to play along more or less seamlessly, or duck out. The problem isn't that they're witch-hunting, the problem is that if you're in this situation, you probably are an ideologue of some description, and your instinct is to start an argument. They aren't looking for an argument, they're doing a pedestrian-normie-carebear thing. Just dial down the autism for two whole minutes, and everything will be fine.
(It should be obvious, but the above is self-description of past-me, so please don't think I'm saying anything about anyone in this thread that I wouldn't say about myself. I know full-well how hard it is to turn off the autism, but learning to do it is a critical social skill. Also note that the above is very explicitly about Stewart and Oliver and similar CNN-Chyron-tier normie-feed. If they're quoting Kendi or bell hooks or the SCUM manifesto, or Trotsky, etc, etc, dive dive dive. Those are the actual sharks, and they are actively dangerous to interact with.)
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
It looks to me like the main evidence is:
- Justin Trudeau looks very much like Castro did at a similar age, while bearing no resemblance to Trudeau Sr.
- Justin's mother and father were unquestionably sexually adventurous swingers who were legendary for engaging in coitous with their friends. Seperately, Castro was a close friend of theirs, who was likewise extremely sexually adventurous.
- Justin's parents were enjoying a honeymoon in the Caribbean and made a visit to one particular island whose identity they insisted on keeping a secret roughly nine months before Justin's birth.
- Justin's parents subsequently acted like Castro was someone they already knew when they supposedly met him for the first time on a subsequent visit to Cuba.
The first bullet point seems pretty decisive to me.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
13d ago
here ya go. He just gave the cliffs notes for the shooting that started the Kenosha riot which Kyle Rittenhouse more or less ended.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11d ago
and the state would struggle to dispute a claim by a gay couple that they fastidiously avoided that particular act
Are you familiar with the gun-law term "constructive possession"?
The "struggle" involved in proving a crime exists because the authorities in question want it to be a struggle. if they decide they don't feel like struggling any more, they can simply remove the struggle and go straight to enforcement.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3d ago
But why did you ignore the other two sentences I quoted?
Because they were prefatory, and the sentence I quoted appears to be the conclusion that follows from them.
Why do you think these sentences say "we know how to solve all our problems"?
Because he doesn't seem to see that statement as an obstacle to attempting solutions to all our problems. He says institutions can never resolve all the conflicts, that Socialism does not and cannot liberate Eros from Thanatos. And then he concludes that the Revolution should proceed anyway, endlessly, and that this is a good thing. Doesn't he?
"Limits" stop things. This "limit" stops nothing, instead it "drives the revolution beyond any accomplished stage of freedom", and he seems to consider this a feature, not a bug: "it is the struggle for the impossible, against the unconquerable whose domain can perhaps nevertheless be reduced". "Revolution" is commonly understood to mean the seizure and exercise of power. He claims that "revolution" will never end, and that this will plausibly deliver benefits indefinitely.
I do not see how this statement cashes out in a practical limit to socialist ambition. To the extent that it proposes a limit, the limit is entirely theoretical, and it appears to explicitly claim that such a theoretical limit will and should be ignored.
That's my understanding at least; am I misinterpreting him? What am I missing?
If you want to argue linguistic precision, I'd say this falls under "problems we can't solve aren't actually problems". I don't see anything here equivalent to "we can't solve some problems, and we need to accept that and not try."
The AuthLeft and AuthRight are defined by a belief in the right to wield absolute power over all other humans without accountability or restraint - all members of the AuthLeft and AuthRight believe this, and furthermore members of other political ideologies don't believe it, and This belief is the most salient factor in determining identity among political ideologies
Why would any other feature of an ideology be more salient than a belief that "we have the right to wield absolute power over all other humans without accountability or restraint"? What does it matter what you call it, or what theory you use to justify it, if that is where it cashes out?
Further, you seem to be implying that this is about labels, that Libertarians or Christians don't suffer this problem because they're Libertarians and Christians, as though it is the label that provides the immunity. People can absolutely hold this belief while calling themselves Libertarian or Christian. I can point to a lot of Libertarians and Christians that don't hold this belief, and I can point to core axioms of the two ideologies that directly contradict this belief, and thus plausibly provide some immunity from its contagion. But the question is whether or not it is present, and the labels applied are entirely superfluous to that question. Libertarians do not have a long history of governance to examine, but people who called themselves Christian have in the past and do in the present absolutely hold this belief. That is something I would dearly like to help solve, by providing strong arguments as to why they shouldn't.
You're using these idiosyncratic concepts "AuthLeft" and "AuthRight" whose applicability to broader political discussions is questionable.
I'd be interested to drill down on why you think it's questionable.
-
Do you reject the idea as incoherent in and of itself?
-
Do you grant that it's coherent, but don't see the connection to the examples I've provided?
-
Do you see the connection in those examples, but think I'm overstating it?
The space of possible political positions is much broader than you give it credit for. I would encourage you to read some of the original works by any of the thinkers we've been discussing lately - Zizek, Lacan, Marcuse, Derrida, Nietzsche, or Heidegger - and see if there's anything in there that surprises you.
I look at the history of the modern world, and I see a lot of mistakes made. I notice patterns in these mistakes, a correlation, a commonality between apparently disparate theories and ideologies, that seems to explain things that are otherwise mysterious. Why is this a bad idea?
Which makes more sense: Using the theory to understand the practice, or using the practice to understand the theory? The point of philosophy is to teach, to shape the minds of other humans, individually and collectively. The shape of the minds at the end of this process is the best measure there is of the quality of the theory, is it not? What those minds say and do is the best measure of how they have been shaped, is it not? We have three hundred years of history available to us. Why appeal straight to the sacred texts? Is that how you treat ideologies you don't have a personal sympathy for?
...Let's suppose I'm wrong. Let's suppose that I should be looking at the text. Here's a sentence out of that paragraph:
Here is the limit which drives the revolution beyond any accomplished stage of freedom : it is the struggle for the impossible, against the unconquerable whose domain can perhaps nevertheless be reduced.
...Nothing here is surprising me. Nothing in the rest of the paragraph is surprising me. I've gone and read the chapter it's from, and I'll freely admit that I'm not confident that I understood it all, but what I think I grasped didn't surprise me. I'm entirely open to the idea that I'm totally missing his point, or that I'm falling into confirmation bias, but he seems to be advocating permanent revolution, with an assurance that This Time It Will Be Different. Am I wrong? What am I missing? How is this incompatible with "we know how to solve all our problems"?
I think you are right they are not driven by evidence, but I have never ever in my life made a willing act of choice in my beliefs.
I think you have. Consider the following:
When someone presents you with a belief, you can choose to either accept or reject it uncritically. Either is a conscious act of the will.
If you choose not to do either, you can instead inspect the proposed belief critically. This involves comparing it to the evidence available to you. The consensus model is that you collect the available evidence for and against the belief, weigh the two groups against each other objectively, and allow yourself to be guided by the result. There are serious problems with this model:
- There is a very large, probably infinite amount of pieces of evidence for any possible question.
- For any given piece of evidence, there is a very large, probably infinite number of connections to other pieces of evidence.
- Pruning this infinite sea of data and data-connections to a practical subset involves collecting and assessing each piece and its connections for "relevance" and "weight". Neither "relevance" nor "weight" has any objective measure, and all but a vanishing fraction of the available evidence must be discarded. Consequently, there is no objective scale by which one pile of evidence "outweighs" or is more "relevant" than another. This process is irreducibly subjective.
When we examine a proposed belief critically, what actually happens is that we collect the evidence that is immediately convenient to us, prune it subjectively to the subset that seems weighty and relevant by our subjective, personal standards, sort it into "for" and "against" piles, and then compare the two to get a preliminary result. We then assess this result, and if we decide we like it, we keep it and draw a conclusion. If we don't like it, we go looking for more evidence. Either is a conscious act of the will.
Nor does anything require that this process ever terminates. Even if no "sufficient" evidence can be found to justify the conclusion we desire, we are free to assume infer the existence of such evidence from the conclusions we chose in previous iterations of this reasoning process. The end result is that we choose to search through a small portion of an infinite chain of evidence until we find the support we're looking for, and then we choose to stop.
But what if we wanted to go deeper? What if we wanted to try for something beyond subjective, piecemeal assessment of evidence? The last option is to reason about evidence by way of axioms. A given chain of evidence can fit within or contradict a given axiom, logically speaking. This process seems to be objective, or as close to it as humans can get. But all it tells you is whether a given chain of evidence fits or contradicts a given axiom, not whether the axiom is actually correct. There are still infinite evidence-chains, meaning that there are an infinite number of evidence chains that fit neatly into a given axiom. Choosing an axiom is a conscious act of will, and choosing which evidence-chains to compare it to is likewise a conscious act of will.
All consequential beliefs any of us hold are formed by one of the processes described above. All of these processes involve a conscious act of will. Therefore, all beliefs are arrived at through conscious acts of will.
naw, it's a repeat of a repeat of a repeat. Wouldn't have made it if it weren't a direct response to a question. It'll come back up in the main thread soon enough.
So, who is identical with who? And who's the odd man out here?
If #2 actually is as you seem to be intending him, then #1 is the odd man out, because #2 does not actually believe the axiom that "we know how to solve all our problems is shorthand for. Free market democratic capitalism observably doesn't solve all our problems, ASIs don't exist in the present tense, and wouldn't be "we" even if they did. As you seem to intend him, #2 doesn't claim that we have the tools at hand to solve, say, racism and poverty, or indeed any other problem, doesn't claim authority to use those tools, and doesn't blame people for getting in the way of the fixes he doesn't have. All of these contradict the description I laid out.
On the other hand, if #2 is a "Libertarian" who believes nothing matters as much as solving the alignment problem, or is scheming about "pivotal acts", or believes that we should export "free market democratic capitalism" to the rest of the world at gunpoint so as to make the ASI arrive sooner and thus shorten and minimize the death-agonies of our non-utopian existence, then there's a fair argument he actually does believe that "we know how to solve all our problems", and #3 is the odd man out.
If someone actually believes the axiom I'm summarizing as "we know how to solve all our problems", they can be a lot of different things, but whatever they are is flatly incompatible with both Libertarianism and Christianity, at least as far as I understand the two concepts. The axiom is a claim that one has the right to wield absolute power over all other humans without accountability or restraint. It is not a subtle thing.
I don't actually care whether the plan is Marxist revolution or Pivotal Acts purportedly aimed at preventing unaligned AGI; either is inimical to my values, and for the same reasons.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11d ago
Shame is a low class cultural marker.
Shame is a human constant in all social classes.
If nothing is a threat to you then you have no shame.
No human has ever or will ever exist in a state where nothing is a threat to them.
The rich and famous certainly have very little of it if it exists at all, mostly just a cultural nod to the lower classes when at that level, and you only feel it in defeat.
For every shameless rich person, I can point to ten drug addicts shitting themselves on a sidewalk without apparent shame. Further, it seems to me that the absence of shame is the marker of defeat, when one is no longer even trying for goodness and virtue.
It is a fear based emotion that only has the power you give it.
This at least is true, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, fear is a necessary and entirely rational response, because there are better states and worse states, and many of the worse states are extremely wretched. Rational fear is a motive force, a protective force. Its absence is a sign of insanity.
There's a lot of hilarious edge cases that proposal invokes
"Constructive Possession" should create lots of hilarious edge cases as well. They become less hilarious when the government simply deploys a YesChad.jpg.
To be clear, this is not an endorsement, but rather an attempt to highlight the fact that the "struggle" inherent in law enforcement is not an innate feature of law enforcement, but rather a choice the enforcers are making. The truth value of the statement "This would be impractical to enforce" often smuggles in a number of assumptions about the nature of enforcement.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
19d ago
You left out the part where once the obvious disaster becomes visible, we clearly recognize that shit is fucked up, but we need to keep sinking resources into the problem because otherwise The Bad Guys Win. Sure, all our efforts up to this point have been squandered when they weren't actively counterproductive, but you don't want to lose, do you? That's quitter talk!
...I appreciate that this, and the post it's replying to, sounds uncharitable, but at some point on the intersection of human failure, incompetence, and hubris, the charity simply runs out. I watched corpses flap in the slipstream of evacuating US aircraft when Afghanistan collapsed, after TWENTY FUCKING YEARS of this bullshit. We've got the documents now that lay out how there never was a plan, how no one involved who mattered in any way was even attempting to win in any meaningful sense, at any point, ever. At some point, you need some basic level of confidence that the people you're talking to are capable of basic pattern recognition.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11d ago
The drug addicts are on drugs and "have no choice". The rich guy cheating with 8 different mistresses only "feels shame" insofar as he is found out and it affects his status when they play it on the news.
I think both the addict and the rich philanderer have, through their intentional choices, crippled their capacity to feel shame. I don't think this happens automatically; people who haven't intentionally crippled their own capacity for shame continue to feel it. Those who do cripple their capacity for shame in this way have damaged an important part of their own mind, making them less sane in a meaningful sense.
That said, I agree with you personally, and I would never cheat on my wife, but I come on here to exercise the rational part of my brain, not the boyscout part.
I would argue that the boyscout part is a subset of the rational part. Shame is deeply rational. Those who have crippled their capacity for shame are less rational, not more.
Most is not warranted in this day and age, vestigial nonsense, like people who say they won't sit with their back to the door.
Some fears can be vestigial nonsense, depending on the specific environment. Fear itself remains rational, and always will so long as humans survive.
[Didn't realize this was the small question thread, reply was more appropriate to the Culture War thread.]
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
17d ago
Biden has been enlisting the Kennedy family to disavow one of their own and prop up himself as the ultimate and only possible candidate for Democrats recently, to the point where Bobby Jr.’s own brother has rejected him and has said on record that he will to the best of his ability attempt to persuade his sibling to drop out of the race.
...Why is this news?
Family ties aren't all that strong anywhere, and they certainly aren't that strong in any political dynasty anywhere on either side of the aisle. RFK Jr. is a pretty fringe dude, he has a roughly zero percent chance of actually winning the presidency, and a much higher percent chance of acting as a spoiler against the Democrats.
There is no concievable world where his own family don't prefer Biden to him.
Also, how does "black irish" apply to either biden or the kennedy family?
Calling people who support Ukraine aid "too stupid to vote" is just "boo outgroup", and if the valence was flipped it would probably be considered banworthy.
I would like to argue that "supporting Ukraine" and "writing blank checks to the American foreign policy apparatus" are not equivalent. For an example, the people who argue that we are and should be supplying just enough material to Ukraine to prolong the conflict indefinitely, as this will maximize the death and destruction inflicted upon Russia, with the maximization of death and destruction inflicted upon the Ukrainians being a price they're willing to pay, are not writing a blank check, but rather making a straightforward, coherent cost-benefit analysis. My objection to this latter group is not that they're stupid, but rather that they're straightforwardly, appallingly evil.
There's also the people who aim for total victory through unrestrained escalation with a rival nuclear power, and think we should roll American tanks and aircraft into direct combat with Russia. These people are not stupid like the first group, and not evil like the second group, but rather crazy. I object to these people the least, as their craziness seems likely to be self-punishing in a way the stupidity and evil of the first two groups lack.
Presumably, there's in theory a group that can argue coherently the reasons why our current engagement is going to secure our Sacred Values where the previous several did not, while threading the needle between pointlessly-destructive large-scale attrition as an end unto itself or the threat of a disastrous escalation spiral. I haven't actually seen these people, but I'm ready believe they exist. I think such people would be wrong, given the available evidence, but am open to their arguments should anyone wish to present them.
I disagree that this is "boo outgroup". We are talking about a set of geopolitical actors that have burned down four countries, are currently directly involved in burning down a fifth, and bear considerable responsibility for millions of deaths. At some point, some degree of moral responsibility for all that destruction, death and misery must intrude. Maybe I'm wrong in my assessments, but I don't think so, and at some point people must make their bets and take their chances. This is mine: this shit will not end well, and ten to twenty years from now it will be generally accepted that Mistakes Were Made. I am going to hammer the point because I am confident I am correct. If I'm wrong, I want to learn from it. If I'm right, I don't want the people I'm arguing against to be able to forget it. I think many of the people who discuss this issue are being unbelievably, unacceptably casual about the lives of millions of other humans. I hate them for it, and I find that this hatred cannot be suppressed or masked to any great degree.
If that earns me a ban, so be it, and I'll attempt to modify my behavior in the future.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
Forceful arguments tend to generate forceful responses.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
15d ago
He's one of my favorite posters of all time, but he ran out of charity and couldn't bring himself to put in the effort necessary to participate here. Neither he nor anyone else paying attention was surprised by the permaban.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11d ago
That escalated quickly. What's the logic here? I don't take it particularly personally, but it seems a bit out of left field.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
10d ago
You and Lewis are basically arguing against the weakest possible version of the anti-egalitarian position. No one thinks we should beat old men because they can't cross the street fast enough. That's just silly.
It's Chesterton, not Lewis, and the argument explicitly is not that people should beat old men because they don't cross the street fast enough. The argument addressed is:
Discipline for the whole society is surely more important than justice to an individual.
and
you must allow for a certain high spirit and haughtiness in the superior type.
and
Just as the sight of sin offends God, so does the sight of ugliness offend Apollo. The beautiful and princely must, of necessity, be impatient with the squalid and...
For this particular brand of argument, it doesn't get more sophisticated than that. There is no stronger version. That's the position, one can either accept it or reject it. @BurdensomeCount wrote quite a lengthy and well-argued post hammering on this exact thesis not too long ago. It's the point of view people argue from here when they cite Nietzche and start throughing around terms like "slave morality". It's the steeliest man of this particular viewpoint that there is.
Do you have an experiment to determine if an individual exhibits free will as opposed to just making decisions based on its incentive landscape plus perhaps internal sources of randomness?
I don't think I do, no. All I can do is observe my own internal mental states, and compare those observations to other peoples' descriptions of their internal mental states. The result is, as I said, the appearance of free choices being directed by individual will, and that appearance is seamless. It may well be an illusion masking deterministic mechanisms, but if so, the mask is impenetrable under current conditions.
I observe myself exercising my will without apparent restraint, and making choices through the exercise of that will. Near as I can tell, this is what everyone else observes as well. All effective methods of human social organization assume that humans have free will, and then proceed with methods to either convince them to choose cooperation, or trick them into cooperation, or else nullify their choices through the exercise of power against them. No effective methods of social organization have been found that allow one to simply engineer cooperation from the uncooperative, and this despite many trillions of dollars and millions of human lifetimes spent explicitly trying to achieve that exact objective.
If humans have free will, do dogs too? LLMs? Frogs? Insects? A ball travelling through a Galton board?
The ball travelling through a Galton board certainly does not. We can predict when it will fall (when we drop it) and we can predict the statistical probabilities of its travel. We have a good understanding of the mechanics involved, and there do not appear to be any great mysteries involved.
Dogs, LLMs, Frogs and Insects, I don't know. I have no access to their internal experience. Is their behavior deterministically predictable and manipulable? If so, then clearly we have grounds to say that they're deterministic. If not, then it may be deterministic and simply too complex for us to grasp, or it may be something else.
For humans, I do have access to the internal experience, and it certainly is not deterministically predictable. I have no reason to assume that my observations, and those of all other humans, are mistaken, and they uniformly indicate free will. The direct evidence we have on the question in hand is that Free Will exists.
How is free will compatible with a physics world view?
It isn't. So either our understanding of physics is wrong, or our observation of free will is wrong. As it happens, we know for a certainty that our understanding of physics is wrong in other places, so it being wrong here too is not entirely unexpected.
It has been frequently claimed that Materialism should be the null hypothesis, and that there is no evidence against materialism. But if free will appears to exist, and free will cannot exist according to Materialist axioms, then the apparent existence of free will is evidence against Materialism in the same way that Materialism is evidence against free will. Likewise, the falsification of Determinist theories is evidence against Materialism. It is obviously not conclusive evidence, and it's still possible that further technological development will salvage Determinism at some indeterminate point in the future, or that Determinism is correct even if we can never prove it due to intractable complexity. But if one claims both that their position is evidence-based, and that contrary evidence must be discarded because it contradicts their position, they have left the bounds of rationality.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
24d ago
Straw purchases are a routine way by which criminals, including Black criminals, obtain firearms. The authorities routinely decline to prosecute the overwhelming majority of straw purchases, which are in fact committed by family and intimate partners of the criminals. I think the facts are against you here.
There's definately significant inferential distance here. I have flat-out, explicitly, in-a specific-moment decided to change my beliefs twice: once to stop believing in God, and then about a decade later, to resume believing in God. In both cases, the choice was made for purely willful reasons, because I wanted to, not because of any conviction or certainty. In both cases the decision was made against a backdrop of personal crisis; the first time, I perceived myself to be a terrible Christian and this made me miserable, so I decided to just stop believing in it any more. Ten years and a great deal of drama and personal ruin later, I concluded that not believing in God hadn't actually made me any less miserable, and if I was going to be miserable either way I'd rather be miserable with God than without him, and so decided to begin believing again. Life has been much better since.
I've had this exact experience going both directions. When I decided not to believe any more, I have a strong memory of watching all the valences flip, and the same happened the other way when I decided to believe again. In both cases, it was absurdly obvious how good the new arguments were, and how ridiculous all my old commitments had been. It's definately not an experience one forgets.
More generally, thought, I observe that most of my belief-choices aren't a snap decision, but rather a process. There's one political topic in particular that I had very, very strong feelings, opinions, values, etc about. Because I cared a lot about it, I consumed a lot of news and analysis about the topic. After some years of this, I did some self-reflection, and noted that this topic appeared to be a self-licking ice cream cone: I cared about it because I was constantly reading news about it, and I was constantly reading news about it because I cared about it, but in fact none of the news was ever actually surprising, just endless repetitions of the same basic themes over and over ad nauseum. Consuming content on this topic was pointless, and caring about it had long-since become pointless emotional masturbation. So I took a lot of my cached thoughts and feelings about the subject, made a conscious decision to label them "compromised", decided that I would no longer have an opinion on the topic, stopped consuming all content on the subject, and pre-committed to no longer grant emotional valiance to any further material on the subject I was exposed to. This did not make the strong feelings, opinions, values and so on go away on the spot, but any time they popped up, I did my best to trample them right down again, and over the next few years, the feelings, opinions, values and so on shifted quite significantly.
Deciding to believe in God didn't make me Christian on the spot, and my current faith has been constructed by a large number of decisions of how to spend my time and attention, who I talk to and about what, whose opinions I give weight to, and so on. In the aggregate, these choices massively shape how I experience life and how I think about those experiences, and they have led to very significant changes in values, desires, and even personality over time. And to me, the connection between willful choice and results is obvious.
I've seen this a fair bit in my marriage, and now that I'm a father. I love my wife; she's by far the best thing that's ever happened to me, hands down, not even close. I am confident that the case for her excellence could be made objectively, but I don't actually care: things happen, and sometimes I get annoyed or frustrated with her, and when that happens I actively work to grant that frustration and annoyance as little space in my mind as possible. My goal is to love her more perfectly, and I make an effort to actively encourage thoughts and behaviors conducive to this goal, and actively prune thoughts and behaviors that impede this goal. Likewise with my children; I may not be able to control my emotional reactions to a situation, but I can certainly control how I feed or starve those reactions, allowing or denying them self-reinforcement.
Not only evidence, but status, competing desires, and a variety of other motives. Maybe it's a genuine difference in how our brains work, or maybe it's a skill you didn't learn, or an illusion I've bought into, but...
Have you ever lied to yourself? Like, you think "I want to do this thing, but it's bad and I shouldn't." and then you think "I'm going to anyway", and then you think something that isn't really words, but more a deliberate pointing of your consciousness in some direction other than "I have just decided to do something bad." If you do it right, the very real moment of decision doesn't really enter long-term memory, and in retrospect you doing the bad thing just sort of... happens. It's the internal monologue version of passive voice, and if you make a habit of it the moment of choice gets smaller and smaller until it seems to vanish completely, and you get a reflexive habit. From experience, it seems pretty easy to just not look too hard at that process, or at a lot of other processes within the mind, and average it all out to "things just happen, I don't know how."
I'm pretty skeptical that my own introspection is unusually strong; it might be typical-minding, but my guess is that most peoples' brains work pretty much like mine, one way or another.
...from your previous comment:
Dump your entire current social network, and surround yourself exclusively with Christians. Actively cultivate deep, meaningful relationships with them. Adopt the axiom that Christianity is correct, and apparent incorrectness is a problem with your perspective or assessment. Consume high-quality Christian arguments, actively work to adopt Christian perspectives, seek status from fellow Christians, focus on all of Christianity's good points and on all of non-Christianity's worst features. Actively work to contemplate your life and experiences through a Christian lens, and actively work to develop an understanding of Christianity that fits with your understanding of life and the world. Do this all day every day for several years, and see what happens. My guess is that if you did so, at the end of those years you'd be a whole lot more Christian than you are now. Do you think otherwise?
...And of course, you could swap Christianity out for Hinduism or Veganism or Objectivism or Communism or any other coherent worldview/value set. Those feelings about what is true and what isn't are totally real, but given that we observe them changing, and given that we can observe them being influenced by things like media consumption and social status, how they change over time can't be all that great a mystery, can they?
I have observed my own feelings of what is true shifting significantly based on media consumption and social desirability, among other influences.
If people have no control and beliefs simply self-reinforce, how do people change their minds about a thing? More generally, have you not observed yourself choosing between available reactions to a disruptive event? Have you not observed yourself choosing to adopt one attitude over another in response to a given situation?
Indeed it is, but that would not prevent the belief from being downstream of the will, would it?
My prediction isn't that people, when confronted by an opposing argument, decide to change their mind and adopt their opposite's position. My argument is that people have considerable control over the trajectory of their minds over the long-term, and they steer that trajectory through choices, some acute, some chronic, through exercise of their own will, decided by their own internal deliberations and competing desires and values. Those desires and values they choose to feed grow stronger, those they starve grow weaker, and through this process their mind changes as a consequence of their choices. How could it be otherwise?
More options
Context Copy link