Comments

  • How voluntary are emotions?
    nuf said/proved. carry on.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    [reply="skyblack;569147"
    If only you knew what a joke you've been!

    Shoo, joke.
    hypericin

    Your hands are shaking (seen from the way you are quoting above), central committee sock/stooge. But hey, if that belief helps you feel better, go for it!
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    :lol: :lol: :lol:
    Calm down tough guy!
    hypericin

    This one is kool as kool-aid. Not sure about you though. From the "emotions" you have displayed, it seems as if you are enjoying being the joke huh. Glad to be of help.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    There is an open offer on the table with couple of options, for anyone that wishes to test this further and would like to take me up on it. Until then..... carry on with your silliness
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    Regarding baiting:

    Yours truly plays the game at his whim and wish, because his buttons/emotions cannot be pushed (at least not this easily), as can be evidenced. Unlike the buttons of pussy cats and weasels, who fall for the bait each time, from the very first time.

    Sorry, you aren't big enough to push his buttons.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    If that makes you feel better, carry on.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    Great work editors!
    :up:
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    I am at a loss of words for whoever inserted/edited that false attribution......

    except to......bwahaha
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    I know you are but what am I?
    — skyblack

    Well played, sir!
    hypericin

    Since you have been able to attribute something to me that i have never said (not even typed once), a phrase i have never known to use and can be verified in my posting history, it's now clear you/your account has post editing capacitiess in this forum, or had the help of someone that has these editing capacities.

    Regarding "well played": Not sure what you are trying to say but yes, one can play along and entertain themselves if they wish. Especially if the other party is so entertainingly obvious and thus easy, like y'all.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    Good riddance, Dunning Kruger!hypericin

    Glad you had that insight about yourself. Always happy to help. Don't hesitate to go over the evidence given to you.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    But then, your post doesn't really state any reasoning or argument
    — skyblack

    It does, if you weren't so wrapped up in your own variety of idiocy you might see it.

    I'll try once more:

    You claim:
    "Emotions are involuntary since they are under the jurisdiction of biology."

    Your argument seems to be:
    If X is "under the jurisdiction of biology" (whatever this means), X is involuntary.
    Emotions are "under the jurisdiction of biology"
    Therefore emotions are involuntary.

    I presented three bodily functions, all of which presumably fall under "the jurisdiction of biology":

    Motion of the hand: High degree of volitional control.
    Blood pressure, or to use a more obvious example, breathing: patrial and limited volitional control
    Secretion of the spleen: no volitional control.

    Demonstrating that the relationship you propose is false. There is no apparent relation at all between "the jurisdiction of biology" and degree of volition.

    BTW I read the post where you
    "perhaps proved"
    — skyblack
    this claim.
    hypericin

    If you are so wrapped up in your “X’s” and “Y’s” like the rest of the educated idiots, oblivious to facts (our own bodies and how our emotions function) which even a janitor can tell you, or, lack even the most minimum observation to see the obvious, then I suggest you educate yourself in some basic biology in order to understand “whatever it means”, if interested. In the link I have provided above, you will find I have also provided some resources where you can do so. The resources come from Stanford University which I suppose will appeal to your habit of following authority, and are simple to understand for the wannabe’s. The educator is one the finest. You may then understand why one said “under the jurisdiction of biology”, which once again means, emotions are under the body's control, not yours.

    That said. you know what they say about arguing with idiots? “They will beat you down by their experience”. As I have no wish to educate idiots I think I will heed to that wise counsel and get me outta here.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    My hand is under the "jurisdiction of biology" and I have control of it. So is my spleen, and I have no control. And so is my heart rate and.blood pressure, and I have a degree of control.

    "Jurisdiction of biology" does not seem to be the relevant distinction here
    hypericin

    One does not need "distinctions", bookish idiocy, or word play to see obvious facts. The fact being pointed out, emotions are not under your control. They are under the body's control. A very revealnt point to OP.

    My hand is under the "jurisdiction of biology" and I have control of it.

    You have some degree of control to move it, under ideal circumstances. In fact that's the only control you have over the body, to move your arms and legs, only under ideal conditions. But you do not have the control to heal your hands, if they get infected or afflicted in some way.

    And so is my heart rate and.blood pressure, and I have a degree of control.

    Yeah right. say that to those that have chronic heart and blood pressure problems. Ask them to exercise "some degree" of control. It's not the same as playing with biofeedback toys.

    But then, your post doesn't really state any reasoning or argument, but seems to be a silly strawman attempt to say something, when you know you can't really say anything. Are you saying emotions are voluntary?
  • How voluntary are emotions?


    See the response above.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    There is no one in this forum that can claim they are the body. IN order to make that claim they will have to show their absolute ownership/control of the body.

    Pfft, you need some sort of medication like Advil to cure something as simple as your headache....and the audacity to claim you are the body?!.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    Are you not your body? So be it. You can always pretend and say you are not your body, but you will forever be unable to reveal your true self, in any case.NOS4A2

    Don't be silly. Come back and talk to me when you are able to demonstrate control over the body's autonomous processes. Until then feel free to live under the delusions and pretend you are the body.

    Note: Nobody said anything about any "true self". You seem to be hearing voices of your own prejudice.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    I am my body.NOS4A2

    No you are not. If you were, these processes would be under your control. They won't be "autonomous".
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    If you identify with the biology, though, you would be under your own jurisdiction. Self-tyranny is a paradox.NOS4A2

    Nonsense. You have no choice in autonomous bodily actions/reactions. Your body doesn't depend on your word games.
  • How voluntary are emotions?
    Emotions are involuntary since they are under the jurisdiction of biology. I had said so, and perhaps proved here . By the time the psyche is aware of them the body has already processed them.

    In order to be free of the tyrannies of this mostly autonomous activity, a different approach is needed.
  • If nothing can be known, is existing any different to not existing?
    In general, all one can ever be certain of is , I AM.
  • If nothing can be known, is existing any different to not existing?
    I think therefore I am. Isn't that all we can know?Down The Rabbit Hole

    That idiot had it backwards and the effects of his idiocy continues till today.

    I AM, therefore i think. I AM is antecedent to everything and to every experience, This is so simple to see.
  • Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand?
    Sounds like @180 Proof has patched the imaginary "hole". :up:

    Without getting too much into it, reason points us to couple of facts: Either we are always going to live by superficial and convenient interpretations of reality/facts (ethics, in this case,) or, we may have to jump into the deeper end. The former is a comforting, compromised, conformity, that holds on to our existence, the latter is an acceptance of non-existence. In the former the person can never have what it takes to accept non-existence and will therefore always live within conformity, compromise (compromised ethics), and fear. In the latter there will be an un-compromising ethics as there is no fear of non-existence. Needless to say the ratio between the two will probably be something like like 1 Billion-to-2 people.
  • A share
    If one can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.
  • Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand?
    To OP:

    Course a deeper investigation into ethics has to eventually get into other facets such as the non-ethical, the half-ethical, the infra-ethical, and the supra-ethical.
  • Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand?
    To OP:
    Ethics has always been the concern of a few (persecuted and ostracized) . Often marginalized and on the fringes of society.It has to be that way, since they won't be a a part of the unethical exploitation of each other, which is at the core of society and it''s arrangements.

    Like the OP mentions, ethics is supposed to be lived, not theorized about and then forgotten.
  • Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand?
    Antisocial, free-riders are outnumbered over 8-to-1 by eusocial, cooperators; otherwise, h sapiens would not have achieved any viable social arrangements larger than hunter-gather familial clans. Easily understood and lived by most – just not all – of us for at least a hundred millennia.180 Proof

    The social arrangements based on the unethical exploitation and profiteering of the many by the few, right. The proof is in the pudding. Like the OP says, there is no need to be an intellectual idiot. One doesn’t have to look outside. A quick honest look at oneself will confirm the lip service.
  • Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand?
    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
    ~Hillel the Elder

    ↪darthbarracuda Easy enough to understand.
    180 Proof

    Only intellectually. Hard to live by, especially by those who deny accountability.
  • Should we expect ethics to be easy to understand?
    Since ethics concerns itself at least in part with daily decisions and behavior, should a criteria of an ethical system be that it is simple and easy-to-understand? Should we expect an ethical system to provide not just a theoretical but also a pragmatic guide to life?darthbarracuda

    Isn't it as simple as personal accountability based on compassion (com + patti). Which cannot be expected from people.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    That being said, will be seeing ya around.Nice chatting.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    Copy that!

    The Socratic call for self-examination serves a two-fold purpose then:


    1. Make us aware of the problem - people are dumping stuff on us

    2. Rationality is recommended to separate the wheat from the chaff

    Becoming aware of a problem is the very first step towards a solution. Now that you've unplugged me too from The Matrix as it were, I at the very least have a choice on what kinda "garbage" I want to accept or reject. Come to think of it, actual garbage cans and dumpsites are very selective when it comes what we can put into them: Dry, Wet, Biohazard, Chemical, Plastic, Metal, Paper, Nuclear, so on. Interesting!
    TheMadFool

    That's easy. Any choice from the trashcan/garbage will simply be more trash. This is rather simple logic isn't it. A choice born of trash can only be a trash-y choice. So it's better to throw that choice back into the trash can.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    ↪skyblackThis is news to me. Not good news, bad news. Oh well, nobody said life was easy.

    The antenna that thinks it can capture and separate the signal from the noise is deluding itself
    — skyblack

    I have similar thoughts about what Socrates said,

    The unexamined life is not worth living.
    — Socrates

    I would love to examine myself but that would be futile because any bias I have will find its way into my self-report, effectively making the endeavor pointless. It would be like checking the accuracy of my watch with my watch - circulus in probando. To judge my judgment I have to believe in my judgment but that's precisely what I'm judging. By the way, what about rationality? Doesn't rationality improve the situation because even if it doesn't get to the truth, it seems capable of identifying bad ideas. That's an improvement, no?

    As you will have already noticed, I didn't get to the point when one realizes that all my thoughts are actually not "original" (more on this below), just copies of preexisting memes that were/are circulating in the global community. Thus, it can be said, my unique self is but a collection of snippets of other people, unique yes but something to be proud about, no!

    Just out of curiosity, how does your theory deal with originality - something that can be called one's own? If I have an oirignal idea, something no one's ever thought before, is it also garbage? Can't be because it wasn't "dumped" on me. Being one of a kind in this manner does seem to weaken your position because you could be a pioneer/pathfinder/trailblazer/founder and establish your unique self without rummaging through the trash other people have dumped on you. My hunch is that's why there's literally a mad scramble to be first in all manner of human activities. It gives the generic self good reason(s) to claim a unique self that's not simply a relation to an other. I'm not certain about this though, at least not as much as I'd like to be.
    TheMadFool

    Your thoughts about Socrates may not be accurate. Upon closer look you may find Socrate's call is to examine, unlike the antenna that thinks it knows. The former centers on a healthy inquiry,
    and the the latter in a delusion of knowing.

    Regarding your own examination of yourself: Then one has to examine what right examination means. Not give up on account of faulty reasoning or an aversion to accountability. .
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    Now, the sum total of all the dumpings in the trash can is the "Self " as you (and others) know it. That's the "unique self" you were mentioning earlier.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    Ah! So you think people are dumping ideas, like we dump garbage, on each other? I'm only half-convinced because the analogy seems to break down once you consider the fact that ideas & relations come in two flavors - good and bad. I can understand bad ideas & relations as items you can stick a post-it notes which read "trash can", to be disposed of at the earliest but, what about good ideas & relations? Shouldn't good ideas & relations be appreciated from the heart and kept as far away from the grabage can as possible?

    That said, I do see where you're coming from. The signal to noise ratio is so damned low that coming across a good idea or relation is going to be a once in a blue moon event. Good point!
    TheMadFool

    Well. people and society dump more than ideas, surely! Keep in mind the dumpers are your parents, your peers, your relationships, your schools, your work place, your boss, your wife, your children, the people posting here, so on and so forth. Ideas are the least of our worries! What you ought to be concerned about is how conditioning gets dumped. Racial, social,, economic, religious, political, ideological, affiliations and narratives all get dumped. The average person has nothing of their own! Everything has either been dumped or borrowed. The measure of “good and bad” is done by the particular conditioning a person is conditioned by, therefore that measure has either been dumped or borrowed (which is also part of the dump).

    You are quite right about the signal to noise ration. You know what’s even funnier? The antenna that thinks it can capture and separate the signal from the noise is deluding itself. As that antenna is part of the dump. It’s a trash-y antenna, incapable of accurate measurement. However all is not lost, once in a blue moon is god enough! (no need to be greedy)
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    @TheMadFool

    I wouldn't have noticed that error had you not brought it up. Thanks ;-)
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    Let me correct the original post from above, The correction is emboldened:

    The generic self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely. It has never recognized any "other". It's full, complete. and in prefect order unto itself. All these "feelings are of the unique self (as you call it). And this unique self isn't really that unique. Think of it as a social construct, a garbage bin of society.skyblack
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?


    Excuse me there was a typo in

    "The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely."

    Please read "unique self" as "generic self"!
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    Nothing seems amiss.TheMadFool

    Well something was amiss when you objected to me saying,

    "The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely."

    and tried to refute it with the mother's sob example. I had to straighten that. After straightening, yes, nothing is amiss.

    Can you elaborate a bit? I didn't quite get you.TheMadFool

    It's isn't that difficult. please take a minute to read this and coiuple of realted posts on the same thread.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    As a side note, the distinction between a generic self and a unique self goes back to thousands of years, It's nothing new.

    But the point is, one cannot start one's inquiry from that premise. That would be called a bias. The existence or the lack of any generic self has to be discovered at the end of the inquiry, and has to be supported by some reasoned evidence.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    Are you saying a mother's sobs when she gets that dreaded phone call letting her know the only son she has was KIA isn't real? You're kidding right?

    As for the self being a "...social construct..." I agree insofar as relations are included in it, the best-case scenario being "...social constructs..." boil down to relations.
    TheMadFool

    The mother's sobs are real, but they aren't the sobs of the "generic self". They are the sobs of the "unique self".

    Your agreement or disagreement doesn't mean much to me ,so feel free. But my emphasis was on the "garbage bin", not on the "social construct".
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?


    The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely. It has never recognized any "other". It's full, complete. and in prefect order unto itself. All these "feelings are of the unique self (as you call it). And this unique self isn't really that unique. Think of it as a social construct, a garbage bin of society.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    @Jack Cummins

    People/the serious, who have asked such questions are known for the price they have paid to find out. They are known to give up the crutches of security and comfort, that we can't seem to live without. Questions like these surely require more than a superficial curiosity. Not the cup o tea of washed up, burdened, corrupted, neurotic, reactionary minds ( not pointing to you, but to whom the shoe fits). These things can't be approached by medicated, drugged/alcohol, sloppy, idle people with food dripping on their shirts, while they are sitting on a recliner watching TV, as an exmaple.