Okay then, I guess we can agree that we should be very wary of other countries trying to manufacturer consent and be open minded when anything that criticises the goal of NATO intervention in Libya and possible influence in the Ukraine is framed as being "Russian trolls at work".

For clarification, I'm not invested in any particular outcome nor am I trying to make it out as if one side is better / worse then the other, I'm invested in being able to dissect false news, actual truth probably does not even lie in the middle.

Well they have been wronged by that bad guy. But the fault isn't with that guy - that guy is a bad guy. It's their judgement that's the fault - they didn't judge him correctly. If they had judged him correctly from the beginning, they would never have been harmed. So their failure is merely the opportunity to begin again, as Henry Ford said, this time more intelligently. — Agustino

I get that. Just because you are able to do so doesn't mean it's obvious for everyone. I was trying to point at the underlying innate tendencies of humans which might be aiding in a "failure" to do so. Even though non-conformism might be a thing due to it being very obvious to some that a large part of the constituents of our environment do not see this, it does not necessarily follow that they're stupid or even "fail". If nobody is "enlightened" with such heuristic, who's at fault?

If a larger part of the population does not see things this way, they still constitute the environment we apply ourselves in socially. should we blame ourselves in failing to make others see how learning actually works, should we make the utmost of the opportunity to deceive others while using their lack of awareness or should we concede failure ourselves because we don't comply with a majority?

These are very different ways of interpreting an observation which I basically agree with.

You indeed address the crux of the matter. Metaphysically I assert an embodied view of mind, though non-physical in immediate appearance I do not believe in mind / body dualism. Similarly, our environment is both physical and abstract, we can feel physically hurt if we're abstractly harmed and conversely, the emotional engagement we might have towards certain abstract conceptions can inform our physical engagement.

This view makes me assert that our emotional inclinations play a big role (I don't think people are capable of full rationality). Basically I'm saying that what's important to us plays a very very big role. If one values their role in society to a high degree they can be distraught if they fail to settle down and have a nice house, kids, etc. while someone who favours their own integrity might not care about such "futile irrational values" and can easily endure a solitary existence by valuing non-conformism.

Even the word "strength" depends on what we value abstractly, in any case it might be seen as an ability to endure certain immediate circumstances to achieve a goal on a longer term. I also happen to think "mind" and the way humans are able to use it has / is this function (making abstract projections about the future which can aid us in directing (controlling) our current behaviour).

Ascribing failure to circumstances seems to be merely a way to deceive yourself that you failed because of the environment - which isn't true - you always fail because you don't manage your environment well enough. — Agustino

This is what I'm implying, whereas 'you' are able to see your environment as something which you can manage (I would say learn to adapt 'to' more productively) it's not self evident that others see it that way. If there's no self reflection on one's own role in failure (which is easier to do if the blame is laid fully in the environment) there's never an inclination to adapt. The example you give in that clip works very well and I'm inclined to think a conservative extravert is more likely to think (using the example from the clip) "they've been wronged by this bad guy".

You could reflect on your assessment that you define mental illness as an inability to adapt to one's environment where mental strength is seen as being able to adapt favourably. It appears to me that you see non -conformism to a "mad world" as a favourable adaptation, this concerns a value judgement and not necessarily an objective reality. (Mind you I'm in favour of non -conformism to a large extent.)

There's a common environment in which we all function and we have an internal environment we use as a cue to be able to function in the common environment, I would see it as a mental strength to be able to persist from obliging immediately to cue's from the common environment but at a certain point I would see it as a detrimental if the internal environment becomes the only cue with which "prospering" is judged.

Again, I'm not really arguing your case, rather elaborating on it. I make a distinction between mental illness caused by physiological defect and mental illness caused by conceptual misunderstanding (which could very well lead to physiological defect). With the latter the distinction between non - conformism and irrational non -compliance is hard to make and one's own value judgements (bias) plays a big role here. Gaining objectivity towards bias is crucial here, if this is glanced over it's just a battle between an overall value judgement of society vs.one's own value judgements.

I mentioned "stereotypical", it's not always the case but I've observed this behaviour in real life many times over. I am informed here by George Lakoff's strict father model when assessing conservatism and the concept of being an individual responsible moral agent weighs heavy, generally speaking.

If combined with being extravert to a high degree, it would seem likely that there's little awareness of any self serving bias at work. Ascribing failure to environmental circumstances internally could appear to external observers as "not learning from mistakes". It could also just be plain stupidity though...

I wasn't trying to negate your allegations per se and I feel it's a good thing to be aware people (Russia in this case) are opportunists (using anti- EU sentiment for their own goals). I was observing that you appear to be framing your observations in a way which makes it appear that such ways of manufacturing consent are wrong by definition and that you're implying (by specifically not mentioning western media outlets being susceptible to the same tendencies) that it's mainly wrong "If 'they' do it".

- The actual danger is that it's truly disinformation intended on subversion done or sponsored by another country. And there's a lot of evidence that one country (no need to say which) has been especially active in these kind of "active measures" aktivnyje meroprijatija with striking success. — ssu

Aside from what's actually going on with this issue, doesn't it assume (to some degree) that western news is somewhat impartial by definition and Russian news is biased?

The issue you mention: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.a0fb35481dac

I tend to look for news on a site where people can post the news stories which interest them and comment on them, at first glance this might seem like a bad idea but you can trust the divide between left and right and the self serving biases at work to provide a fairly decent allotment of news from both sides; it is necessary to check where the news stories come from though.

The news / rumours on "Russian trolls" started in earnest when the crisis in Syria evolved and took a step up with the Ukraine crisis. The main thing which I noticed wasn't actual Russian propaganda but rather people being deemed Russian trolls when ever something was posted which wasn't necessarily negative about Russia.

I'm aware Russia Today is filled with a lot of propaganda but also the Dutch state news network (NOS) isn't exactly impartial. I would deem it likely Russian trolls exist yet I feel that, like with most media outlets, especially online, such bias can be negated to a degree by trying to be well-informed.

The way you frame it assumes "danger" instead of emphasizing the importance of being well informed. It doesn't help in being able to discern "false news" if we condemn specific news in advance, that's an ideological bias.

If elections start in Germany next year and there's a lot of news pointing to "active measures", is the beneficiary of such measures automatically the wrong vote?

It's that they can't learn from their mistakes. Like.. there's an interaction between the world and the ego that's supposed to be taking place, but it isn't. People like that are beyond help. They'll just eventually die from their stupidity. — Mongrel

Would that coincide with a stereotypical extravert conservative who classifies success as a personal achievement yet ascribes failure to environmental circumstance?

I for one would not like to imply that regular medicine / research should be ignored in any way, stuff like anti-scientism and how some views on alternative medicine influence decisions / sentiment badly bugs me.

But no amount of patience, love, time, or sacrifice can be enough sometimes, either for another, or for yourself. The isolation that the truly mentally ill often feel stems from not being able to empathize with others. Most people think waving some pom-poms will do the trick, or hearing a benediction in a Church, or receiving a hug and a kiss, but until you've stared insanity in the eyes, and seen someone you love fall into shambles and disrepair, and you can't do anything about it, then you'll understand that mental illness can be gravely serious. — Heister Eggcart

Exactly this appears to be an issue, maybe not in modern psychology but in society overall. The sentiment still seems highly behaviouristic; "What makes me happy should make others happy so we'll just advice those who are unhappy to do the things that make me happy". Some autistic children go haywire if they're forced to comply with normal social interaction for too long and they demand a lot of care / attention where it cannot be expected that they can control themselves in a similar manner as regular children i.e: it's morally wrong to hold them fully responsible for their actions. There's a difference in Tommy not liking his dinner and autistic Henry not liking his dinner, we might "force" Tommy to finish his meal properly but that probably wouldn't work out well with Henry.

Similarly, it's unrealistic to expect society to adapt to a particular individual yet if say, behaviourism (and it's failings), was a concept most were familiar with, there could be some more common knowledge with which more understanding can be generated.

Also, like how people learn to actually drive their car properly 'after' they get their licence, I would not want to criticise psychiatrist on the whole, far from it. Yet if a psychiatrist leads a good life and is happy and hasn't had much setbacks in life, learns a "trade" and uses a DSM manual in the same way Searle using his operating manual in the Chinese room, there could be a lack of understanding which could be crucial in assessing the actual problem. It could, in cases be beneficial to be able to function as an average benchmark for mental health but if it becomes an absolute benchmark they could be just another social cue which adds to the patient's problems because he / she fails already failed to adhere to such behaviouristic social cue's.

I wouldn't know how to get psychiatrist more able to really understand, it seems amoral to traumatize them so that have a good understanding of how certain things might feel but actual wisdom seems to be underappreciated. What I'm advocating is that not every mental illness is necessarily a physiological defect. A lot of academic science tends to apply very well in cases where there might be actual physiological defects (where the field is moving forward still ...at speed, and the consensus might not always be, well, justified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis ) yet it can be hard to distinguish underlying causes which might have similar effects.

It was almost twenty years ago when I filled in a form with multiple choice questions and that sufficed to get a Prozac like pill, these days family physicians can prescribe them to people without having them see a psychiatrist or psychologist; I find this a bad thing, which is not meant to imply that all these prescriptions are wrong by definition.

I have a friend with ADD, it was more prominent when he was young yet he took Ritalin far into his twenties. Never was there any medical inquiry if he could potentially phase out his medication. He did so on his own inclinations, while his girlfriend kept nagging because: "he's so busy". They're fine now though.

My sister is currently undergoing cognitive schema therapy and this seems very beneficial, she's getting more insights into her own workings and is becoming able to see her own sticking points herself instead of an external observer pointing them out for her. It demands a lot of resources though and is not yet common practice for everyone, which is somewhat understandable.

Though subjective, I feel that even those in the field of psychology would share the opinion that there's much to improve yet that this should not mean that we should negate current functionality. Also, seeing we're talking about psychology,

It's by definition anecdotal, and it's not a terribly rigorous way to go about answering any meaningful question. — Hanover

the first question you get is probably something along the lines of: "Tell me how 'you' feel".

That ties in nicely with how I see things, shame is mainly differing from what most people hold as the norm. (though I would go along in asserting that there can be certain objective norms). If these "norms" are never investigated people might feel shamed unnecessarily, feel that way long enough... unable to articulate ..frustration ...forced to comply anyway ...psychotic episode.

Though I would not want to negate "real" problems, a lot of problems appear to stem from miscommunications due too a lack of awareness

We may disagree about the "prospering" but we certainly agree about a lot of other things. Although I'm not sure how you have defined prospering - I would just define it as successfully advancing towards one's goals, whatever those goals happen to be. — Agustino

The disagreement here would lie in that "prospering", to me, requires a certain amount of mutual interaction with the social environment, it's the "navigating" put into practice. Though gaining a specific form of feedback from the environment would still be an egoistic ideal, even for the most egoistic ideals to be fulfilled there's still an environment which needs to provide a framework which enables the distinction between other and self, The way in which "I" would see myself prosper depends greatly on the role I would play in my environment.

It's probably semantics on my part where the one having a goal is one thing, and the actual goal is another. Good thread btw, I feel psychology is where exact science and philosophy meet and where the functionality comes into play.

What still gives me a small reason to persist is that there's a role to play where insights from the soft sciences come down to regular folk, along with the new Samsung S8 / Iphone7. I actually think this is crucial in this point of human history with a global macro economy taking prescience over the micro economy which should've been the basis of said macro economy, the way scientism is taking the form of a religion, etc. Just observing my own experience, the effort it took me is a bit too much to expect, if I'd manage to to facilitate taking "up" a study... what good would that do to the average Joe I now meet everyday? Just this topic ...I've met a lot of people who think they have actual "defects"... it might be arrogant and futile at the same time but I've been able convince a few there's nothing actually wrong with them, just a lack of common knowledge able to facilitate their views.

he point was that the reference point that we inhabit ourselves - mind - is inaccessible to anyone else but ourselves. It is our personal, private sphere — darthbarracuda

Yes you use this point to negate any pragmatism / physicality while, the other way around, you will only incorporate you yourself actually being an ape or some other "lower" life form and then relaying such an experience as your everyday darthbarracuda as proof 'for' such pragmatism.

Someone smarter then me should be able to clearly state this is a form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam

This would entail the "prospering" Agustino in definition of mental illness,which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I've experienced "seeing apparitions", trouble with these experiences is that I wasn't alone and there's "stuff" which happened which can still be confirmed by multiple others, the main relevance of these experiences for me is that there might be some weird stuff going on which is hard to define, the main practical relevance of my experiences is that I would not necessarily see people undergoing such experiences as "cranks"; where it can become troubling fast if such people take apparitions as a bigger cue then "objective" reality.

Concerning "mental" illness, I would consider those actual physiological defects in the brain and am of the opinion that a lot of what is considered mental illness at this point in time is rather behaviour which is far from the norm.

My grandmother from my father's side was a complete nutter, I wouldn't know what she'd be diagnosed with but I wouldn't rule out Asperger syndrome. At one point she was the town idiot and she had the compulsive habit of stealing toilet rolls... My father's upbringing was hampered to a great degree because of this and I feel his autistic tendencies could potentially be explained by his upbringing. As such I would describe him as a slightly autistic introvert who uses "handles" to appear as an extravert, which makes him awkward in most common social interactions and it has hampered his social development.

My mother was an outlier from a fairly big family and I have strong hunches it was a lack of understanding from her environment which drove her crazy. She has tried to kill herself multiple times and some of her attempts were clear cries for attention but a few probably failed due to her lack of knowledge (even with potent pills (though no barbiturates) it takes quite meticulous planning to actually succeed). She got institutionalized and from the point where I was about 9, maybe 10, she never functioned "properly" again, she was on heavy medication and died recently due to a seizure. My parents divorced when I was about 3.

My sister and only sibling is three years older then me and, maybe due to her being a female and being a bit older when the "sh#t hit the fan", did not come out unscathed. She underwent hospitalized treatment, suffered bouts of auto mutilation (I have a few similar scars, yet I was "merely" curious and wondered what kind of will power / craziness it would take to do such a thing ...I concluded I could never do such a drastic thing but these slight experiments in combination with a sensitive skin created permanent scars... I'm not particularly happy about that but it was a very worthwhile experiment). She's still on medication but functions somewhat adequately, the idea of "prospering" is as such that she uses it to judge her own experience.

Myself, well... I guess I'm lucky that the whole ADD / autism hype came just after it could be applied to me (I'm 36). I suffered outbursts of rage yet these outburst were, to my mind, always fully justified. As far as I can remember I always had a strong morality, so strong in fact that I had a lot of issues / frustrations with my own behaviour because it was quite amoral at times (the fits of rage were never amoral in that regard). I'm quite introverted (a term which took me a long time to even hear!) and this was quite troubling for me in my youth. When things went haywire because my mom tried to kill herself it only justified my suspicions in that most people didn't have a clue about what was going on; it justified the doubts and hunches I already had. Psychiatry was tried on me yet my disagreement with such attempts was such that these avenues were not followed up on (fortunately). When I was 18 I volunteered due to pressure form a girlfriend, they prescribed a Prozac like pill without even actually asking me something face to face (the Netherlands) ...the stuff felt like hampering with my brain and I threw the stuff in the bin after 2 days and that was that.

I finished high school quite easy on a medium level but had no clue what to do for a career while I did have a strong need to become self-sufficient due to erratic environmental influences (juvenile detention, foster homes, child care, a "stupid" father, a mother who had turned into a drunk on top f her medication, etc). I ended up in construction and am still working there, as a self employed skills-men it provides a degree of freedom which I appreciate and you meat a lot of different folk in a lot of different places, which was great for my anthropological interests.

I've really tried a few times but social "prospering" just isn't for me. "Navigating" has always been my thing though and acquiring the internet was a big deal. If I had known about cognitive science or semiotics 20 years ago, I'd probably had something I could study which would actually interest me. I took a few wrong turns but, all in all, I've been able to develop a heuristic of life which provides me with a great explanatory power towards my own life, and the life I see evolving around me. It helped to confirm a lot of hunches I had and strengthened the conviction that I'm not mentally ill per se.

I come in a lot of different place and mix with a great deal of (though somewhat skewed when it comes to social rank) different people and always try to practice what I preach, I could very well be chatting up a stranger a local grocery store and would not necessarily refrain from trying to articulate my inner most feelings. My upbringing has hardened me a bit emotionally yet where some try to blame my lack of social "prospering" to being reserved emotionally, I would rather take pride in that the fact that I'm quite easily willing to put everything on the line where the consequences of falling flat on my face are taking as a valuable learning opportunity.

I have a fond interest into philosophy, mainly because it helps me navigate existence, yet I find that the same lack which disturbs me in most area's of life is as much present as anywhere; there's a lack of real engagement due to a (nowadays) futile notion of abstract self-preservation. I say this as fact because, even though I don't have a fancy degree, above average intelligence or the "prosperous family" people make out to be some sort degree which makes one able to say something about life, I've put all my knowledge into practice on a daily basis. It's one thing to do so with like minded people but it takes effort to relay thoughts to those who aren't accustomed to thinking and who might cast you out if you don't fit in (luckily I seem to perform as some sort of clown and people seem to appreciate my company due to that).

I've been able to help my sister to articulate what's actually bothering her (which she then uses to make her therapy more effective ..."sigh"... and, when push comes to shove, those who know me come for advice in crisis situations. Overall though, the strong lack of "prospering" is starting to weigh heavily, if not because the "navigating" has come to a point where navigating further would become a useless intellectual exercise (which I see a lot of here, as well as a lack of actual engagement). Unfortunately my job is quite noisy and busy and this doesn't help when your on the verge / having a nervous breakdown. I need alcohol, to an ever larger extent, to negate the despair I feel in functioning "prosperously". Where I live a lot of people seem able to make use of some sort of welfare to aid them in being able to be "dysfunctional" but like psychiatric evaluation, medication and waving away responsibility are things which seem to me as an admittance to a physiological "defect" which I have spend my whole life to deny ...rightfully!

Though I don't think I have the willpower, I am working towards ending this whole ordeal abruptly and the main thing which is keeping me going is the idea that I would like to make very clear that doing so would be a rational conscious decision. If nobody is willing / capable of denying my arguments rationally, I feel it's irrational to expect me to keep playing along with a game which is forced upon me due to others' their unwillingness to admit they're being played.

I'm at the point where I'm actually noticing I'm breaking down physiologically, given enough stress a person will break physically, mentally, nervously, yet the cause of it can be fully rationally explained. Everything I'm writing here (aside from being "odd" in talking so open about it on an internet forum) is not to evoke sympathy (though I could use that from my "real" environment ...if only I could make them understand...) it's the most real (no theory, degree, philosopher cited) way I'm able to relay that a lot of what is called "mental illness" is no physiological defect and, if it's considered a mere "mental" defect, it's something which could benefit from philosophy being put into practice.

There's lot's of philosophic thinking going on ...in elitist specialized social circles...
Somewhere the idea that wisdom should have a practical side got lost I guess.

(Not to imply that everyone should be a philosopher king or anything).

And concerning example #2, I feel a great deal of what could be deemed "dumb behaviour" is because people feel forced to comply a lot of the time, what's the use of being aware of that all the time? Yet never being aware of it is unlikely to improve things also.

Personally I'm a bit annoyed with the degree of small talk I'm confronted with, small talk in this appears to consist of talking to gain a direct positive emotion, to contribute to some sort of group spirit and to vilify others with specific traits.

I can see the social reasons underlying small talk yet that doesn't suffice to address the amount of it in my mind, I wouldn't easily blame individuals for their inclinations towards superficiality though.

There's emotional inclination, if people are never challenged in their idea's certain emotions might come up if they're challenged and things might become awkward (Also, historically, being too open with critical thought in public might not have been very beneficial). Then there's the value judgements which can switch a lot throughout the day i.e: At home with family is what matters and that's where people become engaged with what they say, work is just to provide for the family and it's of no importance what is said there outside of work related stuff. There's the introvert vs extravert issue which might be at play at times and you have social upbringing and education.

Then there's the overall western society where consumerism kinda depends on people giving in to "shallow" inclinations and is set up to cultivate this trait and which also contributes in another way; what does it buy people to put effort into thinking deeply about things and, if a large part of society doesn't do it, isn't it easier / more comfortable to just stay dumb /shallow?

One thing which isn't mentioned in this topic so far and which is, to me, crucial in most conversations is humour. It can break the ice, show you to what degree people are able to put things into perspective and give an indication what's common for them and what's quite far out of the norm.

Also, as Terrapin might be pointing out, if someone is talking about general relativity just for entertainment without any emotional inclination and without the aim of gaining any further understanding vs. someone who is actually distraught about Justin Biebers new haircut and is investigating all the gossip to gain an understanding why he decided to have a haircut, who is doing the small talk then?

I have this hunch that hedonistic nihilism basically boils down to people being irked they are not in control of time: "If nobody can assure me that the future will bring me what I want, I'll just have as much of what I want right now".

Solipsism would be when people feel they don't have enough control over the thoughts they're generating.

Both seem to have a tendency to make people try and rationalise their emotions, it never seems to help in escaping them fully though and some measures to try and physically escape them are a bit, well, harsh.

I really feel this text was relevant to this thread.

We exist to entropify with slave-like efficiency. — darthbarracuda

Hmm, I guess my apologies about making long winded posts in the paradox of purpose thread were in place...

Usually people consider suicide when they become seriously depressed, or their suffering seems unbearable, or their situation seems hopeless. Often it's a psychological issue or a physiological one. But just every day life doesn't usually make one consider suicide. Continuing to experience the only life you are certain to have seems like a better choice than not experiencing anything. — Marchesk

What seems to be reasonable is to always have suicide available as an option as a means of grounding one's decisions and outlook on life. It's easy to get carried away in a stream of good fortune and forget the underlying mechanisms of life. Good fortune, of course, is good, but having an exit available in case this does not last or shit hits the fan is, in my opinion, only rational. It means to take control of one's life. If you burn a meal in the oven on accident, you don't force yourself to eat it. You throw it away. It's only rational - i.e. in our best interests. — darthbarracuda

Everyday life 'should' make one consider suicide, it's easier to toy with the idea without actually wanting to comply with it. I fully agree with darthbarracuda in that, it shouldn't be excluded as an option a priori. It's the ultimate option we might have to decide freely upon our own faith and vica versa, being aware of this option might actually negate suffering seeing it can be used to willingly undergo certain circumstances instead of feeling like a slave to circumstances.

You're sort of getting it, people might be acting very different but in essence they're all trying to develop in some manner, be it procreation, living the good life as best as they can, doubting everything (looking at people living the good life as a specific source of information), etc.

Life as a principle tries to keep it's own entropy low and needs to expend energy to do so, most animals only eat food, some animals work in groups to increase their means to get to a food source, and we humans not only eat but expand energy for the sake of it on a grand scale and we pass on the information of how to do so. Money can be seen as a right to expend resources / energy and and we can even put other humans to work for us if there is an abundance. Money is a social construction and it enabled us to be able to store energy in a very efficient way, mostly due to the way we all mentally agree on what money is, it has no actual physical existence but it's very physically potent, to a degree we feel we need it to buy our freedom and, on a grander scale, some appear to have so much of it we start to see it as a constraint on our own self-determination.

It 'has' enabled us to explore other avenues easier (by enabling us to trade specific functionality / expertise for the freedom of gathering all our resources ourselves directly) and along with a novel degree of cooperation we've become able to extract energy more efficiently (from coal to atomic power,etc). The average human now has a specific energy footprint which is wholly made possible by the ease with which we have access to energy. Controlling our environment, putting in more resource hogs, extracting new information out the environment, it can all be seen as either striving to use up more energy or using information to become better at it (I would consider sharing information as "using" information).

Having shelter in which entropy can be kept low (a house with heating), ease of transport (being able to use the equivalent of many horses at will to get somewhere), easy waste disposal, access to "processed" foods, etc; these are quite novel but a distinct lack of them could, once accustomed to them, be seen as constraint on self determination. People will rally and make efforts to gain them and failure in doing so will be seen as a form of suffering unless the individual goals are adjusted.

Some might ask where this is going (not only existential questioning but also questions about the morality of capitalism, etc) yet those who have the prospect of becoming able to use more energy per capita (upcoming economies) generally have a very clear purpose. I have a Syrian refugee as a neighbour and he is dumbfounded why families are so small here (the Netherlands), he's boasting about his three kids which are incoming and how he plans to make a lot more. He, and others, might be convinced there's some ideology concerning family life but it's probably more honest to see large families as a necessity to increase access to resources; as soon as material wealth and the use of money are more efficient in gaining such access, the need for large families will slowly diminish.

The way any individual feels good or bad can be correlated with their access to physical resources, the ability to gain abstract information and the ability to use /pass such information. Overall the interplay in all this will make mankind evolve further and we're bound to increase our ability to expend more energy on the long haul if we survive (where it could be noted that increased control of our environment in the sense of predicting asteroid impacts, climate change, access to easily expandable resources, etc. falls under the category of using information to become better at extracting resources from our environment).

On an individual level we can see this principle at work because most people aren't happy with just the food they need to keep themselves alive. This is where the "freedom to functionally develop" comes in. We are consciously aware of our environment on an abstract level and the same mechanism which causes physical suffering (constraints on functional freedom) can also cause mental suffering. The degree to which we're conscious is related to the degree we can extract information out of our environment (we can manipulate people mentally, we can use physics equations to extract atomic energy, etc.) The main goal always seems to be to be able to increase entropy overall by becoming better at extracting resources from our environment (information can be seen as an abstract resource) to keep our own entropy low. I see increased self-awareness as the ability to become aware of our own previously automatic behaviours (bias) and this can also be seen as an increase in the capacity to use information functionally. I gave my own example merely to show that a lack of functionality (most people appear to behave quite automatically to my mind and don't seem to respond to what I see as information) can be regarded as a constraint on freedom which causes suffering because it makes it seem to me that I'm unable to adhere to the grander goal of becoming more efficient in using resources to keep entropy low. For others this might translate into feeling a "slave to the system" while another person might be developing to it's utmost satisfaction by using capitalism to it's full extent and again some others might have convinced themselves they're developing properly because they adhere to the rules which were dictated to them (religion). Even Buddhism follows this principle because Buddhists appear to follow the rules which will, eventually, make them able to escape their karmic wheel of reincarnation. Aside from religion providing a "path to follow", it can also been seen as a (false) sense of control of the environment.

It might also be noted that with the advent of our ability to digitize information, we've created a new abstract environment in which the same principles of functional development apply (I say abstract because we all need a machine to translate this "dumb" digital information into something which is intelligible to us). We use the internet to gain access to physical resources, to gain information and to use / pass information and overall, we're becoming better at it ...because of it. The internet started out as a means for scientists to be able to share their research results more efficiently, functional development again... Even using the internet, television, radio as a leisure past time can be regarded as "just enough functional development (gaining information) to prevent noticing an explicit lack of development" (boredom). If you look at the most "positive" end of the emotional spectrum, what is a characteristic of a celebration? 'I' would assume it's merely using up as much resources as we can, because we can. (Good thing there's usually alcohol to prevent us from noticing we're using up resources for the sake of using up resources).

A desire for freedom, increasing knowledge, seeking to belong, procreate, being / becoming able to process information, could all be seen as an innate desire to increase functionality and this functionality could easily be seen as becoming better at keeping entropy low locally and, by doing so, we adhere to the second law of thermodynamics because we increase overall entropy by doing this. Just as death seems to have the function of forcing us to try to escape death for as long as possible, so does the second law of thermodynamics enable us to try and escape it for as long as possible. It might seem futile but even this feeling of futility is a testament that we cannot help but try to adhere to the principles we try to escape. In my mind, feelings of despair / futility are not caused by a failure to fully escape such absurd principles but rather a failure in adhering to these absurd principles. I have been merely trying to explain the purpose of feeling / observing there's no purpose to it all.

Again apologies for the long winded posts and the inability to articulate properly.

My apologies, it's a bit hard to explain and some of it is quite new for me still and my view is quite wide ranging where certain things don't make sense if a particular thing is overlooked, I'll try again.

It might appear unfulfilling or a form of circular logic to state that "we evolve for the sake of evolving" or "develop to become better at developing" but the way my own experience can be deemed "consonant" or "dissonant" follows closely in adhering to this principle where a lack of development can be seen as a form of suffering and developing is generally a consonant experience.

I feel it's justified to use my own subjective experience as an objective criteria here, partially because it's well, unavoidable, but also because our subjective experience might be susceptible to the same evolutionary principles which have formed us as a physical species. It might again sound as circular logic or just too obvious to even mention but we have legs to walk on and we have brains to think with. Our legs were used in a different way in the past but evolutionary pressures gave us a new functionality with bipedalism and our brains started out as some sort of central control unit which gained the functionality of abstract thought. I gave the example of physical coercion vs abstract coercion to hint at the observation that the abstract / sociocultural plane is a big part of the environment we (functionally) live in and respond to.

So basically, if someone ties my legs together I can't walk any more and this detracts from my functionality and makes me suffer, this is how I equate suffering with a constraint on my self determination where the level of self determination is highly correlated with our functionality. I gave the example of my own experience of my situation to try and show that, not being able to use one's own thoughts functionally can cause a similar sort of suffering / constraint on self determination as an obvious physical constraint.

I've entered a very vague area here because it's quite easy to state that our thoughts might be merely there to attract mates and to make us able to manipulate our environment so that procreation is easier. I hope the observation you yourself made in assessing that we could wilfully stop procreating, my observation that we have gained new functionality in being able to pass on information in new ways, and the way in how certain questions we are able to pose can have a direct effect on our physical well-being suffice in showing that we've moved passed a point where we can explain our behaviour using only physical traits as a heuristic.

Also, "functional" development is highly subjective, we can try and gain material wealth, construct and elaborate our self image, we can increase knowledge which can be directly applied to manipulate our environment in a "better" way (technological science being more practical then say cosmology) but we can also try to raise our own awareness / consciousness. The latter sounds more esoteric then it actually is; if we ask ourselves what certain things "mean" to us (like being excluded by some of our peers) we can become aware of our own tendencies (which would be preferring to belong to a group in this case). So, using this example, someone who does not inquire into the meaning of what has occurred (exclusion by peers) might try to adjust it's behaviour to belong, seek another group to belong to, convince themselves the group is useless or simply suffer from exclusion. Someone inquiring towards the deeper meaning might be able to increase their functionality in being able to resist automatic tendencies where this functionality could be equated with an increase in self awareness.

To state one point again, taking away someone's material wealth, receiving an intellectual "blow" which detracts from one's self image or not being met on a similar level of awareness (I know that sounds arrogant) all detract from perceived functionality and create suffering via constraining self-determination.

So in essence, people might be talking in this thread here for reasons which are so different (and I might have missed a few) that we're effectively not even talking about the same subject, they all share a common goal though and that is in increasing functionality. Some might be posting here as a mere distraction / for entertainment and I see that as a coping mechanism which functions to detract from the suffering created by a lack of functionality. In my mind there's just no escaping from evolving for the sake of evolving and I have taken your assessment concerning purpose as a hint that you have been trying to raise your awareness where you are now confronted with a lack in functionality.

I guess what I'm saying here is that the very reason you made this thread is because you could not help but comply to evolutionary tendencies, yet the functionality might be a bit illusive.

To some extent it can be comforting to see "developing for the sake of developing" as a means 'and' an end at the same time, especially if you can relate it directly to your current experience, yet it might cause suffering if one is not able to share such an insight as actual information with others. I am trying to point to a mechanism here, it's not either "this" or "that" and this complicates sharing information coherently. The very self awareness / consciousness which enables us to pose question about purpose can easily become / be seen as a futile exercise if we can't do much with it and I have little clues if this functionality should be gained through becoming more capable in articulating it better or through expecting others to put in more effort to understand it... For now I blame myself in not being able to articulate properly.

(I could try and elaborate on why it might be beneficial (evolutionary) to raise our common awareness, this would be based on insights I gained from the "thermodynamical imperative" thread by apokrisis on the old philosophy forums, but I have a hunch I have not been able to articulate / share my thoughts properly already so I'll refrain from complicating things further. What I am trying to say might not appear to make sense but if anyone would be willing to contemplate what "purpose" as a subject means to them personally, I hope I'll be forgiven for incorporating my subjective hunches.)

What are we doing here that we need to be here? And again, if you answer that with any X reason, that reason can be taken to its logical end where it becomes an absurdity because it becomes circular logic. — schopenhauer1

It only becomes circular if you never apply it to how it might be relevant for you in the current moment.

Though I have no formal proof for the following whatsoever aside from my own practical reality and maybe the realities of others who are willing to apply this principle on their daily lives, it goes a bit like this: Suffering can be seen as a constraint on the self determination we feel / think we're endowed with. We are not totally free and we can easily accept certain constraints without suffering, we don't blame gravity for preventing us from jumping higher and, though we were forced to build shelters from environmental circumstances, we don't (always) blame the weather for existing and constraining our possibilities. We have laws which punish those who physically constrain our movement and, to a degree, those who constrain us abstractly (extortion for example). Social coercion becomes a difficult subject yet in most Western societies I think it's fair to assume that we are willing to comply with a degree of social constraint for the sake of gaining the ability to exercise our own perceived self determination outside of this social constraint. A lack of clear purpose can be seen as a constraint imposed by the inherent characteristics of life which starts to feel as violation of our self determination.

If we are merely theorizing abstractly about purpose it can become an intellectual exercise which ends in circular logic because the actual relevance is negated. To me it is odd how existing for the sake of developing existence can be seen as "insufficient" while, the other way round, this very observation can be the cause of suffering... which I see as having a lack of purpose / feeling constrained. It's the very evolution which doesn't appear to suffice as a good enough purpose which made us able to become conscious enough to pose such questions and the very lack of finding a good enough answer to the questions we pose forces us (to a degree) to develop further (like trying to find out how things might work on some deeper level). Rationally this is indeed circular logic because there is no end to it but physically we cannot escape moving "forward" even while having no clear goal in advance.

If you look at evolution as a process which passes on information in ever more elaborate ways, procreation is the passing of information through genes while we can currently pass on information way faster through communicating directly. Much like how simpler organisms can share genes instantly, if we don't "apply" the information we've shared it never becomes functional and such a lack of functionality can be perceived as a "meaningless existence". Again I am only stating how this applies to myself and, in that regard, I see a lot of what mankind is doing as quite futile and dysfunctional. A blatant lack in the feedback I get from my own environment makes me feel without having any function / meaningless. Simply procreating doesn't seem enticing (for longer durations), most talk appears to be a simple sharing of some non-investigated value judgements, most entertainment appears to be a mechanism to prevent people from ever coming to terms with reality (where the degree with which people try to avoid making certain conclusions makes me conclude this is indeed a (sociocultural) reality), and a lot of philosophy / science seems like some sort of semantic exercise which makes people feel in control of themselves and their environment.

I don't give a sh#t that there might not be a grand purpose behind things which can function as entertainment for the intellectually endowed, I have become conscious of my environment in a certain way and now this very environment feels like a constraint because I seem to be unable to pass on information which is relevant to 'me'. It brings little relieve for me to figure that I am just susceptible to some natural evolutionary mechanism and even gaining the objective knowledge of some overarching goal would be meaningless if I could not use it to evoke a response from my environment which I could then perceive as constructive feedback.

Okay, well, apologies for the rant-like post but a distinct lack towards adhering to what you might perceive as "paradoxical and absurd" feels quite detrimental in my experience, because I can't shake that feeling I'm taking this "goal" seriously and, in doing so, am attempting to communicate how I see things. The nice thing about it is that, if anyone here can easily shoot down everything I'm saying, I've gained some constructive feedback and that would aid in what I would consider "meaningful development". Personal engagement can make the difference between doing an intellectual exercise and intellectually exploring the environment, they can both be meaningful but if it's not clear which of the two we're engaging in there can be some unnecessary confusion.

Do you expect god to exist and pat you on the back when doing "good" and dictate your next task?
There is no "existential" fulfilment to be had nor any common purpose which can be relayed for everyone to see. The "struggle" which might appear as futility in the minds of some will make it so that perfection is not attainable and therefore there will always be a goal.

To be free from the desire to exist free of such forced goals would probably mean to exist in a manner in which meaning is impossible or exist governed by absolute vanity. I do not see it as vanity to fall asleep with a sense of accomplishment in having tried to adhere to the highest values which one was able to conceive / perceive, the risk of great err in doing so is what gives live it's intensity and contributes to giving it meaning.

Though I don't think there's a fundamental "right vs wrong", in a human experience morality isn't that hard to extract from one's daily experience. The: "Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you" kinda describes this mechanism.a bit. Technological development has (somewhat) enabled us to have our way without (consciously) harming others, we don't need actual slaves / animals to propel our vehicles, we use petrol. Such developments have made it possible to develop new moral standards shared by larger crowds where the means with which we got to such moral standards might be deemed morally repulsive after the fact.

The main thing I'm trying to hint at here it that, "wrong" is usually judged after the fact and "right" can, at best, be judged at the current moment. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", presupposing "good" in advance generally leads to ideology, I don't think I need to point to the dangers of most ideologies... Similarly, finding purpose as a set goal in advance might lead one to overlook the current moment in which it actually applies and gives one a (too) rigid framework to make sense of the world.

It's not hard to see humanity as "sinners" if you look at our pasts, even our own lives are hallmarked by behaviours we would generally find repulsive at a later age. (I guess this is the principle why we don't judge children with the same judicial laws as adults). Though a lack of certainty of what the future might hold might bring some despair, I do feel we're special. We don't know 'that' much about the universe yet but if you would observe our terraforming of earth, it's quite a feat compared to regions of space in which things appear to behave fully automatic / without intelligence. Though the future is uncertain, we're able to see the roads travelled (with, for example, the internet as an encyclopedia for everyone and in a scientific way concerning our environment, where both act as a history lesson we can learn from.

So, seeing this development as a purpose might at least give a glimmer of hope, even though it could potentially be destroyed in a flash. A lot of people are starting to take offense at global inequality and a large portion just wants to be assured they won't have to give up their piece of the pie. The goal of "equality for all" might appear like a good idea but as far as I can tell this idea is more akin to a form of social engineering in which we act as if people have no differences while we don't always account for the material means people need to live "the good life". Also, we could wonder if it's necessarily a good thing to let everyone share equally in material wealth, even if the means of generating it aren't harmful to the environment any more. If you just observe debates about providing people with a basic income in civil societies, not everyone is convinced that a "free lunch" would prove to be beneficial.

So "redemption" might be obvious to see but our interpretation of it might be skewed and "progress" sometimes leaves out the question "by which means"; the "to what end" will likely stay a mystery and I think that's a good thing.

If the sensors are adequate (i.e: interdependence, microbiome influence, the way cells with specific functions contribute to an organism as a single entity, etc.) it would probably boil down to an ethical debate concerning which emotions would be vital to simulate a human but could potentially be harmful to actual humans, not too mention the capacity to suffer that would probably go along with it.

That's my guess anyway...

4) Instrumentality- always becoming and never being. The absurd feeling one gets..the exhaustion of existence as there is no completion.. just more goals to pursue (see the 1 above) and time to fill because we are alive and there is no other choice. The world-weariness of seeing the same basic thing in different arrangements day in and day out. — schopenhauer1

You could try to attain spiritual enlightenment, from what I can gather it's like being freed from boredom :D

The very sentiment you express here sort of shows the functionality of boredom, you mention this functionality in 1) and I would add that I see human consciousness as a functionality. If you're not using this functionality to "develop" in some way you'll get bored and, if you look at this "lack of functionality" on a grander scale and there does not seem to be any worthwhile personal development overall you'll be susceptible to an existential crisis ...which usually forces one to take some action (be it searchng for meaning or breaking down in despair).

What is your idea of "being" ? Would it be akin to feeling free from forces which are beyond your control and, would such freedom then be actual freedom or just the opposite of feeling forced to play along?

I might be overshooting on this idea but if I take it a bit further, taking offense in life not having permanence or, 'hope', as you name it at 5), that's again a dubious sort of freedom. On face value life can seem futile because it inherently leads to death yet without this prospect, we wouldn't have as much inclination to take life seriously every now and then and make the most of our time and even try to prolong it.

If you'd imagine you would be trying to learn something which would require a large degree of your attention and you were doing this out of your own volition, just for the sake of adding to your functionality, would this feel like being "freed" from any forces beyond your control?

I guess I'm trying to advocate your stance in a simpler manner; free will can be complicated to a large extent if common knowledge does not incorporate the abstract realm in which free will tends to operate (social constructions) ...that is, in fact, the whole point...

If our social constructions, consciousness, daily emotional interactions. etc. are not interpreted as a given, then the way we judge free will does not incorporate the level at which physical actions becomes relevant to us while the conclusions 'are' relevant to that level.

@ Hanover:

The judicial system is for when we have reason to believe the understanding is there, but there is a lack of competence to act on this understanding. — Gooseone

@ Barry Etheridge

Conversely, if the understanding is there but there is a physical lack of control (some forms of epilepsy, Gehrig's disease, Tourette syndrome) we try to physically aid such persons so that they are able to exercise their free will. — Gooseone

I agree with your overall premise but you're one step beyond my point, you are talking about how to act upon knowledge, I'm trying to see if it's worthwhile to see free will more as a causative knowledge then a causal power.

Like in the often mentioned example of avoiding a brick hurtled towards one, the causal power lies in taking evasive action and if someone asks: "Why did you duck all of a sudden?" I'd say: "I was trying to avoid a brick". Why someone threw that brick is not so much of my concern in this specific (theoretical) instance.

I'm advocating that, in most debates concerning free will, it tends to revolve around how close we can correlate our conscious awareness with our actions while it might be more worthwhile to see in how far there is an awareness of what was / is causing our behaviour.

In the case of playing rock, paper, scissors, we would be playing because we thought it was somehow worthwhile to play along and, while playing, we might have some strategy figured out or try to be as random as possible, etc. yet we would have a sense of agency concerning our action and, up till a point, would be able to explain our motives.

Though we can be primed and our subconscious can be manipulated (maybe in the near future it will be possible to remotely manipulate our proprioception etc.), expecting a direct correlation between our conscious awareness of our actions or expecting to elaborate on physical processes beyond our conscious awareness is a too harsh of a demand to decide on (potential) moral competence. Up till this point in time our own rational explanation of our behaviour has sufficed to be deemed "morally competent" by our peers and I take issue with science concluding that the lack of empiricism in this regard is used as a criteria to state that we are not morally competent.