Individualism.

[CosmicNoodle]

OK, for god sake, for all that is holy, lets just keep this one civil? (I always say that, we never do) This isn't even a volatile subject, I fail to see how it could go south.

Is there any such thing left, as individualism? Does the individual exist?

With 7 billion mofo's on this earth, I say no. I speak from experience. I'm about as weird a motherfucker as you can get, I had radical and unusual political views on most things, I like unusual music, despise popular culture, I'm fairly "individualistic" (is that a word? it is now), I'm fairly "unique", but even I, the weirdest mofo you are ever likely to meet knows at least one person, who has all the same views and ideas.

I believe, that with so many of us left on the earth, it's impossible to be an individual, no matter how odd or "unique" you are, there will always be at least one other person you fit in with, there is always a crowd that suits you.

Lets take this to a more political (dun dun duuunn) aspect.

In an earlier thread (that turned into a fucking shit storm, fuck sake), I mentioned that I don't believe an individual exists, not only in a social aspect, but in a political one, we are all judged by the same book, a book of laws, each different for each place, but everywhere has laws, and the population of that area is subjected to them.
In a system, where everyone is judged in the same way, no matter what, can there be an individual in THAT aspect?
Because in that line of thinking, you can be as "unique" as you want, but you'll be forced to behave the same way as everyone else, be punished and rewarded the same way as everyone else. Can an individual exist in that sense?



I understand that was a very disjointed and slightly confusing bundle of words to read, but I'm tired and a little drunk, I may rewrite it when awake and sober, or I may not.

[MasterOfPuppets]

I know you're gonna hate me, but I kind of disagree. Only partialy, though. While the system pressures us to be the same, I think that as long as you have that one single thing in your mind or heart, as long as you feel different and as long as you see how you are different from the other 7 billion mofos, you kind of are individual. I just think that big number of peple want normal things for themselves, they want normal life with normal jobs and normal families and I guess that at some point they lose themselves as individuals. Don't kill me, Pikachu.

[Gamma Male]

Not really.



The amount of time out of the universes life span and the amount of space out of the universes size that each individual occupies is beyond insignificant. Compared to the universe as a whole each one of us is like a single water molecule in an entire ocean, except instead of lasting forever we pop up for a single millisecond and then disappear forever.




Some people find this depressing. I don't. I find it liberating. Carpe Diem, YOLO, live in the moment, all that other shit.

[CosmicNoodle]

I know you're gonna hate me, but I kind of disagree. Only partialy, though. While the system pressures us to be the same, I think that as long as you have that one single thing in your mind or heart, as long as you feel different and as long as you see how you are different from the other 7 billion mofos, you kind of are individual. I just think that big number of peple want normal things for themselves, they want normal life with normal jobs and normal families and I guess that at some point they lose themselves as individuals. Don't kill me, Pikachu.

A valid opinion, I won't hate, this thread is a zen zone, no voilence...or you will be met with death :P

That's the point though, each and every person on earth views themselves as different, each person thinks "ye...well...I may be a lot like everyone else, but I'm an individual" And for some small time, they may be, there may be some small chance of them being different from everyone else, but everyone, in the end, loses themselves to the masses, or in my opinion at least.

I do like your idea though, but to me it just seems like the first stage of society losing it's individuals. Just my two cents.

Nice idea though, thanks for the reply.

[Vlerchan]

I'm going to be "helpful" and "co-operative" and not just tell you you're wrong. It's Christmas Eve. I feel "nice".

Does the individual exist?
Individuals don't exist. Or at least without a belief in free will it's difficult to consider us as more than cogs in a machine.

I came to the conclusion though that despite lacking the ability to make decisions the 'freedom to act' is worth maintaining: at an individual level an illusion of choice exists and this illusion of choice feels real from an individuals perspective - it is as such real in effect and so I consider it of significance. I'm probably being irrational - I don't care.

This is the basis I hold which makes establishing inviolable human rights a worthwhile endeavour - and by extension not scientifically running society (doing whatever it takes) so that the collective-as-a-whole is at its healthiest (hyper-utilitarianism). It also allows me to consider morality at an individual level - that is to consider morality as it impacts an individual as opposed to the greater collective.

I believe, that with so many of us left on the earth, it's impossible to be an individual.
In the sense of our own uniqueness it's only our immediate peers that are of any worthwhile consideration.

I couldn't care less if some guy in rural Swaziland is dead-on the same as me as far as tastes go because it doesn't affect me.

Saying his it's doubtful you'll find anyone who's your exact match unless you're generalising to a few broad specifics.

Can an individual exist in that sense?
It seems like you're knocking "equality under the law" here which I consider a principle of considerable importance.

---

Some people find this depressing. I don't. I find it liberating. Carpe Diem, YOLO, live in the moment, all that other shit.
Here's an extract from a book I like. I'm bolding the most relevant. Tell me what you think.

The first thing you must realise is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual.

You know the Party slogan 'Freedom is Slavery." Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom.

Alone - free - the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself into the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal.

The second thing for you to realise is that power is power over human beings. Over the body - but, above all, over the mind.

edit: forgot to bold:/

[MasterOfPuppets]

@CosmicPikachu I see individualism as something timeless, but only if you fully dedicate yourself to it. I don't think you need to be weird just to be individual. If I believe in something and work on it my whole freaking life, I don't think I'll lose that fight even if I don't succeed, because I stayed honest to myself. So yeah, individualism exists, we just lack individuals.

Btw, I really like your thread, glad it's not about my penis size or anything like that.

@GammaMale While I can respect this way of thinking, I disagree with it. I find it somehow childish and unrealistic. It's normal for one to want happiness and to want exciting life, but some people want to live mark. Also, all that math just can't replace humanity as factor, us being humans and having emotions.

In the end, blame it on me being 16 and wanting something more from life, but this is kind of the way I see it. As this guy above me said, I don't care if I'm irrational - in a way it's what makes me human.

[Miserabilia]

The individual doesn't exist in society, atleast not in any proper society. It's not like a very large group of individuals working to provide for each other, it's like a flowing liquid, even though that sounds vague af.

As for the human brain itself, free will doesn't exist so it's hard to say any kind of individualism could exist.

[Atom]

My thought on the political aspect of this:
Nowadays, every society is built on socialism. Some societies are more social, some are more individualistic. (I think a good example would be western opposed to eastern societies.)
We live in it and can't do anything about it. No unknown lands are left on Earth for us to explore. But to be an individual is a choice. It is up to every individual to place their goals and desires above the society.

[WaffleSingSong]

I believe that at first, when your young, you don't really have much of an individual will but instead there is some sort of collective will, where everyone feeds off each other and all you are is from the limited environment you had no choice to be born in.

However, when you get older you start to gain at least a bit of individual will, when you start to look down inside to see who you really are and you can infer things based on your own opinions. I don't think you will ever have complete, total individual will in life, for in order to do that, in my opinion, you have to be completely omniscient about every single thing in the universe so that you can fully see the truth and facts in every single particle in the universe. And even then, if you were gifted with the power of omniscience instead of being born with it, would your prejudices and opinions still linger from others about somethings? Hard to tell.

I don't think you can be completely free, but what you can do is influence the shift of the general direction of what you want and need to do when you become more knowledgeable about you and the world around you, to be shortly put. We are not born with free will, and we will truly never really gain it, at least as who we are as a species right now, but you can come somewhat, and maybe even quite close to it.

[sunnieseason]

I think it's hard to maintain individualism in a world in which collectivism is such a popular idea. I mean there is no collective, it's just a group of individuals. I think individualism is natural and a normal component to humanity. It has to be propagandized out of us all through government schools and state sponsored media.

On one hand the internet has given us all the ability to communicate and share ideas, like individualism and liberty. I think we'll eventually shed collectivism as a species.
Toasted Cheese, if free will doesn't exist then why are you bothering to comment here? You're exercising free will in order to post and to argue.

[Vlerchan]

I mean there is no collective, it's just a group of individuals.
Do you believe that social codes exist? Like waving indicating 'greetings', or men wearing dresses and make-up being 'wrong'.

[I]f free will doesn't exist then why are you bothering to comment here? You're exercising free will in order to post and to argue.
When I say I don't believe in Free Will I mean:

I believe that all human actions are reactions to external stimuli as moulded by socialisation and genetics.

I don't mean that there's a physical impediment to my free action. Nobody who doesn't believe in Free Will does.

[sunnieseason]

Do you believe that social codes exist? Like waving indicating 'greetings', or men wearing dresses and make-up being 'wrong'.

You're setting up a straw man. Of course social codes exist.


When I say I don't believe in Free Will I mean:

I believe that all human actions are reactions to external stimuli as moulded by socialisation and genetics.

I don't mean that there's a physical impediment to my free action. Nobody who doesn't believe in Free Will does.

Another Straw man. Just because there are physical barriers to our actions doesn't mean there is no free will. "I want to fly, but I can't cause of gravity therefore I don't have free will." is not logically correct.

Free will is defines as the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. (The Google definition). In order to tell me that free will doesn't exist, you must will your body into action. You must process my argument and then think of a response and then type it out and hit send. You must also use your free will to react to the external stimulus. External stimuls can be random and unpredictable, so you have to adapt to it...therefore engaging in free will.

[Vlerchan]

Of course social codes exist.
Ok. How do social codes exist?

Another Straw man. Just because there are physical barriers to our actions doesn't mean there is no free will. "I want to fly, but I can't cause of gravity therefore I don't have free will." is not logically correc
Please read what I wrote. This does not address it at all.

You must process my argument and then think of a response and then type it out and hit send.
I read your argument with my eyes. It was processed and a message sent to my brain I analysed it in my brain. My brain produced a counter-argument based on previous influences as interpreted through even-previous influences and genetics. It then sent a signal to my hand to start typing that response.

This all occurred in a deterministic and dot-to-dot fashion with zero input from some spontaneously-emerging force within me.

External stimuls can be random and unpredictable, so you have to adapt to it...therefore engaging in free will.
Where do my adaptation come from?

[sunnieseason]

I read your argument with my eyes. It was processed and a message sent to my brain I analysed it in my brain. My brain produced a counter-argument based on previous influences as interpreted through even-previous influences and genetics. It then sent a signal to my hand to start typing that response.

This all occurred in a deterministic and dot-to-dot fashion with zero input from some spontaneously-emerging force within me.


Where do my adaptation come from?


You should have just stuck to law school. LOL! Why are you arguing with me then if everything is deterministic? You won't change my opinions. The problem with determinism is that everything is just a pre determined reaction. So even when Its obvious that you're using your own brain and thoughts to respond you just won't concede to it because you believe its all just a pre-determined system. You should just say "I'm right because I said so." That's just as useful.

[Vlerchan]

You should have just stuck to law school. LOL!
Determinism. Sorry. Can't help it.

Why are you arguing with me then if everything is deterministic? You won't change my opinions.
No. The opinions you have now were determined to be this way.

It's possible to change them.

So even when Its obvious that you're using your own brain and thoughts to respond you just won't concede to it because you believe its all just a pre-determined system.
People don't create their own thoughts.

People develop ideas through engaging with certain influences. When a subject enters the brain people then apply these ideas to the subject which creates their thoughts.

I can provide a more concrete example if necessary.

---

I also would concede that there's Free Will if there was evidence for such. I would like to believe.

The problem is that unless you believe that you mind actually exist abstract the material world (magic!) and its interactions, which nothing supports, then Free Will is impossible.

You should just say "I'm right because I said so." That's just as useful.
I believe this because I have a genetic bias towards evidence and logic and the evidence and logic support this claim.

[sunnieseason]

I believe this because I have a genetic bias towards evidence and logic and the evidence and logic support this claim.

I completely disagree. I think you have a bias towards rewriting definitions to fit your goals... You're really just arguing over absolute minutia. You never addressed the definition I put up before and now you just over complicate things with wordy answers that mean absolutely nothing.

Either you control your body and your actions or you don't. The word "you" here means everything that makes up your body and your brain. So yes, if your brain gives you the impulse to type a response then YOU are the one doing it.

If you're going to claim that you follow logic, then my god you just accepted free will. In order to reason through something you must use your body and your brain to process the information and then make a choice. You will evaluate the evidence and then apply logic to it. Do you see how you must be in control of yourself in order to do this?

[sunnieseason]

No. The opinions you have now were determined to be this way.

It's possible to change them.

If it's possible to change them then that implies that the individual person exercises free will. Changing opinions involves a process of rational thinking. So by definition must involve the person's free will.


People don't create their own thoughts.

Is that statement not a thought? Where did it come from? If you didn't create that thought, then where did it come from?


People develop ideas through engaging with certain influences. When a subject enters the brain people then apply these ideas to the subject which creates their thoughts.


The brain is the very essence of human thought. It is not a computer that spits out solved equations. Each person has to want a thought to come out otherwise it doesn't. there's no puppetmaster outside of us controlling what we think and do. Each one of us controls our own thoughts and actions. Sometimes external things influence that, but at the end of the day you still have to direct yourself to change. (example: External influence - it's raining. The free will aspect is, oh it's raining, let me get an umbrella).



I also would concede that there's Free Will if there was evidence for such. I would like to believe.

The evidence is in your statement. You must use free will to say that free will doesn't exist. its a contradiction so your premise is wrong.


The problem is that unless you believe that you mind actually exist abstract the material world (magic!) and its interactions, which nothing supports, then Free Will is impossible.

What?

[Vlerchan]

I think you have a bias towards rewriting definitions to fit your goals...
It's amusing because I used your definition.

You never addressed the definition I put up before.
Yes. I did. Just not directly. Let's look at your definition.

Free will is defines as the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

In our world of cause an effect - as outlined below (again) - each action necessitates that another determined action necessarily must follow. Please read this earlier response:

I read your argument with my eyes. It was processed and a message sent to my brain I analysed it in my brain. My brain produced a counter-argument based on previous influences as interpreted through even-previous influences and genetics. It then sent a signal to my hand to start typing that response.

Each action necessitated another according the laws of nature and cause-and-effect, within a closed system.

This coincides with what is meant within philosophical determinism:

Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

This is the antithesis of Free Will.

Either you control your body and your actions or you don't. The word "you" here means everything that makes up your body and your brain.
How can you control your body and be your body at the same time?

---

If your brains responses are all pre-calculated on the basis of past experiences and genetics you're also not deciding anything; what you're doing is responding like a cog in a machine, or perhaps closer, a node in a programme.

If I gave you a script to follow, and you had no choice but to follow that script, and so followed the script, is this Free Will?

---

Changing opinions involves a process of rational thinking. So by definition must involve the person's free will.
This makes no sense at all.

Unless new information enters the system necessitating a rethink then a rethink will not be undertaken.

Is that statement not a thought? Where did it come from? If you didn't create that thought, then where did it come from?
Please go back and read what was written directly following that quotatio you took. Thank you.

It is not a computer that spits out solved equations.
It is.

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bvc.html

You must use free will to say that free will doesn't exist.
I have no idea why you believe this. O see no reason too.

[Miserabilia]

Toasted Cheese, if free will doesn't exist then why are you bothering to comment here? You're exercising free will in order to post and to argue.

Name one reason why I should need free will to post this?

I could even be a machine typing this. There's no need for me to have actual independent free will in order for me to write this.

I think you're confusing decision making with free will.
It's logical that we all make decisions. However free will means that independent of all cause-effect we can make choices.
That is, completely seperate from anything that happens in the universe, outside the rules of cause and effect.




The brain is the very essence of human thought. It is not a computer that spits out solved equations. Each person has to want a thought to come out otherwise it doesn't. there's no puppetmaster outside of us controlling what we think and do. Each one of us controls our own thoughts and actions. Sometimes external things influence that, but at the end of the day you still have to direct yourself to change. (example: External influence - it's raining. The free will aspect is, oh it's raining, let me get an umbrella).


In other words; it's raining. Impulses in your brain run a logical course to conclude it's raining; I don't want to get wet; I need to prevent myself from getting wet; what object can prevent me from getting wet; an umbrella.
This is a logical course of action.
I don't see how an example like this shows any sign of free will. A computer could have made the same option.

> inb4 brain is not computer
A brain computes things also. It works different than a computer because a brain is organic and uses a neural network to learn and memorize, but it still computes things.

[sunnieseason]

I'm so confused. There doesn't seem to be any way that you guys won't accept that you're making decisions and preferences freely. I just don't think there is any point in arguing with you. You've both defined that every action is a pre-determined action, and therefore in your minds everything is determined and people therefore do not have free will. You've also defined the human thought process as a set of programs and pre-determined reactions. So basically no matter what, you've set up an argument where you're closed off to any other option.

Basically this is like arguing with a religious person who says "god is everything and everywhere." No matter how much you reason with them, they just see that god is everything and everywhere.

For you both, the brain is a determined program, nothing but a squishy calculator. If you really believe that then there is no point in arguing with you. Your programs have been written to always spit out determinism. Your minds can't be changed because even that "change" is just a determined reaction to external stimuli. It was written into your program that you would change your mind therefore there is no free will.

[Vlerchan]

You've both defined that every action is a pre-determined action, and therefore in your minds everything is determined and people therefore do not have free will. You've also defined the human thought process as a set of programs and pre-determined reactions.
Toasted Cheese and I defined these things as such because that's how those work:

The actions-definition is a simple reference to cause-and-effect (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
The thinking-definition is a simple reference to foundational neurobiology (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain8.htm) and cause-and-effect

None of this is radical at all.

---

I'm not going to bother with the rest. The only important point was the one dealt with above.