People feel they have different amounts of control over the intrusive thoughts or delusional fantasies — fdrake

Well of course they do, and some of them may have it about right. But a lot have the illusion that they can control the intrusions, yet find themselves drinking coke and eating Mcdonalds, because they're worth it, or something. Talking of snake-oil...

But I'm standing on the island of sanity, and making the same distinctions right alongside you, because there's nowhere else to stand, and we need to know the differences between idiots, assholes, weirdos, and loonies

Did they do that? treat autism with exorcism? I have the feeling that in simpler, smaller societies there would be more tolerance up to a point, and beyond that point, more intolerance.

Right. When you say 'intrusion' that conveys to me something that appears to come from outside - as it well might, it has the flavour of the zeitgeist - 'someone in my head, but it's not me', telling me I'm a robot, and I'm anxious that 'it' might be true.

But at this point 'delusion' seems almost redundant as a descriptor. There are purveyors of this sort of stuff, promising, the year after next, to upload our consciousnesses to a computer, and so on. And shit does intrude on one, and can feel overwhelming. I might even suggest that the social function of the schizophrenic is to manifest the social anxieties of the time. If the 'belief' is an intrusion, perhaps the anxiety is also an intrusion. "What? You think you might be a robot?" we all say in unison, mechanically, as though such a notion has never crossed anyone's mind, ever.

Ah, right. That almost answers my question... a troubled and anxious robot is a malfunctioning robot. Whereas a smug, self-satisfied robot is a philosopher.

There's something troubling me about all this, that I'm having a hard time articulating. I wonder if I can say, that to be anxious about being a robot is not to have fully accepted (the delusion) that one is a robot. Like I might be anxious that my leg is going to fall off, but once I am convinced that it really has fallen off, I have to move on and start worrying about how I'm going to ride my bike or whether I can fix it on again, or something.

The guy's obviously talking the price down with a view to buying a stake. Stop helping him, he's rich enough to pay full price.

I'm not interested in debating whether we're all robots in some unspecified sense — fdrake

Nor am I. I simply wonder, since it is a widely discussed notion of biology, neuroscience and philosophy, why you bring it up as an incontrovertible delusion and symptom? Perhaps philosophy is indeed the disease for which it should be the cure?

I'm asking, in a particular context that you brought up, a more general question that is problematic for psychology, which is, 'on what island of sanity does one stand from which to define the difference in others, between delusion and reality?' From my point of view, I would say that psychology is at least as mad as philosophy.

It's not really a joke. Are you so sure we are not robots, and that it is a delusion? Or am I pathological in even asking?

. Some topics can stretch 5 to 10, over 20 pages, and who has time to read every single post? — Maw

The solution there is to get your definitive analysis in early, and then let the class discussion circle around it until the penny drops. I mean, reading 20 pages? That's so 20th century.

tl;dr2: exercise: derive why a person continues to suffer from a persistent delusion they are a robot using only existential hermeneutics of the general experiential character of humans. No one will freakin' be able to do this. — fdrake

I hadn't realised eliminative materialism was an actual mental illness, I always thought it was just bad philosophy.

When someone edits my, or someone else's post, that discussion isn't worth reading or participating in because you don't have the freedom to actually say what you want because of the fear of someone subjectively determining whether or not your post is offensive or not. — Harry Hindu

Have you tried an unmoderated site? If they were more productive, why wouldn't we be there?

Rationality is light, — TheMadFool

What you need here is a dose of Hume. Reason, logic, measurement, the whole of rationality is the servant of passion. Rationality can tell you what to do, if you want something; it cannot tell you what to want.

The way I see it rationality lives in the world of thought and is king of that world. But the whole world of thought is the servant of the passions which are what moves one in the world of things. Thus the moral neutrality and the lightness of rationality are simply the way it is. Many, many are those who pretend that rationality can dictate their actions, and all of them are mistaken. It can only guide action once the goal has been established. If you want to build an atomic bomb, make these calculations build this equipment, accumulate tis material construct it thus and so. But is it a good idea to build an atomic bomb? Reason is silent until you set some goal or other, and then and only then reason can recommend a bomb or no bomb, in the service of that passion.

Your rights cannot override someone else's. — Harry Hindu

Nonsense. My right not to be murdered overrides your freedom to murder me. You don't have that right.

I've seen mods allow certain conversations to keep going, even when it is obvious that the speaker of one side isn't making very good arguments, and isn't being reasonable. Then why not allow others to speak their minds and then counter it with reasonable arguments. You'd be taking away their rights, even though they didn't do anything illegal. — Harry Hindu

More nonsense. Much is allowed by mods, and some things are not. One reason for not allowing racists on the site is that it gives an air of legitimacy to their views, and associates the members with them. Another is that it is sufficiently offensive to deter serious posters from frequenting the site. Unmoderated discussions are not worth reading or participating in. Absolute freedom of speech undermines the value of speech itself, as I mentioned above, because flames, fake news, cliches, polemics and irrationality overwhelm logic and reason, by sheer weight of numbers.

Not if it's an absolute. How's about something along the lines of "you can say whatever you like, but there will be consequences", which may include exclusion from teaching jobs or serving the public jobs, or broadcasting jobs, or entry to football matches, or being sued, or arrested for harassment, or being called an alt right apologist, or some such?

But if all these consequences amount to speech being unfree, and speech must be free absolutely, one of the consequences of that will be the undermining of the value of speech itself.

I probably don't agree with you about the kinds of speech it's reasonable to restrict. e.g. I think the racists should be allowed to state their position. We have to live with them either way. Better to know what they're up to and have the chance to talk some of them out of it. I suspect the alternative is much worse. — Roke

I'd like to restrict them form teaching my kids their nonsense. I'd like them not to be treated by reputable media and educational bodies as if their views were worthy of serious consideration. I like that they are not allowed to express their position on this site. Same goes for flat-earther's; life's too short.

I think one has the right not to be murdered, and the fact that there are murderers means that this right is sometimes violated, not that it does not exist.

There cannot be a legal right not to be offended, because if anyone found it offensive, it would be an illegal law.

But the reason the wife wasn't with that person, was because they wanted to have sex with a hooker. — Agustino

Yeah, they set it up for themselves as they wanted to. If the organizer wouldn't agree, they'd find someone who would, and so on so forth. — Agustino

On the one hand it has been set up that way by people who want it that way, on the other hand most of the people who attended were probably not involved in the set up. Again you take a simplistic, absolutist position, when the reality is more complex. There is feedback and feedforward. Nobody brings a wife, because it is instituted as men only. It is instituted as men only to ensure that nobody brings their wife. There is thus no unified 'they'.
But it is not men only, because girls are provided. But not enough girls for even one each. So the set up also involves by plan, 'non harassing men' who are probably there for the charitable kudos, and certainly there to add to the legitimacy.

Anyway, I'm happy to report that the organisation is winding itself up, there has already been one resignation from a government committee, and the general outrage and disapproval is such that it will be difficult to repeat this in the immediate future. We might even get some legislation out of it.

the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'.
— unenlightened
Yes and no. It produces "who we are" in children and young adults, but not in those who have already formed and crystalised their personality. So those grown-up men, there pretty much is no changing for most of them. — Agustino

No and no. Those grown-up men would not have behaved like that if there had been a good sprinkling of wives and significant others present, (oh and possibly some powerful women guests) and the auction items would have been different, and the uniforms would have been different, and...

Because they and we already know better. It was set up to indulge and legitimise foul behaviour, and everyone involved knew it, hence the non-disclosure agreements.

Yeah but, no but... the structure of society both represents and produces 'who we are'. The way the event was structured educated the participants as to the acceptability of the values and behaviours that it produced. It is teaching young women and powerful men how to behave, not passively reflecting how they already behave. And that is where the light needs to be shone.

I broadly agree, and I think this is what the 'me too' movement, at its best, is doing - educating. And that is why I think Germaine Greer, for instance is entirely wrong to focus on 'consent':

Acknowledging to the Sydney Morning Herald that “what makes it different is when the man has economic power, as Harvey Weinstein has”, Greer said that “if you spread your legs because he said ‘be nice to me and I’ll give you a job in a movie’ then I’m afraid that’s tantamount to consent, and it’s too late now to start whingeing about that”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/23/germaine-greer-criticises-whingeing-metoo-movement

It's not about the innocence of women being the measure of the guilt of men, it's about the structures and institutions that we, men and women, have created and found acceptable.

The FT is not in the forefront of radical leftist feminist political correctness, so its seeming disquiet about this latest exposure of what I hope I can be excused for calling institutional sexual harassment might be worth some consideration and analysis.

"The gathering’s official purpose is to raise money for worthy causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, the world-renowned children’s hospital ..."

"It is for men only. "

"... the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.

All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned."

There is more... Ignoring the multiple claims of shock, ignorance, zero tolerance, and so on, it is clear from the get go, that 'charity' is being used as a justification for - well let's say 'a boys' night out.'
(a) no wives, but one of the auction items is plastic surgery for a wife-upgrade, another a ticket to host a lap-dancing party.
(b)Men, or rather companies, pay, and women are hired to 'entertain'.
(c) the women were obliged to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Now one does not need to pretend that the women were entirely innocent, in order to feel that the deliberately contrived power and gender alignment is wrong, and that the whole way the event is organised could hardly have been better arranged to elicit sexual harassment. And this is what it takes to make a couple of million quid 'trickle down' from the movers and shakers to sick children.

And maybe you'd find out I have one (e.g. your degree was clearly photoshopped) — Roke

Indeed, and maybe my genitals have been photoshopped too, and I am not entitled to 'Mr'. Well no, actually, my position is that my genitals are none of your business, and you can take my word for my gender or eff off.

I think you touched on something important here - the distinction between rights and duties. I might have a duty not to (gratuitously) offend. Sounds fair, but the qualifier is important. Do you have a duty to ensure I don't take offense? — Roke

Well I don't want to distinguish them really except as two sides of the coin. rights are duties seen from the other side, and vice versa. I see it a a matter of balance. We all have a duty to drive safely, with due care and attention and obeying the many rules of the road, and to have insurance, licence, and so on. But my duty does not extend to getting out of your way in every circumstance; when the lights are in my favour, I am entitled to expect cross traffic to wait their turn.

Similarly, if Oxford University wants to have a discussion on the virtues of the British Empire, or does not want to have a discussion on the merits of flat earth theory, they are entitled to do what they like on their own premises, and I am entitled to draw conclusions about them and express them. Or the German government is entitled to make holocaust denial a crime.

Now when it comes to how I am addressed or talked about, it seems to me that whoever knowingly addresses me in a manner they know I find offensive is being gratuitously offensive, or at least the onus is on them to demonstrate otherwise. For instance, I would not be entitled to be addressed as Dr unenlightened MD, because I am not an MD, but if you refuse to address me as Mr unenlightened BA, then I want to know the reason why. ;)

There is a duty, on this very site, not to gratuitously offend.

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted). — guidelines

So there is a corresponding right not to be gratuitously offended. In other places, the libel laws establish the right not to have offensive falsehoods spread about one. The BBC has a policy of flagging up material that it thinks some people might be offended by, particularly relating to violence and sex.

So it is the case that such rights are widely acknowledged, not in the absolute, but in a nuanced way that is subject to social reform by either law and/or custom. I don't know why this is scary?

Does that mean that it's all made up in the head and has no real cause or need to be alarmed? — Posty McPostface

No, not at all. It is in the head in the sense that it is a response to memory, but the memory is real. Snakes are real, fear of snakes is an instinctive reaction. Anxiety about snakes is a natural response to traumatic experience of snakes. There is good cause to fear snakes, they can kill.

The problem is that the memory is not just of snake, but of the smell of grass in the sunshine, warmth at one's back, the glittering of hot stones, the flapping of wings of a passing bird. And any of these becomes a trigger for anxiety too; not just that place, but anywhere remotely like it. This is why avoiding anxiety is debilitating; it's too global.

So if the smell of grass makes you anxious, stay with it and find the traumatic snake memory behind it. When you find the snake memory in the smell of grass, learn about snakes; look at pictures of snakes and desensitise yourself a little; learn the habits of snakes, which ones are harmless, and get used to being with them, and so on.

You understand that when I say 'snake', for you it might be your mother, or school, or whatever.

Well, wouldn't such a response be appropriate in certain cases? — Agustino

Sure. But isn't interested so much in those situations, but finds himself in the situation where his anxiety feels constricting, unreasonable, and unnecessary. Feelings are functional in all sorts of ways, but one can take a wrong turn, and then they can be dysfunctional. I'm using a simple example to illustrate where one can go wrong. In the case of the primary response, the shock, the fear, is unavoidable and probably appropriate - the snake might be harmless, but better safe than dead. So the anxiety from the memory of that is inevitable too, that's learning. The problem comes when one reacts to anxiety as if it were fear.

Snake -> fear -> avoid.
But:
Thought of snake -> anxiety -> approach.

Approaching the thought of snake, one learns about snakes, and perhaps one concludes that snake pits are not worth walking in, or perhaps one concludes that snakes are wonderful creatures that one can happily interact with, given a few precautions. So my conclusion is very simple: Do not avoid anxiety, approach, investigate, find the source.

But anxiety isn't primal - it's developed as a way to respond to threats and guard yourself. If you had no anxiety, you'd be unable to respond to threats. — Agustino

I'm not sure what you mean by primal? The way I carve it, primal emotion is the immediate response to the environment. So I'm walking, and come across a snake, and there is a response. I freeze, I'm focused on the threat, and deciding what to do. I'll call that fear. Next time I'm walking in the same place, I'm probably anxious, looking out for snakes. And that is secondary, because it is a response to something internal; not a snake, but a memory of snake.

And then I am aware of being anxious, and think how it is uncomfortable, it's spoiling the joy of my walk. And that is a tertiary emotion.

Now all of this is perfectly functional, and maybe the tertiary feeling leads me to educate myself about which snakes are dangerous, to wear snake-proof boots, to carry a cleft stick, and so on, and these precautions reduce my anxiety, and also my fear, the next time I meet a snake - I am prepared. But maybe I have another response, that is not effective in reducing anxiety and fear. I might just try and stay away from snake country. Then I have deprived myself of that walk, but I have also made anxiety the dictator, and given it control of my life. It may seem that I have avoided the anxiety, but actually I have increased it.

How depressing! That is to say, my response to my failure to deal with my anxiety, is to then pretend that I don't really want to go for a walk at all, and that is I suppose, a quaternary feeling.

Well I didn't like to say it myself, thanks for noticing.

So... who is being obtuse? — Bitter Crank

You are.

Underlying everything, there does seem to be the belief, on a feeling level, that you won't be able to deal with whatever bad thing you imagine might happen. That's what generates anxiety, and you struggle to secure a way that can certainly deal with it. So it seems to be a lack of self-belief. — Agustino

It seems to make sense (not tomato sense, idiot spellcheck) but one can always imagine that with which one cannot cope, however exaggerated one's self belief - you might get motor-neurone disease tomorrow, just as the economy collapses and... I'm pretty fucking competent, dude, but shit can still happen. No, rather I think that the development of self-esteem is another cover-up of anxiety.

I am very good and trustworthy, as you all know. It would be disingenuous of me to pretend otherwise. Not perfect of course, but one of the best.

Oh wow, when did unenlightened say that anxiety over material goods is an issue for him? — Agustino

As it goes, I'm pretty comfortable, thanks. But if I was on the streets, without health cover, without a regular income, I'd be bloody anxious. I'd say that anxiety and unhappiness on that material level is - natural, functional, realistic, sensible, virtuous. Get your shit together if you possibly can! And if you can't, I might give you a hand, or someone more comfortable might, or else you're screwed.

But what's the relation between anxiety, (and let's notice that some people much more materially endowed than me are still anxious, materially,) and depression? Is it even possible to be anxious and depressed at the same time, or are they antagonistic? Do we even agree what we're talking about?

I tend to think that one de-presses a feeling, that might be anxiety, or anger or some other unacceptable mode of being. So depression might be a response to anxiety, when getting off your arse does not seem a viable option. Depression is in this case the active negation of anxiety.

But to negate, to depress, to deny, is not to ameliorate, any more that the endless accumulation of wealth ameliorates that underlying material anxiety. The Buddhist psychology, as I understand it is that to seek to reduce anxiety is a mistake that perpetuates it. Instead, look at it, own it, absorb it, be it, live with it, and it will evaporate. They call this 'mindfulness'.

Men get raped in prison regardless of whether or not they look like women, so I really don't see the relevance. — JustSomeGuy

A man can look like a woman. How can that be? Only because the 'definitive attributes' are made invisible. So what you don't see is highly relevant by your own definition of maleness.

Hmmm, sounds like the standard experience of anyone being in prison. — Bitter Crank

I don't suspect that this person had "the standard experience of anyone being in prison". Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Not all men get raped in prison, but rather the more effeminate men. So what shall we say, that the essence of masculinity is to rape, and the essence of effeminacy is to be raped? But this is a radical move from the groin equipment definition.

Somewhere around here, the rubber hits the road.

If you look at the picture, you may want to call this person a lady or a gentleman, and you may have an argument to make. But if you lock this sort of offender in what we traditionally call a male prison, you can expect certain consequences that will not be beneficial to the person concerned. Seemingly the blindness of justice does not prevent it from coping a feel and making a decision, but the feel coped must have been confined to the groin region.

'This is a man - fact.' really doesn't 'do justice' to the situation does it? Not according to the other male prisoners, anyway.

When a surgeon cuts, we do not call it violence, because the intention is to heal and not to harm, and importantly, the intention is considered, and backed by training, evidence, and so on, and the surgery is consensual.

If I call you all a bunch of neanderthal misfits who do not understand the first thing about violence and parade your prejudices as if they had some philosophical merit, I would suggest that you could justifiably infer that my intention was to harm, and that I was being violent.

Now some people might seek to justify violence - I need to put you in your place, not for your own good, but for the protection of society from your craziness.

Is telling a fat and ugly person that they're fat and ugly a form of violence? — Michael

In general, of course it is. Again, in the consulting room, and phrased with gentility, it is not.

I remember the time when homosexuality was illegal, when it was not considered a legitimate form of manhood, and every kind of violence against homosexuals was justified as protecting society, including and especially, the exclusion of such people from the entitlements of human society, including being accepted as a man.

And I see no philosophical principle whereby we must inevitably agree that physiology shall trump inclination. Why may we not declare that the essence of manhood is attraction to women, regardless of one's equipment? In which case, lesbians would be men, and male homosexuals, women. But perhaps there is an argument to be made, on the grounds of liberty and respect for the individual, that self-identification should trump both biology and sexual preference.

Is calling a woman a man or vice versa a form of violence?

Well think about it, girls; does it get your knickers wet? Does it give you the vapours? Do you feel entitled to have your gender acknowledged?

And if we insist on both 90º angles and four sides, we constrain the space to a plane.

Oddly, logic constrains the world... ↪unenlightened — Banno

You are telling me that our insistence obliges the world to be of some geometry and not another? I think not. No, our insistence constrains what we can say about the world, and possibly makes it impossible to tell it like it is. The world shrugs and carries on as it pleases.

That is, the question in the title badly misunderstands what logic is. — Banno

To put it another way, logic does not constrain the world in any way, nor does it constrain God. It constrains what can be sensibly said. It declares, for instance that, it does not make sense in the context of omnipotent beings, to talk about stuff they cannot do. So don't do it.

It's almost as if the act of asking the question makes, or at least exposes, the selfishness of the act. That is, the concern to be unselfish is itself a selfish concern. Is it not enough that there is a good meal and a lovely evening? Let it go at that, you don't need virtue points.

As facebook would have it, we are star dust, but the stardust is just dried soup...

What we can do is create very high energies for just a few protons and smash them together. The internal guts of the protons are spewed out into a soup of particles similar to conditions shortly after the Big Bang.

But there is plenty of evidence that we usually don't know exactly what words mean. — Jokerlol

Is there any evidence that there is an exact meaning for us to be ignorant of? Vagueness seems to annoy philosophers, which explains why they are so grumpy so often.



I haven't played the game because computer paranoia. But talking to the dudes round here is so much like trying to talk to aliens - is there something that cannot be exposed in human dialogue, that can in the game? If there is, how can you distinguish a limitation of language being brought out and one being fabricated by the structure of the game?