Why fan the flames of political ignorance? — I like sushi

I propose the following turn in the discussion:

Will the elections of sixteen-year-old voters, subordinated to school, algorithms, and the whispers of the media, diverge so radically from the opinions of older voters, entangled in the same web?

maybe the point is that young minds require less effort to influence, more easily succumbing to the discourses of power, or are capable of increasing turnout?

And what if this discussion itself, this entire dispute imitating a "civil society" (an open society according to Popper) is only part of the performance, where democracy verifies itself through our own questions?

Aren't we, by arguing, weaving that very web, mistaking its next knot for a riot?

We all know we are all stupid — I like sushi

Since we understand this, maybe it's better to give the right to vote to those who consider themselves smart at the age of 16? :lol:

What do you think is the best age to allow for voting. — I like sushi

I will share my experience. At the age of 15-16, I was very indignant at the fact that my vote was not taken into account in the elections, because as it seemed to me then, I understood the world better than these "idiots" around me, who are 40 or more years old. After graduation, I was more than sure that until the age of 21 people should not be given any right to vote, since they simply do not understand anything about life. Today I am 37 and I sincerely believe that until the age of 30-35, people generally understand little, but I have to agree that their immaturity affects my life. I wonder what I'll say at 45?

Finally, at the age of 88, with some medical problems,I have begun to understand this conjecture — jgill

I want to share my experience. Speaking of purity, when I chose in favor of going to university or not, as well as in favor of marriage or not, I probably did not choose at all, but simply acted within the framework of the discourse that was laid down by society or my parents. I didn't think about why I was doing it at all, but somewhere in the depths of consciousness it was kind of spelled out.

Gaining greater subjectivity, gaining responsibility for their family or children, "existential" thoughts themselves began to appear more often. For example: I actively played hockey at that time, the style of my game was very aggressive, I liked to use power techniques, actively fight in the corners, but when my wife became pregnant, the style of my game began to change by itself: I became more careful and prudent, and instead of going ahead, I began to prefer to give passes.

After that, over time, perhaps it was by the age of 30, the changes became even greater: I wanted to do something promising, because it would not work to be active all my life. Thoughts began to appear about moving to a city with great opportunities and doing business, as well as investing, since employment is possible only if you are constantly active and healthy.

Of course, raising my children today, I do not tell them about these abstractions of the finiteness of being, but simply instill in them what I think is right, so that it becomes their own ideas.

From here I come to the fact that although in my youth I did not think about much, my parents may have thought about it, instilling discourses in me. I remember how my father kept repeating that youth was ending quickly (how I did not understand him then!)...

So, yes, maybe we don't have to be aware of our limb, but it may be embedded in society's discourse for such cases.

I am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner

I just wanted to tell you that even if consciousness is fundamental to all bodies, then the statement and recognition of this fact has no practical benefit. Since it does not matter what the object "thinks" that cannot affect anything (neither his own body nor other bodies)

If, for example, to know what a stone thinks about and then somehow influence its thought in the interests of a person, then this would absolutely not change anything, since the stone is not capable of an independent act.

If you manage to somehow control a fly or other organisms, then this will primarily be used in the struggle for power of some over others. And even if we assume this hypothetical scenario is real, it will not bring to good.

Each experience of the ‘present’ is finite in that the meaning contained within it cannot be logically derived from the previous present, nor be used to deduce the following moment of time. — Joshs

Thanks for this clarification. It is very nice to get it from a professional in the field of phenomenology. Starting the topic, I focused on a wider range of readers. The consequence was to simplify the description of Heidegger's ideas. Heidegger's lyrics are both attractive and frightening, as they are written in a style that makes you not only understand, but feel his ideas with your own skin. This always causes a certain difficulty of assimilation and, I confess, perhaps I do not fully understand all its meanings.

At the same time, the idea of ​ ​ temporality and being-to-death remains attractive for my research. In this idea, I see Heidegger's attempt to describe the very inner tension that makes a person act.
Decomposing temporality into a sense of possible one's own death and ignorance (the unknown of the purpose of existence and the consequences of any choice), I tried to express this "inner tension" in simple language.

This is non-algorithmics, in my opinion gives being a special status that distinguishes us from machines

The mark of higher consciousness (as distinguished from basic what-it-is-likeness) is the ability to introspect your own thought process. — SophistiCat

I agree with your definition of higher consciousness as the ability to analyze your own thought process, to introspection, conscious control over logic and critical revision of beliefs.

However, I would like to clarify the terminology to avoid possible misunderstanding. When I talk about comparing a person with an "algorithm" in the context of "fully knowing the reason for your Being," I do not mean rational, conscious human thinking, which, as you correctly noted, is capable of self-reflection and criticism. I use "algorithm" in a broader, metaphorical sense, implying a complete determinacy of existence - a situation where Man would completely "read" his final goal, his fundamental "program" or ontological source.

My central idea is that if this "program" were absolutely knowable, then a genuine existential choice would become impossible. This is not a question of whether the algorithm is aware of its steps, but of whether it has the freedom to deviate from its predetermined "essence" or create it anew. If our life course, our "ultimate goal" or the source of our Being were absolutely known to us, then each of our actions would only be the fulfillment of predetermined instructions, even if these instructions were incredibly complex and multivariable. In this case, where would there be room for the very "tension" that stems from uncertainty and the threat of loss of oneself with a genuine, unpredictable choice?

You correctly notice the colossal role of the unconscious, intuitive, emotional in human decision-making. And perhaps it is this "ignorance" about our deep determinants, about the very "program" or "source of Being" that we cannot "count," that allows our Being to retain its authenticity. This is what makes our choice not just a rational calculation or execution of instructions, but an act of creation arising from an internal, to the end unknowable depth.

That revelation shaped my life, and still does at age 88. — jgill

I was emotionally impressed by your response. The continuation of the formation and search for oneself by anyone at such a venerable age is a new experience for me. I will move somewhat away from the main idea of ​ ​ the topic, but I want to tell you the following.

The very formation of oneself - that is, giving oneself a certain form, rethinking one's own limits, boundaries in the act of establishing one's own self, unlike non-self, is a true act of being instead of a static existence, according to my dissertation, which I am currently working on.

I admire your continued self-determination, despite the age that many others would consider the basis for calming down and simply contemplating the world.

Now regarding your position on the limb. You write that she "played no role" in your decision, and you call Heidegger's concept "absurd." This is an important point, and I would suggest that it be considered not as a refutation, but as an opportunity for clarification. Perhaps the point is not that the limb should be a conscious, obvious motivator ("Now I will die, I must urgently choose!"). Rather, finiteness is the fundamental horizon against which any meaningful choice acquires its value and uniqueness.

If you were immortal, if you had an infinity of choices and attempts ahead of you, would your activity have the same existential stake? The same "tension" that stems from the understanding that this choice is part of your one-time, unique life?

Heidegger's "Being-to-Death" does not necessarily mean a permanent fixation on death, but the realization that it is the own, indescribable possibility of Nothingness that makes every moment of Being and every choice truly yours, and not just another step in infinity. Perhaps this awareness operates on a deeper, unconscious level, shaping the very value of time and self-determination.

How do psychology and philosophy intersect here? Fundamental, I think. Psychology can investigate the mechanisms of decision-making, the effect of fear of death or uncertainty on behavior. But philosophy poses a question about the nature of this choice itself - is it simply a complex algorithm, or is it an act that transcends determinism? Your experience, jgill, seems to lean toward the latter, and that inspires further reflection.

I do not understand what you mean by this within the context of the discussion? — I like sushi

Sorry, I got distracted. :blush: Thanks for the comment and interesting perspective on the central topic.

My point is the exact opposite. Bruno lived in civilized society not the kind of Closed Society Popper was referring to, where the heirarchy is the foundation of existence not something 'enforced'. — I like sushi

nevertheless, the closed society that Popper described, in my opinion, is unnatural to being itself, to becoming itself.

Take, for example, our current discussion: at first I had only some intuition, which in a meeting with the Other (with you and other forum participants) acquires some form, receives criticism, becomes more precise, acquires new layers. Dogmatism, however, deprives the possibility of becoming and it may be good as a temporary solution, but in the long term it is unviable. For a neighbor will come and become your master due to greater development, which ensures pluralism.

The embodiment of an open society is an inevitable return to natural nature.

People do not want freedom. They want something that contradicts freedom - no responsibility. Closed Society gave them this. In Closed Society choice is avoided. — I like sushi

Thus, it turns out that a hypothetical resident of a totalitarian state is deprived of the opportunity to think about the loyalty of ideology? For example, a resident of North Korea in principle cannot doubt the righteousness of the idea of ​​Chuche?
But some 400 years ago, all of humanity lived in such conditions and nevertheless found another way. And since this way was found, someone doubted the correctness of these doctrines.

I agree with you in part that the phenomenon of existential choice today may have become a more widespread phenomenon. Today, authenticity is going beyond the boundaries of today, but in the past, although these boundaries were narrower, going beyond them was also something authentic. It is like challenging the established in favor of the unknown with the risk to oneself in the face of death.
To tie a stone tip to a stick, which makes the weapon heavier, could also seem stupid and illogical in the ancient era. But the spear, nevertheless, was created.

So I believe that existential choice is not a modern invention. I think the fate of Giordano Bruno, who was executed for the idea of heliocentricity, is a good confirmation.

Therefore, it is perhaps more likley that this acquanitance with the infinite is what has led to an existential crisis rather than with the prehistoric finitude of existence, which held us in place. — I like sushi

I didn’t expect my initial questions to lead into anthropological perspectives, but your point about contrasting the finitude of the premodern era with the infinity of modernity opens a fascinating angle.

What if we view the premodern era as a time of faith in oracles, in contrast to modernity’s faith in objectivity? The belief in objectivity has undoubtedly led to significant advancements in comfort and safety, but, as you rightly noted, it has failed to deliver personal happiness. On the contrary, the expansion of the horizon of choice in modernity—from selecting weapons to adopting worldviews (religion or atheism)—has made life less predetermined but not necessarily more fulfilling. A premodern person didn’t choose between a spear and a rifle because rifles didn’t exist, nor did they contemplate atheism in the absence of that concept. This limitation narrowed the scope of choice but may have also reduced existential tension.

Returning to the topic of existential versus algorithmic choice, I would argue that existential choices existed in the premodern era, albeit within a narrower framework: choosing a partner, deciding whether to engage in or avoid conflict. The weight of responsibility for these choices was no less significant, as a wrong decision could lead to death or exile. Belief in an oracle might have alleviated some doubts by prescribing a “righteous” path, but it did not negate the nature of choice itself.

I agree with you that modernity has broadened the range of options, but I disagree that the nature of existential choice has changed. It remains rooted in uncertainty and finitude, not in the number of available options. It is this uncertainty, rather than the illusion of control, that continues to fuel the authenticity of our decisions.

Thus, what you call existential choice—rooted in mortality, anxiety, ambiguity—has no analogue in AI — ChatGPT

It would be nice if AI developers did not come across these ideas on this forum, otherwise they will quickly screw the missing parts to their creations... I'm afraid it may end badly :lol:

There are a lot of people that barely take into account, I don't know, the fact that they might go to jail, when about to do something. Whereas there are others, like yourself presumably, who are very much aware of their finitude, or you might say, mortality. — Wayfarer

In this case, the actions of such people in society are usually called stupid. That is, it is generally customary to call stupid those actions that in the formula [estimated result of action ]/[ possible risks] give a result less than or equal to One. Others usually say - "you don't think about the future at all."

And yes, you are right in this case it can be argued that the root of their solution lies outside mortality. At the same time, from these guys who take unjustified risks - you can often hear the phrase "we live once." Which returns to the basis of my idea.

I don't know if 'awareness of one's own finitude' is an explicit consideration for many people, although knowing that there's a lot they don't know might be — Wayfarer

Hello, it's nice to be part of this community!

I reflected on that. Of course, each of us every minute, making a decision, for example, about what socks to wear does not think about the fact that his life is finite. But at the same time, making more serious decisions about what to do, for example, whether to go to study, marry, whether to have children, we involuntarily mean this. That is, over virtually every decision, every decision hangs the realization that you are not eternal.

I wonder: "isn't this exactly what creates colossal tension inside us and sets the very thirst to do something, and not to do it?"

We choose to do it. And here the question arises to do, but how exactly if the task is not defined? That is, at birth, some instruction does not come out for us where it is indicated how to do the right thing or why we are here in general.

This is where I assume that the very feature of the "existential choice" lies in its uncertainty.

In this regard, an example with AI is indicative. If there is no request, there is no task, then it does not act on its own, does not perform any calculation, unlike us: there seems to be no task, but we act.

I have carefully read your reflections, and I am very impressed with how deep and passionate you are discussing the nature of consciousness. Especially inspiring is the clarity with which Patterner articulates the idea of ​ ​ the fundamentality of consciousness, and the variety of perspectives that you all bring. I want to offer another look at this topic and ask: what if consciousness is not a substance or a property, but a process? Let me clarify, based on your ideas, and see where this can lead us.

Patterner, you remarkably described consciousness as a universal "sensory experience" inherent in everything from stones to people. Your analogy with vision, where consciousness remains unchanged, and only what is realized changes, is very bright. But what if consciousness is not something static, like a property or essence, but a dynamic process that manifests itself only in systems that can actively interact with the world? For example, in organisms with neural networks or behavioral responses, where consciousness is associated with information processing, adaptation or reflection.

You mentioned that a stone "survives itself" like a stone, but does not have mental activity, perception or movement. But what if it is the lack of active interaction that makes the idea of ​ ​ stone consciousness functionally redundant? If consciousness is a process associated with dynamics (for example, perception, feedback or choice), then a stone whose existence is static and determined by external physical laws may not need consciousness. Even if we assume that he has some kind of "experience," it does not affect his being - unlike, say, a person or animal, where consciousness is associated with adaptive processes.

Which brings me to another thought covered in the discussion, like plants. Tree growth is a process, but it is genetically programmed and does not involve active choice or reflection. But what if consciousness arises only where there is an opportunity to manipulate the environment or react to it at your own "discretion"? Then plants whose dynamics are deterministic may not require consciousness, even if we admit that they have some basic experience.

My idea is that consciousness as a process is associated with the dynamics of interaction and adaptation. This eliminates the need to ascribe consciousness to static or strictly deterministic systems such as rocks or plants, and focuses us on what makes consciousness meaningful - its role in active being. But what if this approach helps us avoid a substantialist framework in which consciousness is seen as "something" - be it a universal property or an emergent quality?

that's right. by algorithmic choice I meant a decision made on the basis of cause-and-effect relationships.
modern AI in the absence of complete data make decisions based on confidence probabilities. But nevertheless, such an approach is verified objectively. that is, the path to the solution can be tracked from start to finish.

But my wife, for example, often tells me that she wants to do this and not another, simply because she "feels" so. This always amuses me, but nevertheless it works!

what if the basis of such human behavior, unlike computer behavior, lies in the unknown for a person of his own ultimate goal, and the desire to act (make a decision without a task) is based on a person's understanding of his own finitude?

this is the development of Heidegger's ideas to modern challenges (AI and machine decision making)

And what if we give to AI a mortal incarnation, and write down their goal so that they can never know it?