I think the 3 things you described are part of the natural result of cognitive dissonance. — DingoJones

Well, in that case, I guess I would reframe my questions to be about what causes cognitive dissonance, and how can we tell when this is or isn’t occurring. But, so we’re clear, you’re agreeing that these things do occur (actions causing beliefs, beliefs causing actions, and lack of certainty of our beliefs)?

I know what cognitive dissonance is. I meant what in the OP are you attempting to explain using it? Do you not think that we have the necessary knowledge needed to explain our behaviors, either our own, or others?

Do you prefer a democratic state over a totalitarian one? — Frank Apisa

Whatever your preference is, it’s based on a belief you have. The reason you prefer one over the other is because you believe one to have better qualities than the other.

Would you guess that at least one god exists; do you guess that no gods exist; or do you not make a guess on the question? — Frank Apisa

This actually seems more complicated than simply asking if you believe in God or not.

Are you inclined to treat people the way you would like to be treated by others...or do you think that notion to be intrusive or unworthy in some way? — Frank Apisa

How you actually treat people may be different than how you believe they should be treated, and that’s what I’m getting at.

Even the use of the words "believe" or "belief" is over-used...a kind of lazy way of saying what we actually mean. — Frank Apisa

There’s no hidden meaning in what I’m saying. I’m talking strictly about beliefs, as separate from actions, feelings, etc.

Its cognitive dissonance. — DingoJones

What are you referring to here?

Human behaviour doesnt always make sense unfortunately. — DingoJones

Right, but it should be explainable, right?

That would be ‘indirectly’ in what sense? If there was no human culture/language then we’d create one via necessary interactions - we’re social beings. — I like sushi

By indirect I mean anything that cannot be learned through observation and whatever conclusions we are able to make based on those observations. If it has to be explained or taught to you it’s indirect. The way I imagine things, language would require one person (who created/developed the language) to teach it to another person in order for it to be learned. I guess the sort of gray area would be gesturing to an object while making a specific noise. If you did that, I could probably figure out that the noise you’re making is referring to the object you’re pointing at. I don’t know if I would count that as teaching or not. If it doesn’t, then I suppose words could be learned that referred to physical objects capable of being perceived, but abstract thought would remain concealed from one another. Culture is a vague term in my opinion, and encompasses many different processes(?). Certain parts that make up culture may be able to be developed, but nothing as complex as what we
have today.

In the broader sense you’re talking about I don’t see how ‘feeling’ and ‘beliefs’ aren’t part of behavior. A behavior necessitates a ‘feeling’/‘belief’ (albeit in a more dispassionate predictive fashion for entities like insects). — I like sushi

Because behavior is generally defined as observable. You can’t deduce my beliefs/feelings by only observing my actions. There are beliefs and feelings that do not necessitate action. Also, the same action or behavior can have different causes. I may eat because I’m hungry, or because I’m depressed, and you may not be able to tell the difference.

You’re saying that as we become bored or frustrated we seek out opposite lifestyles/beliefs/objects, etc. This may be true, but if/when it is, it’s because novelty is involved. But not all opposites are novel, and not all novelties are opposite. Let’s say I’m a Theist and become bored/frustrated with that belief/lifestyle. I then become an Atheist (which is both novel and opposite). But then I become bored/frustrated with Atheism as well. What then? Theism is still opposite, but is no longer novel. If I choose solely based on what is opposite, then I will be stuck in an endless cycle reverting back to Theism/Atheism. I’m saying that we choose novelty first, and it’s just coincidental, or a side effect, that what is opposite is often novel. I tend to agree with Hegel’s dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This would explain how people could become Agnostics when in situations like I just described. Not only that, but there are many lifestyles/beliefs, etc. that have no opposites, yet people still make changes when they become bored/frustrated with them.

What could be more novel to a theist than atheism? — TheMadFool

Anti-theism perhaps? But I’m sure you’re being rhetorical. Either way, you seem to be unable to respond to any of my questions. But I’ll ask another one anyway. If a person is an Atheist, then becomes a Theist, is Atheism still novel?

:up:

I did mention frustration; also I'm not saying novelty is always opposite but I am saying opposites are the most novel. — TheMadFool

Maybe, but I’m not sure how to tell what is more novel. I’ve never been to Paris or Cairo. Is one more novel than the other? I have a similar problem determining what is opposite. For example, what’s the opposite of a Rubik’s cube? Also, it seems that boredom and frustration arise from opposite causes. Boredom is caused by a task being too easy, or having no task at all. Frustrating is caused by a task being too difficult, or having too many tasks. So it seems the proper aim would be somewhere in the middle, but if you’re suggesting that we seek out opposites, then a bored person would seek out frustrating tasks and vice versa.

...leading to the conclusion that there are no answers to be found there, and then giving up on the pursuit of them. — Pfhorrest

Not necessarily. They can continue searching for a refutation for nihilism.

It was doing philosophy unsuccessfully that lead them to that conclusion, sure, but the conclusion itself that they reach is that success there is not possible and striving for it is hopeless, rather than merely that it hasn't been attained yet. — Pfhorrest

How so? Can one not conclude that nihilism is true by using the same methods as non-nihilists? Also, what do you mean by success? If nihilism is true, wouldn’t discovering this truth be a success? A nihilist can be open to the discovery of new facts that could prove nihilism to be false.

What could be more novel for a slave than freedom? What could be more interesting than the exact opposite of that which bores you? — TheMadFool

That’s a rather extreme example, don’t you think? Besides, I very seriously doubt that boredom is what would make a slave want to seek freedom. I’m not saying that opposites can’t be novel, just that novelty doesn’t necessarily have to be opposite. I see very few wealthy people voluntarily choosing to become poor. I assume they do experience boredom, however, but they seek to alleviate it through other means. Probably by acquiring new toys, or going to new places, or learning new things. Regarding what is interesting, I would claim that interests tend to fall along similar categories. A physicist is more likely to also find biology interesting than say marketing. A painter would be more likely to be interested in learning a different art form.

It seems presumptive to assert that only certain “philosophies” can be harmful. Regardless I disagree that nihilism, and all that it entails, is not an attempt at discovering wisdom. It isn’t through lack of effort that people become nihilists, etc. It’s through reasonable examination of the facts, or supposed facts, of any particular field of discourse. At least when done properly it is. I would say that many of the precursors necessary to even do philosophy cause some sort of harm. Doubt, for instance, in matters deemed significant (religion, existence, etc.) can cause fear, which is a sort of harm, or at least has the potential to become harmful. The opposite of doubt, conviction, leads to similarly harmful situations, like drinking Kool-Aid from a cult leader.

Can some philosophies be harmful? — Outlander

Sure, but can’t basically everything be harmful?

I tend to agree with you, and try to limit my exposure to it. I think there are a couple points to keep in mind. One is that on an evolutionary timeframe, the ability to mass communicate is pretty recent. We haven’t had time to adapt to this new style psychologically. As a result, being constantly bombarded with “information” is mentally exhausting, and has the effect of desensitizing us to tragedy in whatever form, especially since that is the vast majority of what is consumed. The other point is that with this much access, virtually all opinions are competing with each other to become public opinion. This results in the constant mixup of facts with opinions, which in turn makes it that much harder to determine the truth of anything that is being said. The consequences of this? A combination of widespread skepticism and fanaticism, both of which are ruled by fear.

It's simply a better state of affairs. — schopenhauer1

How can any state of affairs be better if no one can experience them?

Seems to me that we seek both. As physical beings we seek physical necessities, but also “spirituality” as a hope for escape from our mere physical existence. I can’t see what need a soul would have for physical necessities.

Also, I disagree that we seek out opposite ways of life to alleviate boredom/frustration. I think we just seek novelty. If you become bored with playing the same video game every day, you just look for a new video game. If you become bored with video games altogether, you seek out other forms of entertainment.

It's just the bedrock of the axiom. It would be absurd to say that we should create people so that values exist like good and bad, thus creating the very harm that was better not to have existed in the first place! — schopenhauer1

Well, as you’re well aware, it’s all absurd. I’m not really saying we should procreate in order to continue values. The idea is that it would be better if no one existed, but “better” makes no sense without existence. Better how, and for whom?

Personally, I do not accept 1.
I do not like pain, and not liking pain keeps me safe. Therefore pain is good. — unenlightened

If pain is good, then removing pain would be bad, right? Isn’t what is actually good the fact that we seek to alleviate pain? That act is what keeps us alive, not pain.

Not suffering is ALWAYS good, and this is NOT relative to whether there are people around to know this. — schopenhauer1

I don’t think this suffices. It seems to me that in order for anything to be good or bad humans must exist in order to experience it. Otherwise why is not suffering always good? That seems like a value you decide based on your experience of life, but you have never experienced nonexistence, so maybe trying to make any claims about what is good or bad for nonexistent people is flawed. I mean, you have an opinion of what is good and bad, but your opinion is entirely dependent on existing. All moral claims necessarily depend on our existence. The nonexistent Martians in your example have no concern or concept of good and bad.

So Pinprick.. in the case of procreation, you have a chance to prevent all suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, but why would you want to prevent suffering? Why do you value preventing suffering? Presumably it would be because you believe suffering has a negative affect on those that exist. Therefore, the point of preventing suffering would be to make life better, but ending life doesn’t make life better. The solution to preventing suffering defeats the purpose of ending suffering.

@JacobPhilosophy@schopenhauer1@QuixoticAgnostic

The justification for antinatalism seems logical to me, but where I would like more input is why antinatalists value the negation of suffering more than life itself. Suffering is only relevant if life exists. Antinatalists seem to promote the end of life (extinction), which implies that they do not value life. But if you don’t value life, I don’t see how you can justify any valuation of suffering whatsoever. The only reason you would make any valuation of suffering is because of its affect on life.

I think you mean to say negative utilitarianism, unless I’m mistaken. Either way, @schopenhauer1 started a thread that probably covers what you’re asking.

Here

Well, true to what I said, you gave some reasons for why art or philosophy is pleasurable. The same applies to all higher pleasures in that they possess some qualities that afford pleasure to us. — TheMadFool

No, I did give qualities of art and philosophy, but I explained that those qualities couldn’t even be experienced individually, therefore they could not be said to be pleasurable in and of themselves. You can’t know or determine whether or not style is what makes art pleasurable. It’s inseparable from art, so there’s no way to tell if it’s inclusion in a piece of art adds any pleasure whatsoever. To prove the hypothesis that there are reasons why art is pleasurable you need to account for and control the variables. The qualities of art are the variables, and their inseparability from art prohibits you from being able to account for them.

In contrast, for higher pleasures, there usually are reasons for why they are pleasurable. For instance people may find art pleasing because of style, theme, the interplay of colors, the message contained therein, etc. — TheMadFool

I’m not convinced that’s true. If a category, like art, is pleasurable it is most likely because of the various parts that “art” contains; style, theme, etc. However, I don’t think that any one part can be said to cause pleasure, it is the combination of all the parts that make it pleasurable. I’m not even sure if it’s possible to experience these parts in isolation. A piece of art necessarily contains a style, theme, etc. You can’t experience only a style with no theme, and vice versa. I think the same holds true for any intellectual form of pleasure. Philosophy necessarily includes things like logical analysis, so it may be tempting to point to something like this as the reason it is pleasurable, but logical analysis necessarily includes content/subject matter. They’re inseparable from one another, just like all the parts that make up philosophy or art, or whatever.

The cause maybe some neurochemical phenonmenon but the reason is what triggers it. For instance, if someone derives pleasure from philosophy, the reason maybe because of the importance it gives to rationality; this reason then becomes the cause of the neurochemical phenonmenon we call pleasure. — TheMadFool

I disagree. Experiencing pleasure, or anything else is a direct consequence of what is going on in our brains, and whatever is going on in our brains is a direct consequence of whatever is going on externally (and sometimes internally as well). It’s all one big causal chain. If philosophy is pleasurable it is because doing philosophy causes certain mental states that cause the experience of pleasure. If you want to break what philosophy is into individual processes (i.e. rational analysis, abstract thought, etc.), then it may be that one, some, or the combination of all of them at once cause pleasure, but there still is no need to provide reasons. Consider pain. Would you argue that there is a reason getting cut is painful? You could claim that getting cut is painful because it punctures the skin, but that is still just a cause, and really just replacing the word cut with a synonym, so you aren’t getting any closer to some foundation or essence of pain. Pain is simply any stimuli that causes certain mental states that result in the feeling of pain. There may be many different stimuli that cause these states, but that is the only thing they have in common. Hence the conversation begins and ends there, unless you want to further pursue the evolutionary causes of why we experience these stimuli as pain.

I didn't deny others experience, but what others will experience won't be what I experience. — I-wonder

Right, but don’t you find that thought comforting? That others will still experience joy? To me all experience is meaningful, regardless of who’s doing the experiencing.

Anything I can think of as meaningful is within my consciousness, which is lost when we die. — I-wonder

I disagree with this. In a way, sure, the only experience you have necessarily requires consciousness, but is your experience the only one that is meaningful? Isn’t it meaningful that the people you love and care about are happy, or having fun, or some other pleasurable experience? Don’t you find certain concepts to be meaningful? Equality? Autonomy? Love? Didn’t these concepts exist prior to your consciousness? If so, then can’t it be expected that they will continue to exist after you die? If you have children, then you could be happy about the things you’re able to pass on to them even after you’re dead. Maybe try viewing your consciousness as a sort of medium through which you get to experience meaningful concepts, emotions, etc.

Yes, happiness is caused and hence it's perfectly reasonable to ask what it is about something that makes one happy. — TheMadFool

This is where the difference between causes/explanations and reasons is important. If you want to know the cause of happiness, I would again point to whatever’s going on in our brains we we feel happy, which would be an explanation. Whereas if you’re asking for reasons, I would have to articulate a, possibly fabricated, rationalization that happens to make sense to me personally, and in my mind justifies my feeling of happiness.

Like you said, happiness is an "effect". Why should inquiring about the cause be nonsensical? — TheMadFool

It’s not, but asking “why” isn’t asking for a cause; it’s asking for a reason.

Okay, I think I see. You’re proposing a hypothetical where ALL culture/memes are removed. — I like sushi

Well, that’s one way to achieve what I’m getting at, but it isn’t required. Basically just imagine if you were not able to learn indirectly. Others could still teach each other and learn, but you would be excluded.

Interesting thought. I don’t see how some form of cohesive culture wouldn’t come into being relatively quickly - with a generation or two. I’d love to hear a counter argument to my speculation though. — I like sushi

I’m not sure if anything resembling collective behavior could exist without memes though? I mean, maybe cooperation could be learned strictly through direct experience, or it could be innate, but if that was the case then why do all the memes that try to guide our behavior exist in the first place? To me, the fact that they exist and continue to exist shows that they must be needed. If the golden rule never existed, and no one was ever taught that it is good to treat others the way you want to be treated, would we still do so? I don’t know, I’m just rambling, but maybe even perhaps our genes are selfish as Dawkins suggests, and that memes are what cause, or at least reinforce, more altruistic/cooperative behaviors?

The root of ‘meme’ was the Greek ‘mimetic’ which means ‘imitation’. This is something all humans do instinctively I’d argue - one example being a new born (within minutes) actively tries to mimic adult facial expressions. — I like sushi

I would agree.

Adaptive behaviors adapt from an original behavior. In terms of memes, those memes that have a strong ability to latch onto human psychology - for better or worse for the human, as with the survival of genes - survive. — I like sushi

Yes, when we’re dealing strictly with behavior, but we can’t imitate internal states like beliefs or feelings. So I’m not sure if we could develop systems based on beliefs (religion, politics, morality, etc.). We would be able to draw our own conclusions based on our own personal observations and experiences, but we couldn’t share our conclusions with others without memes, and there’s no guarantee we would all draw the same conclusions.

Anyway, if all memes disappeared we’d make new ones through human error and misunderstanding. We’d create a new language - although some would argue language isn’t ‘innate’. — I like sushi

I don’t know how we could if we weren’t able to teach each other. We may have the genetic predisposition to represent objects, thoughts, etc. with sounds, but not necessarily the same sounds. So how would I know what your sounds meant unless you somehow taught me? All I can do is observe you making sounds, but I don’t know what can be deduced from that.

Parents would try and keep their children safe (instinctually protect them) and children would copy their parents and actively test them by doing something and observing their parents reaction (for signs of dis/approval). — I like sushi

I can agree with this.

Like you pointed out, maybe if something makes one feel pleasure then, that's all there is to it; it may not be possible to pin down what about that something causes one's pleasure. — TheMadFool

I guess to elaborate a bit, I would say that it’s the effect of the “something” that makes it pleasurable; the effect being that it stimulates your brain in a particular way. And this would be true of all pleasures; high or low.

However, note that there's always something that causes (gives) pleasure. Pleasure can't be experienced without engaging in something. I mean I can't simply decide one fine day that I want to feel pleasure and by that desire alone start experiencing pleasure. — TheMadFool

Right, but anything can be pleasurable if it stimulates your brain in a particular way. I think asking why something stimulates your brain in this way is a nonsensical question akin to asking why hydrogen and oxygen molecules can combine to form water. That something stimulates your brain in a particular way is an irreducible fact. As you mention, there is also no choice in the matter of whether something is or isn’t pleasurable, it’s simply an automatic reaction that can’t be helped. The caveat being that pleasurable objects can be paired with positive punishment, which if done repeatedly, results in the once pleasurable object becoming associated with suffering, which causes it to no longer be viewed as pleasurable, but as a trigger.

Now you’ve shifted the discussion to the disproved position of the tabla rasa (empty slate). — I like sushi

No. I’m not a proponent of tabula rasa. I’m not denying instinct, or any other predisposition we are born with.

If someone is born and denied sensory experience or help they certainly won’t go far and die quickly. That has very little to do with memes and more to do with basic sustenance. — I like sushi

Nor am I denying sensory experience or helping. I’m denying specifically anything that was intentionally taught to me be another human being, either individually via parenting, etc.; or collectively via culture, religion, etc.

You seem to be equates memes with experience. — I like sushi

Nope. I’m basically equating memes with anything learned indirectly.

The point here being that there is a latent capacity, a genetic predisposition, that allow adaptive behaviors. — I like sushi

I agree, but I would posit that many adaptive behaviors are learned. An infant has to be taught not to wonder into traffic, how to swim, fire safety, home safety, etc. I’m willing to concede that IF an infant was able to survive long enough to develop the ability to cognitively understand things like causation, then some of the adaptive behaviors could be figured out via experience, or trial and error, or some other such method.

Our genes allow us to have memes, but our memes don’t allow us to have genes. — I like sushi

Well, I get what you’re saying, but perhaps not. If I try to imagine myself as being born and never gaining any advantage from memes, as I’ve loosely described them, I’m not sure I would live long enough to reproduce, or maybe not even know how to reproduce. Therefore, if I want to pass on my genes, memes are essential. So in a way memes are needed to pass on our genes.

Nevertheless, you’re certainly right that the ability to even comprehend, or understand, or express memes in any way is entirely dependent on our genes.

So what? What do you conclude from that?

It certainly does not mean that pleasure is infinite, nor even infinitely reducible. — A Seagull

Not to speak for Fool, but I would conclude that there simply is no essence of pleasure. IOW’s it can’t be reduced at all. It is what it is.

For the latter, we need to think deep and hard for we're always in unmapped territory. — TheMadFool

Or because we are desperately trying to justify our choices, feelings, etc. after the fact. We’re simply making it up as we go, because we’re unable to access the true causes of our actions, beliefs, etc. We aren’t aware of the cause (what our brain is doing), but we are aware of the effect (subjective experience X). It seems that our brains are wired to seek causes, but since the cause lies outside our perception, we seek elsewhere. I think the lengths we will go to justify our actions, etc. are apparent to anyone paying attention.

@TheMadFool

I think the issue here is subjectivity. If I were able to give you an objective, physical, explanation of why X is pleasurable, I think it would end the regress. An example of this type of explanation would be to explain that your brain reacts in a specific way to a specific stimuli which causes the subjective experience of pleasure. Of course, we’re not able to give these types of explanations at this time because we aren’t aware of what our brains are doing physically. And it is that reason that when we are asked for an explanation that we just point to some other quality of the object. One the one hand we give the wrong answer, but on the other hand, asking “why” doesn’t make sense. We should instead ask “how.”

If you think about it, comparing memes to genes amounts to breathing life into the former - it creates an image of memes as living entities with the purpose to copy themselves ASAP onto the next available brain. Is this what you had in mind? — TheMadFool

Not really. I always thought memes were simply things other than genes that are passed down from generation to generation. This could be your mom’s recipe for meatloaf, how to throw a curveball, language, etc. Basically anything that is taught and learned. Maybe I’m wrong in calling information passed down from generation to generation memes, but I’d like to discuss it regardless. So, my thought was that at this point in time the skills that we learn seem to what is most necessary for our survival. For example, a person can be born with any number of physical and/or mental disabilities, which would have been a death sentence for our ancestors, but now, thanks to modern medicine, psychology, etc. that person can live much longer, and possibly even procreate. Even if the physical act of sex is impossible due to whatever disability the person has, the person can still pass on his/her DNA to an offspring using various medical fertilization techniques.

Another way of thinking about this would be to say that our genetic inheritance can no longer cause us to be evolutionarily unfit. What would make us unfit would be if somehow we failed to pass on our knowledge of science, medicine, etc.

Well, if ending suffering in and of itself is the only goal, then I guess this checks out. It just seems that there must be some additional motive for wanting to end suffering, like so that we can have a better life. If you’re not concerned with valuing life, I don’t understand why you would value ending suffering. I’m also not sure why you would value life less than ending suffering if that is your stance.

So one of my questions is whether any socio-economic system is good for the individual, since the individual is essentially used as labor by said system. — schopenhauer1

I would say yes for those individuals who are not opposed to being used for labor. I would further say that the majority of people would fall under this category. If not, then I imagine there would be far more cries for revolting against the system. Also, how exactly do the leaders fit into this system? I’m not sure if the people essentially driving the system can also logically be driven by it. Either way, the leaders of said systems surely feel that the system is good for them, since it enables them to sit at the top and rake in the profits.

1) Are there discernible goals societies want from individuals? — schopenhauer1

Sure, to obey authority. The individual goals of the person(s) in charge may change from election to election, or even day to day depending on the stability of the leader(s), but the citizens are always expected to obey.

2) What are the social controls in place to make this happen? — schopenhauer1

Whatever personality traits the leader(s) possess. They use whatever tools they have available to appeal to the masses in order to gain/maintain election. Some leaders adhere to their promises (goals) better than others, but generally it is safe to renege on your promises once you are in office, as any serious threat or upheaval from the masses depends entirely on their being informed. And guess who gets to control the information...?

3) Are society's goals at odds with the interests/rights of the individual? — schopenhauer1

Sometimes. Some (most?) people don’t mind being led by an authority figure, perhaps regardless of his/her corruption. Authority provides answers, guidance, and comfort, and doesn’t require thinking for yourself. Also, the “truth” or validity of the authority figures claims need not be accurate or correct, because, again, the majority of the masses simply accept whatever position without thinking.

So.. I don't know what you're getting at honestly. — schopenhauer1

I’m saying that if Antinatalism is to be considered a type of morality, then it must seek to maintain morality. Otherwise it seeks it’s own demise by destroying the basis for morality (human life). I’m not saying anyone should or should not do anything. I’m just saying that all types of morality seek to increase moral behavior so that life is “good” or “better” in some way. Antinatalism, by seeking the extinction of humans, cannot actually increase moral behavior, or make life better in any way. Suppose I want to become the world’s greatest football player. If in order to achieve my goal I kill every other football player so that by default I would be the best football player alive, I still haven’t achieved my goal, because if there are no other football players, then it is impossible to actually play football. I’ve eliminated the game itself. I see Antinatalism doing this in regards to its relationship with morality.

Therefore, this

Winning the game would be preventing all suffering. If no one existed, no one suffers. — schopenhauer1

isn’t true. You’ve eliminated the game itself, so you can’t even play it.