[Sivad]

Empathy only gets one so far, I can't literally see through your eyes, feel your pain or think your thoughts.

In other words, when it comes right down to it, fuck altruism. Why am I not surprised this fucking guy is randroid.

[RhetoricThug]

Our language is deeply rooted in dualism, so it's difficult to explain those concepts as opinion.

Very true... ^Great post BJ!

Is it a performative contradiction to say: "I am not an individual"? Who is the "I" if not an individual? Should it have been "we" instead? Or one of these new-fangled pronouns that the crazy people invented?

Idiot - Etymology. Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill", "a private citizen", "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private", "one's own").

So if you believe you're an individual, I guess you're an idiot.

The printed "I" is not the same as the dynamic SELF (or ego) image we abstract from BEING present. The printed "I" is a static container or an artificial overlay. The self is awareness (all components of consciousness), and the SELF as a figure is defined by its ground or environment. If you change the environment, you change the figure (along with its conceptual expression). Marshall McLuhan argued that this is what our communication technologies (extension of our sensorium) as environmental processes do to the human psyche when they envelope our self-image. Communication technologies create new modes of awareness and reconfigure our perceptual centers.

new-fangled pronouns that the crazy people invented?

Hence why we wonder if biological sex is a social construct. See, social constructs depend on the structure of words. Whereas biological sex is not a new overlay or communication device, it's present in nature. So you see, identity is a malleable thing and it changes when people imagine change.

Technological determinists would say that technology changes people, but we must remember that the human mind is a first mover, and that technology is an extension of our BEING. The words you use to define yourSELF are prosthetic communication devices, they structure society, law & order. Nonetheless, the concept of individuality is an illusion, it is a response to our psycho-social environment and it is driven by our primal instinct to adapt and survive.

Side note: And we wonder why the rise of "simulation theory" has coincided with the diffusion of integrated computer systems. Of course, the actual simulation theory does involve a deeper understanding of physical systems... I just think it's funny how young people play video games and end up saying something like "life's a simulation bro."

You'reWe're a field of energy in a temporary form that believes it is separate.

See, changing it makes us feel more together.

[SolarCross]

In other words, when it comes right down to it, fuck altruism. Why am I not surprised this fucking guy is randroid.

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

Also strawman, I said nothing against altruism.

[RhetoricThug]

Also strawman, I said nothing against altruism.

@Bulaba Jones mentioned how dualism very active in our language.

@foxdemon said- transcend polemics and offer a broader perspective.

Polemics are fueled by dualism. I've noticed an uptick in short responses (could be the smartphone interface) that involve "you're wrong, I'm right," or "logical fallacy ABCDEFG." Such responses are conceptual tools we deploy in order to avoid having a serious and honest discussion. After-all, how can one be so absolute, near-sided, and harbor so much hate?

As an empirical model and quick example:

Empathy only gets one so far, I can't literally see through your eyes, feel your pain or think your thoughts.

In other words, when it comes right down to it, fuck altruism. Why am I not surprised this fucking guy is randroid.

^Both responses lack conscientiousness. These blunt and often short-handed comments quickly seek to degrade or frame the other poster's perspective, haphazardly. Furthermore, the degree of sarcasm afforded on PoFo is indicative of underlying personality traits. Sarcasm is a fantastic form of humor (don't get me wrong), but when it becomes a subconscious routine or defense mechanism, it's most likely a projected form of inner psychological conflict (hence why bots and trolls use sarcasm when gas-lighting, it can be a subtle yet effective form of psychological manipulation). Inner conflicts or psychoneuroses typically revolve around splitting [1]. This can occur when a personality, aligned with an inner conflict, injects black-and-white thinking into discussion. Splitting uses language to ritualistically separate oneself from the whole, and a personality engaged in splitting will often cite various philosophies to line a point of view with some validity.

[1] Splitting, Psychology
Splitting (also called black and white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.

On a slightly different note... I think a person's social identity is the ultimate straw man.

Straw man, an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.

"We prefer to compose human beings into bombs and explode political and social entities. Much more fun." -Marshall McLuhan

Group dynamics usurp individuality, and a group conflict is easier to manage and propagandize. We come up with all kinds of ways to divide and rule the human family, and although it's trivial and largely irrational, we continue to wrestle with strawman which preside over an intentionally misrepresented power struggle. From an anthropological perspective, humanity is fundamentally unified by the candle (sun) and cradle (earth) we dwell in. But it's our collective Babble that has baffled the mind, and forced sons and daughters to fight one another. There's no substance or integrity in our plight. The poverty of power will imprison and impoverish humanity. If the Noogenesis begins with ONE, its exodus must end with ONE.

[SolarCross]

You can say I am an illusion but for me there isn't anything else, hypothetical illusion or not, I am experiencing me but I am not experiencing you except for what I can see of you which at present is just some text on a screen. If I apply Descartes' radical doubt then there is nothing about the universe outside of my experience of my own self that I truthfully can say is not an illusion except for myself, "I think therefore I am". The self in fact is the only thing definitely real.

So far we have 4 individuals vs 2 not-individuals, obviously this isn't representative of anything because of the tiny sample size and the fact that pofo is a haunt for profoundly abnormal and depraved people, however I am still surprised the not-individual votes were so relatively many. Superficially it seems to me that the collectivist doesn't need to deny the individual to get his collectivism; individuals collaborate with other individuals all the time for entirely self-interested reasons so why would a collectivist need to deny the reality of the individual? There must be something profoundly different between ordinary human collaborations (teams, families, clans, tribes, nations even empires) and the collective of the collectivists but what is it exactly?

[Pants-of-dog]

So far we have 4 individuals vs 2 not-individuals, obviously this isn't representative of anything because of the tiny sample size and the fact that pofo is a haunt for profoundly abnormal and depraved people, however I am still surprised the not-individual votes were so relatively many.

I do not find it surprising that two people voted no.

There are many possible reasons why someone would vote that way.

Superficially it seems to me that the collectivist doesn't need to deny the individual to get his collectivism; individuals collaborate with other individuals all the time for entirely self-interested reasons so why would a collectivist need to deny the reality of the individual?

This is true....

There must be something profoundly different between ordinary human collaborations (teams, families, clans, tribes, nations even empires) and the collective of the collectivists but what is it exactly? :?:

But this is not.

This seems like a strawman based on your erroneous assumptions about collectivism and the people who voted no.

For example, your assumption that people voted no because they are collectivists is probably wrong.

[SolarCross]

But this is not.

This seems like a strawman based on your erroneous assumptions about collectivism and the people who voted no.

For example, your assumption that people voted no because they are collectivists is probably wrong.

Putting aside the reasons for why some people may have voted no lets look at my "erroneous assumptions" about collectivism. Okay I am not a collectivist or a collective so in fairness there is no particular reason why I should have correct ideas about something with which I have no experience, consequently it is incumbent on those that are collectivist to explain what they are to others such as myself. In this thread the voice of the collectivist appeared in the form of @Saeko and it/they said:

If people are still thinking of themselves as individuals, then you don't have collectivism.

and when I asked:
"Do people need to believe they are not individuals for collectivism to work?"
@Saeko replied "yes".

Would you disagree with @Saeko and why?

[Saeko]

Empathy only gets one so far, I can't literally see through your eyes, feel your pain or think your thoughts. If you eat, I am not nourished. Your defeat is painful for you, but your defeat for me might be delicious. Whether or not we are composed of energy or temporary it remains that the actual experience of life shows up the lie of collectivism.

You'd literally have to have less than two neurons to believe the lie of individualism.

[SolarCross]

You'd literally have to have less than two neurons to believe the lie of individualism.

Even allowing for hyperbole this is clearly a false (and baseless) assertion.

[Pants-of-dog]

Putting aside the reasons for why some people may have voted no lets look at my "erroneous assumptions" about collectivism. Okay I am not a collectivist or a collective so in fairness there is no particular reason why I should have correct ideas about something with which I have no experience, consequently it is incumbent on those that are collectivist to explain what they are to others such as myself.

Not necessarily. You could, for example, educate yourself.

In this thread the voice of the collectivist appeared in the form of @Saeko and it/they said:



and when I asked:
"Do people need to believe they are not individuals for collectivism to work?"
@Saeko replied "yes".

Would you disagree with @Saeko and why?

She also claimed to be a sentient swarm of spiders. It might be a good idea to ask yourself if she is trolling you.

If she is being serious, then I would need more than a single word from her in order to analyse her ideas critically.

[SolarCross]

Not necessarily. You could, for example, educate yourself.

Educate myself by asking a collectivist, as I said. Derp.

Are you a collectivist?

[Pants-of-dog]

Educate myself by asking a collectivist, as I said. Derp.

Are you a collectivist?

That would depend on the defintion of a collectivist.

Using the definitions here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
I would say that I fit some of the definitions sometimes, while other times, I am decidedly not collectivist.

I would argue that everyone is both an individualist and a collectivist and that this switches according to context.

[RhetoricThug]

So far we have 4 individuals vs 2 not-individuals

I voted other.

Superficially it seems to me that the collectivist doesn't need to deny the individual to get his collectivism; individuals collaborate with other individuals all the time for entirely self-interested reasons so why would a collectivist need to deny the reality of the individual? There must be something profoundly different between ordinary human collaborations (teams, families, clans, tribes, nations even empires) and the collective of the collectivists but what is it exactly? :?:

The only thing that is superficial here is the language you're using to describe a binary system. I see, you like to play word ping-pong with the opposite side of your perspective.

I would argue that everyone is both an individualist and a collectivist and that this switches according to context.

Duh. It's a personality spectrum.

[Saeko]

Even allowing for hyperbole this is clearly a false (and baseless) assertion.

Alright then, please point out which neuron in your brain is "you". I'll wait.

[SolarCross]

Alright then, please point out which neuron in your brain is "you". I'll wait.

I am not a neuron obviously. Any other retarded requests? Also who is the "I" that is waiting?

I just stubbed my toe by the way, but then you already could feel that right?

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross

Yes, you are a neuron.

In fact, your personality and consciousness, i.e. the person with whom people interact, is based in your brain.

And your brain is a collective of neurons.

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross

Yes, you are a neuron.

In fact, your personality and consciousness, i.e. the person with whom people interact, is based in your brain.

And your brain is a collective of neurons.

No I am not a neuron, that is like saying a mountain is an atom.

You had better not drive tonight POD because I have been chugging cheap red wine all night so you are now pretty drunk.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, you are a neuron.

And another one.

And another one, and another one, and another one, etc.

Much like a mountain is an atom, as well as millions of other atoms.

In both of these cases, the identity is not formed by a single thing, but by a collective of things. Which actually supports @Saeko‘s point.

But here is the interesting bit.

You are not only an agggregate of neurons, but if we took all the neurons in your brain and removed them from your body, poured them in a blender and whipped them all up, you would no longer be you.

So you are not merely a collective of neurons, but also, you are a very specific pattern of neurons.

[SolarCross]

Yes, you are a neuron.

And another one.

And another one, and another one, and another one, etc.

Much like a mountain is an atom, as well as millions of other atoms.

In both of these cases, the identity is not formed by a single thing, but by a collective of things. Which actually supports @Saeko‘s point.

But here is the interesting bit.

You are not only an agggregate of neurons, but if we took all the neurons in your brain and removed them from your body, poured them in a blender and whipped them all up, you would no longer be you.

So you are not merely a collective of neurons, but also, you are a very specific pattern of neurons.

A pattern of neurons is not a neuron. A computer is made up of transistors but it is not a transistor, it has transistors but it is not a transistor. All this is a tangent though because regardless of whether a soul is made up of neurons or transistors that experiencing entity is an individual not a not-individual.

[Pants-of-dog]

A pattern of neurons is not a neuron. A computer is made up of transistors but it is not a transistor, it has transistors but it is not a transistor. All this is a tangent though because regardless of whether a soul is made up of neurons or transistors that experiencing entity is an individual not a not-individual.

Are you saying that you have neurons?

In other words, are you postulating the existence of a soul that can exist independently of the brain and that the soul has ownership of the body?

Because that is non-scientific.

People who have brain damage often have different personalities afterward. In a very real sense, your personality and consciousness are your brain.

Anyway, you are a neuron. And you are more than that at the same time.

You are a collective of neurons. And you are more than that at the same time.

You are a specific relationship of neurons. And you are more than that at the same time.

Like the hypothetical brain damaged person, your brain also changes through your life. It just changes because you are learning and growing and changing, not because of brain trauma.

So, you (like everyone else) are an ever changing patterned collective of neurons and others cells.