Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I just wouldn't call myself a relativist. Relativism rests on the archaic representational belief that form mirrors/echoes content (i.e. a person's behavior/beliefs represent some interior kernel or self). For relativists, there is no longer any objective or superior ideal, but every person's exterior corresponds to an interior that is unique but equally valid. This is the simple pluralist/democratic philosophy.

This is not what I believe. I believe that people's opinions/behaviors correspond to no interior self; I believe that the interior self is an illusion. I think that people's behaviors are consequences, or effects, of an amalgamation of cultural factors and circumstances. Everything can be explained materially. There are no interior essences or selves. There are, however, individual conscious organisms who congeal into subjects according to certain material conditions.

Can you define interior/exterior here? is it like idealist/ materialist?

 

[Einherjar86]

To an extent, yes.

Exterior simply refers to manifest behavior and "beliefs" (i.e. what people say they believe, which really are no more than actions involving utterances). Interior is a nearly obsolete term that appeals to a consistent and corresponding "self" that is the source, so to speak, of all an individual says or does. Many theorists today criticize and/or question the notion of the interior self. It was long believed that such a self actually existed and communicated, or expressed, itself to others via exterior means (words, gestures, etc.). Many critics now believe that the interior self is mostly an illusion of consciousness. Consciousness, being an emergent phenomenon that allows us to reflect on ourselves and our own ability to think, isn't the subsequent result of an internal self, but merely the manifestation, or appearing, of a congealed subject that comes about in such a way due to so many external material factors.

The old parallel between exterior form and interior content/essence, has been transposed in today's critical culture; the original "essence" that we once attributed to a pristine, consistent "self" has now been relegated to the exterior, not as a consistent component of self but as a "subject," something molded by material conditions.

 

[Dak]

So you can't refer to an exterior without an interior. It merely "is".

Consciousness, being an emergent phenomenon that allows us to reflect on ourselves and our own ability to think, isn't the subsequent result of an internal self, but merely the manifestation, or appearing, of a congealed subject that comes about in such a way due to so many external material factors.

I find this utterly absurd, and I've said so before. Obviously people have to react to the conditions they face: IE if it's cold and I want to live I put on more clothes, whether or not I like the weather or the subsequent clothing layering, etc. But that doesn't mean there isn't a foundational self. You can have two people with essentially identical "external material factors", process and respond entirely differently.

Edit: Nothing influences us more than our biology, so to say gender isn't related to it is also absurd.

 

[Einherjar86]

I find this utterly absurd, and I've said so before. Obviously people have to react to the conditions they face: IE if it's cold and I want to live I put on more clothes, whether or not I like the weather or the subsequent clothing layering, etc. But that doesn't mean there isn't a foundational self. You can have two people with essentially identical "external material factors", process and respond entirely differently.

As we've said before, causality is the argument that the exact same material conditions will yield the exact same results. That cannot be proven, and thus it is entirely plausible that two people in the exact same material conditions will behave differently. You've made an argument that relies on causality.

Edit: Nothing influences more than our biology, so to say gender isn't related to it is also absurd.

It's not absurd; stop being so "rigid."

Gender is an identificatory process that is influenced more by social context and performative interaction than biology. This is typically how it's studied.

 

[Dak]

As we've said before, causality is the argument that the exact same material conditions will yield the exact same results. That cannot be proven, and thus it is entirely plausible that two people in the exact same material conditions will behave differently. You've made an argument that relies on causality.

That's completely ignoring the point. Even if they react differently, that doesn't cover the why of it. There's more at work than just a confluence of past and present stimuli.

It's not absurd; stop being so "rigid."

Gender is an identificatory process that is influenced more by social context and performative interaction than biology. This is typically how it's studied.

Right, it's primarily studied as a social science, more or less removed from biological considerations. No wonder there's little to be found in connection. It's like deciding guns cause crime. This constant top-down perspective on everything is why the social "sciences" are in an abysmal state.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's completely ignoring the point. Even if they react differently, that doesn't cover the why of it. There's more at work than just a confluence of past and present stimuli.

How is it ignoring the point? Why must the "why" be constituted by an internal self? How are you doing anything more than appealing to a quasi-mystical interiority that doesn't really exist? And how do you prove that it does...?

Right, it's primarily studied as a social science, more or less removed from biological considerations. No wonder there's little to be found in connection. It's like deciding guns cause crime. This constant top-down perspective on everything is why the social "sciences" are in an abysmal state.

That's not why they're in an abysmal state Dak; and furthermore, they haven't removed themselves from biology, but rather they've tried to distinguish gender from the natural sciences. The effort to separate gender studies from traditional science has been to de-naturalize gender identification. You have to consider the historical implications. There is no reason to assume that reproduction and sexual biology should specify or correspond to gender identification. Such a belief suggests that there is a "natural" way to identify oneself, and this is quite simply how prejudicial categories and subjectification begin.

 

[Dak]

How is it ignoring the point? Why must the "why" be constituted by an internal self? How are you doing anything more than appealing to a quasi-mystical interiority that doesn't really exist? And how do you prove that it does...?

Why does it have to be mystical? Can you prove consciousness? Or do we simply assume it like gravity, because we see it's effects?

That's not why they're in an abysmal state Dak; and furthermore, they haven't removed themselves from biology, but rather they've tried to distinguish gender from the natural sciences. The effort to separate gender studies from traditional science has been to de-naturalize gender identification. You have to consider the historical implications. There is no reason to assume that reproduction and sexual biology should specify or correspond to gender identification. Such a belief suggests that there is a "natural" way to identify oneself, and this is quite simply how prejudicial categories and subjectification begin.

I disagree. People form prejudices based on any number of things which can have nothing "natural" about them. The natural argument is then used as a rationality in some cases. I'm not, of course, referring only to sexual biology or sexual attraction, but that does play a significant part. We (as humans) created the label "gender" as well as the set of actions/beliefs/etc that it is assigned to, and so obviously it doesn't "naturally" correspond to anything.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why does it have to be mystical?

Because it's all material; you're arguing that a consistent self persists despite material causes, and this is a mystical/spiritual belief.

I disagree. People form prejudices based on any number of things which can have nothing "natural" about them. The natural argument is then used as a rationality in some cases. I'm not, of course, referring only to sexual biology or sexual attraction, but that does play a significant part. We (as humans) created the label "gender" as well as the set of actions/beliefs/etc that it is assigned to, and so obviously it doesn't "naturally" correspond to anything.

I just said that prejudices aren't natural; naturalization is the way people rationalize prejudice, as you also repeated. You, on the other hand, are trying to do exactly the opposite of what you're saying, but you don't seem to think so. You're trying to naturalize gender by reducing it to some degree of masculinity or femininity, and by assuming that some consistent interior self pre-exists any external or material factors. You're saying one thing and doing another.

 

[Dak]

Because it's all material; you're arguing that a consistent self persists despite material causes, and this is a mystical/spiritual belief.


I just said that prejudices aren't natural; naturalization is the way people rationalize prejudice, as you also repeated. You, on the other hand, are trying to do exactly the opposite of what you're saying, but you don't seem to think so. You're trying to naturalize gender by reducing it to some degree of masculinity or femininity, and by assuming that some consistent interior self pre-exists any external or material factors. You're saying one thing and doing another.

I didn't say anything about pre-existing material factors. That would suggest there's a bunch of souls or whatever you want to call it floating in some holding area until they get assigned to a body. The internal self, while a unique compilation, is still a compilation of previous genetic information just like the phenotypical attributes, passed on from the parents. I'm specifically disputing the "blank slate" theory.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't understand a lot of what you're saying. How do you get "souls" from pre-existing material factors? How do genes and internal bodily factors precede the material? They are the material; you're made out of matter.

There is nothing that persists eternally (as in, your entire life) and consistently despite material conditions. Your understanding of all human organisms possessing an interior kernel that somehow prevails despite any material conditions is simply illusory. There is nothing but the material. If anyone is appealing to free-floating souls, it's you.

EDIT: I think you keep misinterpreting me; I said you were talking about an internal self that pre-exists any material factors. I am saying that matter always pre-exists the self, but this doesn't mean in the form of a "soul." I'm not talking about souls/spirits, or anything of the sort. Finally, that thing we take to be a "self" is actually nothing more than the emergent consequence of material conditions. There is nothing central, no kernel or knot at the center of an organism that withstands material conditions. Simply put, that thing we intuit or interpret as a self is nothing more than material conditions.

 

[Dak]

Apparently we are misinterpreting each other

To try and be more specific: When meiosis occurs, we get a unique combination of genetic factors present in the parents. We understand how this relates in regards to appearance and "Carrying" traits that do not manifest. I'm submitting that the "self" is also formulated by this process. Just as you get a variety of genetic information that causes you to have hair like your granddads, eyes like your moms, and a voice like your dads, you also get a random configuration of things that create a core personality/self/etc, which is inherited like everything else.

"Withstanding material conditions" is too vague for me to approach.

 

[Einherjar86]

By "withstand" I meant that the self is able to persist, or remain consistent, despite changing material conditions. I don't really think this is the case, even though we might not be able to consciously determine or discern how we're changing. Our bodies are merely material factors among others. There is no self that exists prior to, and despite of, material conditions, simply because what we think is a self is just matter; nothing more.

This idea of a core self, or personality, is a form of representation. Genes certainly play some role in what we are; but genes are still material. Your genes are material conditions, which are amalgamations of previous organisms, and these are in turn influenced by environmental conditions, and so on. There isn't a "self" anywhere to be found; there is a material subject that gives the impression of self-hood because this is how we represent our existence to ourselves. Nothing in any of this can be reduced to a core self.

 

[Dak]

I think you are talking yourself in circles on this.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's necessary when you relentlessly simplify complicated situations.

 

[Dak]

It's necessary when you relentlessly simplify complicated situations.

If you are merely disputing Platonic Dualism I don't really have a disagreement. I don't think you are stopping there though.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

You're both a bit verbose at times. Dak does over simplify and Ein gets a little jargony.

 

[Einherjar86]

If you are merely disputing Platonic Dualism I don't really have a disagreement. I don't think you are stopping there though.

I don't think I am either. I want to hear your argument for an interior self; nothing you've said disputes that humans are simply matter. An interior self, as you keep promoting it, implies the persistence of a soul, or consistent entity that is "David" despite material conditions and environments. I'm saying that what we call "David" is nothing more than one of infinite material circumstances. The appearance of a self is an illusion brought about by consciousness.

EDIT: in other news, a good write-up on Nick Bostrom, human extinctions, and the dangers of AI...

To understand why an AI might be dangerous, you have to avoid anthropomorphising it. When you ask yourself what it might do in a particular situation, you can’t answer by proxy. You can't picture a super-smart version of yourself floating above the situation. Human cognition is only one species of intelligence, one with built-in impulses like empathy that colour the way we see the world, and limit what we are willing to do to accomplish our goals. But these biochemical impulses aren’t essential components of intelligence. They’re incidental software applications, installed by aeons of evolution and culture. Bostrom told me that it’s best to think of an AI as a primordial force of nature, like a star system or a hurricane — something strong, but indifferent. If its goal is to win at chess, an AI is going to model chess moves, make predictions about their success, and select its actions accordingly. It’s going to be ruthless in achieving its goal, but within a limited domain: the chessboard. But if your AI is choosing its actions in a larger domain, like the physical world, you need to be very specific about the goals you give it.

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/ross-andersen-human-extinction/

 

[Matt]

You're both a bit verbose at times. Dak does over simplify and Ein gets a little jargony.

That is the thing that annoys me most when debating with you, Dak. Most times you seem to do it on purpose just to be a jerk, lol. I haven't been following this conversation at all though so I have no opinion on it.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

So what, he's kind of a "know it all", get used to it. Most people here have.

 

[Dak]

Being a know-it-all is quite a mischaracterization. There is an infinite amount of stuff I don't know, and I specifically stay quiet in conversations where I "haven't the foggiest", so you are getting a heavily filtered exposure to me. Standard INTJ issue. Also, it's pretty difficult to be verbose and to overly simplify. I don't think I have that capability.

@ Ein: Frankly I think there's much more to it than I understand, and I think [you] are oversimplifying it, in the same way we once had a much larger list of "vestigials" than we do now.