Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote: This is our fundamental disagreement on the concept of reality. I believe reality exists, and it appears that you don't.

I definitely believe that reality exists.  What I am less certain about is that my current understanding of it is 100% absolutely correct.

Statements about the world aren't correct (reality) because I believe them. They are right or wrong regardless of what I believe.

Who makes those determinations of correctness?  Often it's the people who have power in society, and those people are often totally wrong, but they can nevertheless shape peoples' perceptions of reality for decades or even centuries.

If you want to believe that a slave is free simply because he thinks it that's fine. That's bizarre and incorrect, and it's easily provable that it's wrong.

How can you prove that a person's subjective experience is wrong?  If a person enjoys picking cotton and likes the feel of chains on his wrists and ankles and enjoys being mistreated, then being a slave might be exactly what he thinks of when he thinks of real freedom.  On what basis would you say that his concept of freedom is wrong just because he contemplates freedom in totally different terms than you do?

I believed in Santa when I was five. Now I don't. That's not proof of either, but it is proof that I was wrong at one point and right in another.

Did you believe that you were right about Santa when you were five?  How is the certainty that you felt then different from the certainty that you feel now?

Santa exists or doesn't regardless of what I believe. Your beliefs don't change reality. To think that you must not believe in the concept of reality, which means you really don't even believe that something exists for your mind to somehow create.

How did this idea fit into your worldview when you were a religious person?

MT....is the slave free because he thinks he is? Can a slave be free? If someone is free...can they be a slave?

Thinking about the matter more broadly, aren't we all slaves to gravity and our own mortality?  Wouldn't a truly free person need to free himself of the constraints of gravity and be immortal?  Freedom has to be a relative thing or otherwise you can find a flaw in any experience of freedom.

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote: This is our fundamental disagreement on the concept of reality. I believe reality exists, and it appears that you don't.

I definitely believe that reality exists.  What I am less certain about is that my current understanding of it is 100% absolutely correct. Does your uncertainty imply that my certainty about something or any certainty is foolish?

Statements about the world aren't correct (reality) because I believe them. They are right or wrong regardless of what I believe.

Who makes those determinations of correctness?  Often it's the people who have power in society, and those people are often totally wrong, but they can nevertheless shape peoples' perceptions of reality for decades or even centuries. Is a perception of reality the same as reality? If I think I'm the smartest person on the forum does that mean I truly am, provided there is an objective measure of...smartness?

If you want to believe that a slave is free simply because he thinks it that's fine. That's bizarre and incorrect, and it's easily provable that it's wrong.

How can you prove that a person's subjective experience is wrong? I can't. We're not talking about subjectivity, or at least I'm not. That's the disagreement. You are saying freedom and slavery are subjective and I'm saying they're objective. The slave is not free because he doesn't have a choice. It doesn't matter what he likes. It only matters if he has a choice which he does not. Therefore he isn't free. You are re-defining freedom to mean liking or enjoying what you are experiencing.  If a person enjoys picking cotton and likes the feel of chains on his wrists and ankles and enjoys being mistreated, then being a slave might be exactly what he thinks of when he thinks of real freedom.  On what basis would you say that his concept of freedom is wrong just because he contemplates freedom in totally different terms than you do?

I believed in Santa when I was five. Now I don't. That's not proof of either, but it is proof that I was wrong at one point and right in another.

Did you believe that you were right about Santa when you were five?  How is the certainty that you felt then different from the certainty that you feel now? For the record I never believed in Santa. If I did, I imagine the certainty would have felt the same. I would still have been wrong then, regardless of how it felt. Wait. You don't believe in Santa do you.........

Santa exists or doesn't regardless of what I believe. Your beliefs don't change reality. To think that you must not believe in the concept of reality, which means you really don't even believe that something exists for your mind to somehow create.

How did this idea fit into your worldview when you were a religious person? It was identical, as it is for basically every person of faith. Ask Mountaineer if God doesn't exist just because I don't believe in him. He will tell that he still exists, regardless of my belief. It's the same with every aspect of reality. Perhaps you can make a case that there is a reality of your beliefs inside your mind but it is confined there and doesn't affect anything else. Your actions do but your pure thoughts alone do not. 

MT....is the slave free because he thinks he is? Can a slave be free? If someone is free...can they be a slave?

Thinking about the matter more broadly, aren't we all slaves to gravity and our own mortality?  Wouldn't a truly free person need to free himself of the constraints of gravity and be immortal?  Freedom has to be a relative thing or otherwise you can find a flaw in any experience of freedom.
We've been over this. We are talking about the definition of the word in the context that it either exists or can exist. Since we can't be free of gravity and death clearly that can't be a requirement for freedom or it can't exist.

I realize I have a contentious manner of speech. It comes off worse than I intend because I don't spend the extra words refining it. I know we're all adults here discussing a topic so I hope we're all big enough to handle a critical examination of our statements and we don't take it too personally.

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, I find it quite telling that you invoke mathematics to make your point that reality is understandable. Math is the perfect example of this because it is unchanging and eternal. 2+2 will always equal 4, never 3 and never 6.

But most of life isn't the same. Even fields that are heavily based on mathematics, such as engineering must bow to the fact that what is true today may not be true the next.

For example, if I use math to design a bridge--a perfect bridge for the current circumstance--reality can still come along and change the conditions. Maybe traffic lessens and the bridge becomes overkill. Maybe global warming happens and water levels rise and metal beams that were previously exposed only to air become submerged.

Was my original design wrong? Maybe the conditions just changed.

I don't understand your point and I would like to. Are you arguing that because reality changes it doesn't exist and we can never be certain about what is real and what isn't?

We're discussing the concept that the word freedom represents. What I am hearing is a lot of other concepts (means to purchase, ability to think, the false belief of choice) that are brushing up against the essence of the concept.

In order for freedom to be a real concept there must be some state of un-freedom that is possible. Otherwise there would be no concept of freedom, it would just be existence or reality. Does that make sense? The possibility of both must exist or the other cannot have meaning or be pointed to or an example of either be seen.

So if it's proving difficult to define freedom......although I think a couple of us have nailed it......can we define the opposite? What is an absence of freedom?

Kshartle,

I think people would find your arguments about 10x more appealing if you didn't imply 100% certainty around Every. Damn. Thing. You. Claim.

You make good points to support one potential reasonable position, or considerations that should weigh heavily on our decisions, but you make arguments like you have it 100% figured out, and that there's no possible room for logical disagreement, but when we poke holes in your arguments, you find SOME way of not acknowledging ANY room for disagreement and defensively coming back to your spot. You see it as logic.  Many of the rest of us hold our heads in our hands and say to ourselves "here we go again."

And the funny thing is, we can totally appreciate your input and what you're trying to add to the conversation. It's like this: if you told me your favorite band was Rush, I'd smile and start nodding to "Spirit of Radio."  If you tried to claim that you've logically proven Rush is the best band ever, I'd shake my head and almost forget I loved the band.  You way too often put yourself in the latter position.

Kshartle wrote: I don't understand your point and I would like to. Are you arguing that because reality changes it doesn't exist and we can never be certain about what is real and what isn't?

My point was simply that often (usually, in fact) life isn't as simple as logically or mathematically determining what is correct and then defending that position. What is seen as correct today may be seen as incorrect tomorrow, and what actually is correct today may actually be incorrect tomorrow. Math is convenient because none of that is true for math, but we don't live in a beautiful perfect world of abstract math. We live in a messy world of people.

Kshartle wrote: We're discussing the concept that the word freedom represents. What I am hearing is a lot of other concepts (means to purchase, ability to think, the false belief of choice) that are brushing up against the essence of the concept.

In order for freedom to be a real concept there must be some state of un-freedom that is possible. Otherwise there would be no concept of freedom, it would just be existence or reality. Does that make sense? The possibility of both must exist or the other cannot have meaning or be pointed to or an example of either be seen.

I understand your point. In fact it makes perfect sense from the perspective of there being an objective definition of freedom that essentially means "absence of restraint" that you have discovered. It must sound like we're all trying to re-define it to mean a bunch of irrelevant things, and it seems to be driving you nuts.

How about this: maybe freedom means "absence of restraint" for YOU. And I think it's a pretty good definition, myself; it's very close to the one I hold. But is it the right definition for everybody? That's what I think this thread is all about. My sister-in-law is very much unfree from my perspective because she is restrained by debt (and crucially, lacks the state of mind to believe herself capable of overcoming it), but I am very much unfree from her perspective because I am restrained by parenthood. Both of us have burdens we have voluntarily chosen for ourselves that we cannot easily be rid of. That's why I'm saying that our personal feelings of freedom are much more akin to our feelings of what make us happy than some kind of dictionary definition we can both agree on and then determine with logical certainty who's free and who's not.

moda0306 wrote: if you told me your favorite band was Rush, I'd smile and start nodding to "Spirit of Radio."  If you tried to claim that you've logically proven Rush is the best band ever, I'd shake my head and almost forget I loved the band.  You way too often put yourself in the latter position.

This doesn't make any sense. It's been proven logically that the Beatles are the best band ever.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I don't understand your point and I would like to. Are you arguing that because reality changes it doesn't exist and we can never be certain about what is real and what isn't?

My point was simply that often (usually, in fact) life isn't as simple as logically or mathematically determining what is correct and then defending that position. What is seen as correct today may be seen as incorrect tomorrow, and what actually is correct today may actually be incorrect tomorrow. Math is convenient because none of that is true for math, but we don't live in a beautiful perfect world of abstract math. We live in a messy world of people.

If something is correct today, is it not correct because it might not be correct tomorrow, or is it still correct?

If your point is that reality isn't static then I completely agree. Are you saying you don't express certainty about things because you're not certain if you'll still be certain of it later?

I guess I only express certainty about what I'm certain of, or certain enough to debate it without having to invent fallacious arguments. I'm not worried about the idea that I might learn something tomorrow that changes my mind. I hope that will happen if I'm wrong.

Kshartle wrote: If something is correct today, is it not correct because it might not be correct tomorrow, or is it still correct?

If your point is that reality isn't static then I completely agree. Are you saying you don't express certainty about things because you're not certain if you'll still be certain of it later?

My point is more about humility.

Pointedstick wrote: My sister-in-law is very much unfree from my perspective because she is restrained by debt (and crucially, lacks the state of mind to believe herself capable of overcoming it), but I am very much unfree from her perspective because I am restrained by parenthood. Both of us have burdens we have voluntarily chosen for ourselves that we cannot easily be rid of. That's why I'm saying that our personal feelings of freedom are much more akin to our feelings of what make us happy than some kind of dictionary definition we can both agree on and then determine with logical certainty who's free and who's not.

How does her debt restrict her freedom? Do you think the inability to buy something means you aren't free? In that case freedom for all humans can only exist when we all have the means to acquire everything. This can't be freedom unless you agree that humans cannot be free.

Is reality different for your sister? I'm not talking about her interpretation of it. I'm talking about literal reality. Unless you think she change reality with her mind. My point is.....if you think she's free to act on her situation and she doesn't.....you can't both be right. It's either or and has nothing to do with your individual beliefs. Is she truly unable to help herself or does she just falsely believe that?

Is it possible to believe something that's false?

This thread was originally about differing personal definitions of freedom. You've managed to declare the entire concept bunk and strongly imply that everyone here is an idiot or a magical thinker. Congratulations, Kshartle. I hope you're happy.

Haven't followed the whole thread but I think that at the point where GWB declared that Al-Qaeda hated us because of our freedom, the word ceased to have any meaning other than what a politician wants it to mean.

Which is, that freedom means (for a politician), that I am free to have my way in the world that I own and my subjects need to obey me or face the death penalty.

Note to l82start and PS,

Context baby, context ... right Janice?

... Mountaineer

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: if you told me your favorite band was Rush, I'd smile and start nodding to "Spirit of Radio."  If you tried to claim that you've logically proven Rush is the best band ever, I'd shake my head and almost forget I loved the band.  You way too often put yourself in the latter position.

This doesn't make any sense. It's been proven logically that the Beatles are the best band ever.

K,

At this point I'm not really sure if you are saying that in jest, or if you really believe it.  At first I laughed and thought to myself "K has a dry sense of humor ... that was a good one!".  Then, I thought a bit more and came to a second realization "this short interchange sums up where K is coming from on most posts."  I wonder which of those thoughts is absolutely, positively, incontrovertably correct? 

I wrote this response still in a state of flummoxation that I'm finding myself struggling to be FREE FROM even though I know in my inner most being that I'm FREE TO do so. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: if you told me your favorite band was Rush, I'd smile and start nodding to "Spirit of Radio."  If you tried to claim that you've logically proven Rush is the best band ever, I'd shake my head and almost forget I loved the band.  You way too often put yourself in the latter position.

This doesn't make any sense. It's been proven logically that the Beatles are the best band ever.

K,

At this point I'm not really sure if you are saying that in jest, or if you really believe it.  At first I laughed and thought to myself "K has a dry sense of humor ... that was a good one!".  Then, I thought a bit more and came to a second realization "this short interchange sums up where K is coming from on most posts."  I wonder which of those thoughts is absolutely, positively, incontrovertably correct? 

I wrote this response still in a state of flummoxation that I'm finding myself struggling to be FREE FROM even though I know in my inner most being that I'm FREE TO do so. 

... Mountaineer

It's a joke.

Pointedstick wrote: This thread was originally about differing personal definitions of freedom. You've managed to declare the entire concept bunk and strongly imply that everyone here is an idiot or a magical thinker. Congratulations, Kshartle. I hope you're happy.

Sorry I didn't read the start, I thought you guys were trying to define freedom, not give personal opinions about what makes you feel free. I picked it up late where Tech was saying that words have to mean things and freedom must imply freedom from something. So the question is what. IMO that must mean freedom from some external force.

You can't be free from yourself because you can't enslave yourself. On your own you can always choose your actions, so the idea that you can be free from yourself is just the state we are always in.

You can never be free from the laws of physics or nature so that can't be it either.

That leaves freedom from the only thing that can truly, in reality, take away the only freedom you can possess, and that's other people. Only other people can by force prevent you from doing what you want or what you're able.

That being said I feel much freer when I'm single even though I know my girlfriend can't prevent me from leaving. I suppose I feel like her slave sometimes even though I know deep down I am free. Maybe I'm like MTs example and I like the chains and whips (metaphorically speaking of course  )

Kshartle wrote:
You can't be free from yourself because you can't enslave yourself. On your own you can always choose your actions, so the idea that you can be free from yourself is just the state we are always in.

You can never be free from the laws of physics or nature so that can't be it either.

That leaves freedom from the only thing that can truly, in reality, take away the only freedom you can possess, and that's other people. Only other people can by force prevent you from doing what you want or what you're able.

Re. statement 1 - Adiction to some degree ... it does not seem to be black and white with our current state of knowledge.

Re. statement 2 - Agreed given Newtonian physics are what you are speaking of.  Not so much re. quantum physics and who knows what we will learn in the future.  Again, it does not seem to be black and white.

Re. statement 3 - Given my perspective on Statements 1 and 2, I do not think it holds true in all cases.  I think I'm saying the same thing Pointedstick said - life is not black and white.  You say tomato (long a sound) and I say tomato (ah sound).  Is only one of us correct?  If so, which one and on what basis?  I firmly believe in the concept of "absolute truth", let's say for the sake of argument you do not.  Is only one of us correct?  Am I free TO believe that?  What would you be escaping FROM if you do not believe it?  If you say you do not believe in absolute truth, is that an absolute?  My bottom line - we are once again trying to define in no uncertain terms "how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin".  Interesting question, but there are many things in life that do not have an absolute answer; as PS says, perhaps mathematics is the only thing that does ... but then again, that is only with our current state of knowledge.  Now we get back around to the subject of Faith but that belongs in the "understanding religion" thread; is it not fascinating how things are ultimately connected if you stop, open your mind, are receptive to new ideas, have a basis for discernment, and above all maintain a sense of humor and ponder the great I Am? 

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote: This thread was originally about differing personal definitions of freedom. You've managed to declare the entire concept bunk and strongly imply that everyone here is an idiot or a magical thinker. Congratulations, Kshartle. I hope you're happy.

So according to you, anyone who insists that words have specific meanings, and therefore we can't use the word "freedom" to denote multiple incompatible concepts is unreasonable? Is that right?

Mountaineer wrote: Re. statement 1 - Adiction to some degree ... it does not seem to be black and white with our current state of knowledge.

The addict is always making a choice. They are always free to choose to quit. Addiction might feel like enslavement, but that's an illusion.

You should know this as a believer Mountaineer. I'm sure you've seen people who appear to be enslaved by sin and they seem or feel hopeless. They're always free to choose Christ or repentance right? They're not truly enslaved because you can't enslave yourself. You can never prevent yourself from having the option to choose. Only others can do that.

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Re. statement 1 - Adiction to some degree ... it does not seem to be black and white with our current state of knowledge.

The addict is always making a choice. They are always free to choose to quit. Addiction might feel like enslavement, but that's an illusion.

You should know this as a believer Mountaineer. I'm sure you've seen people who appear to be enslaved by sin and they seem or feel hopeless. They're always free to choose Christ or repentance right? They're not truly enslaved because you can't enslave yourself. You can never prevent yourself from having the option to choose. Only others can do that.

Are we sure choice truly exists?  Maybe I'm a slave to the chemical flows to my brain, but because some of those flows are wired enough into the logical side of my brain, they are affected by logic, and then I can always go back and rationalize everything I've done as being a "choice" rather than something pre-determined by chemical and electrical signals I don't understand.

In many ways, at the very least, I think an addicts brain has been whittled down to being much more similar to an animal brain.  Where instinct and emotion drive much more than logic and choice.

moda0306 wrote: Are we sure choice truly exists?  Maybe I'm a slave to the chemical flows to my brain, but because some of those flows are wired enough into the logical side of my brain, they are affected by logic, and then I can always go back and rationalize everything I've done as being a "choice" rather than something pre-determined by chemical and electrical signals I don't understand.

In many ways, at the very least, I think an addicts brain has been whittled down to being much more similar to an animal brain.  Where instinct and emotion drive much more than logic and choice.

I'm familiar with this argument. The idea is that everything we think we choose is the chemicals and neurons firing in our brain as a response to the other matter in the world that we interact with and have interacted with during out lifetimes. It always boils down to the idea that that everything, every molecule is predestined. Every gust of wind and wave hitting the shore or action by animal or human is set. Everything that's ever going to happen is already set in motion and the future might as well be the past or the present because it can't be altered.

I realize that's not exactly what you said but it's where the argument has to go. If your brain chemicals and neurons firing or whatever "enslaved and forced" you to keep taking drugs then those same chemicals and neurons would have "forced" you to take them in the first place. Even if this is the case......is your brain chemistry and activity not part of you? Saying my brain drove me to a choice therefore my brain has enslaved me.....well......at what point is your brain you actually making the choice? What's a choice other than your brain telling your body to act? Isn't that a choice? Even if you "debate it" in your head, isn't that debate chemicals and neurons doing their thing?

I'm not familiar with the counter argument to predetermination of everything or at least I don't recall it. I don't find it insightful or interesting enough to explore because if it's actually valid then there's no point in discussing it anyway! To me it's a giant cop-out of discussion.

I'm content to put faith in the idea that I actually have choice and can affect my future. That's one thing I'm not definately not concerned about proof for since the other possibility just makes everything moot. That's not an argument that predestination is false of course, I just can't imagine having an insightful conversation about it. The conversation would already be pre-determined  .

Kshartle wrote: I'm content to put faith in the idea that I actually have choice and can affect my future. That's one thing I'm not definately not concerned about proof for since the other possibility just makes everything moot. That's not an argument that predestination is false of course, I just can't imagine having an insightful conversation about it. The conversation would already be pre-determined  .

You just had to say that, didn't you?

Libertarian666 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I'm content to put faith in the idea that I actually have choice and can affect my future. That's one thing I'm not definately not concerned about proof for since the other possibility just makes everything moot. That's not an argument that predestination is false of course, I just can't imagine having an insightful conversation about it. The conversation would already be pre-determined  .

You just had to say that, didn't you?

I felt it neccessary lest we delve into the topic of whether we are enslaved to the mathematics of molecules and whatever matter they come from.

Of course if you think everything is pre-determined then we'll discuss it, or we won't, either way it won't matter hah!

Do you have a quick and easy way to dismiss that concept? I'm sure I've come across it or voiced it. Again I just find the notion so uninteresting I can't remember anything about it. My brain just purges it.

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I'm content to put faith in the idea that I actually have choice and can affect my future. That's one thing I'm not definately not concerned about proof for since the other possibility just makes everything moot. That's not an argument that predestination is false of course, I just can't imagine having an insightful conversation about it. The conversation would already be pre-determined  .

You just had to say that, didn't you?

I felt it neccessary lest we delve into the topic of whether we are enslaved to the mathematics of molecules and whatever matter they come from.

Of course if you think everything is pre-determined then we'll discuss it, or we won't, either way it won't matter hah!

Do you have a quick and easy way to dismiss that concept? I'm sure I've come across it or voiced it. Again I just find the notion so uninteresting I can't remember anything about it. My brain just purges it.

Well, in general, the more animalistic our behaviors are, or the more human animal emotions/behaviors are, the more likely NAP would demand that we don't use animals as property or to our own gain, and perhaps not even materially upset their habitat/ecosystems.  So determinism is probably going to be extremely distasteful (or "uninteresting" at least) to an anarcho-capitalist, because the mere discussion of whether we're motivated more by simple animalistic instincts and less by "choice" and "reason" implies having to question the moral certainty of how we view ourselves above animals... and questioning an one's certainty isn't something an anarchist usually likes to engage in .

TennPaGa wrote: The issues of "freedom to" and "freedom from" will frequently collide, won't they?

For example, what happens when someone's freedom to be a jackass collides with someone else's desire to be free from jack-assery?

I vote TennPaGa get the quote of the day award, perhaps the quote of the week but it's only Friday! 

... Mountaineer

I am predestined, or am I free, to share this bit of poetry!?  Such a quandary. 

The first limerick here, is attributed to Maurice E. Hare, 1905. I am uncertain of the source of the reply. To me, it addresses the topics of free will, determinism, and biological constraints on development.

There was a young man who said "Damn!
I perceive with regret that I am
But a creature that moves
In predestinate grooves
I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram."

"Young man you should stay your complaint,
For the grooves that you call a constraint
Are there to contrive
That you learn to survive;
Trams arrive, buses may or they mayn't."

... Mountaineer