0
   

Egoism(ego-ism)

 
 
Proxima
 
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2011 03:50 pm
The idea that you are the only person who actually thinks, everyone else is just a figment of your imagination. There are 2 branches, thinking you are the only person that thinks, and everyone else is just robots(the more "pure" version), and believing that your life is just part of your conciousness.(Anti-materialistic)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,945 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 11:38 am
@Proxima,
Quote:
The idea that you are the only person who actually thinks, everyone else is just a figment of your imagination. There are 2 branches, thinking you are the only person that thinks, and everyone else is just robots(the more "pure" version), and believing that your life is just part of your conciousness.(Anti-materialistic)


Well this topic seems to be a reoccurring theme here. My perspective is that you should weigh both aspects and how they would impact your reality. If no one else is real then you would assume that your actions carry no consequences when impacting them however this is not true. If you were to commit a crime then even though those other people are "not real" they will react as if they are real and you'll find yourself being pursued legally by them to find justice to your actions against them. So what good is it that you view others as being not real and doing what ever you want without consideration for them, even though they are not real?

Let's take a safer more realistic approach. Even if others are not real and you are the only real being. Treating these other non-real things as if they were real will keep you in line with your reality in terms of how they would react if you were to do "wrongs" against them. In other words it is good to be empathetic towards other beings even if you believe that they are insignificant or unimportant to your own well being. But why? Well probably because the reality is, that others are real and that this question is a reflection of egoism with self importance being the focus point. Since we can not experience perspectives directly from others, we can assume that they do not exist because of the lack of information. However we can infer their existence because they would react similarly to how you would react. Therefore likeness of being, is likeness of mind, take it into consideration or you'll find yourself being prosecuted by imaginary beings.

G H
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 01:06 pm
@Proxima,
Quote:
There are 2 branches, thinking you are the only person that thinks, and everyone else is just robots


Robots can have the capacity to think. That is -- receive information from external sensors and internally-generated sources, sort it slash associate it and systemically respond to it by either bodily actions or further creative processes grounded in memory. What their "thinking" and computations may lack (currently) is internal manifestations of any kind (visual images, sounds, odors, haptic feelings, privately 'heard' linguistic thoughts, etc.).
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 02:49 pm
@G H,
You see, that right there is to be a problem...internal to what ? Whom ? Where is the "I" in the machine ? Not that I don´t believe that we can get there eventually...
Proxima
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 06:38 pm
@Krumple,
It is very self-centered. It takes into acount the fact that people may react. They just don't have their own lives outside of the lives interacting with you. So in a sense they are "living" but only in contact with you and they are still just a part of your imagination
G H
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 01:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
You see, that right there is to be a problem...internal to what ? Whom ?


Internal to the accessible-to-many public appearance of either the robotic computer or a human brain (how some of its operations exist to themselves as visual images, odors, etc, as opposed to how they exist to or are described by external observers/scanners).

If materialism or a "non-mental monism" is today the favorite ontological view in philosophy of mind, then there should actually be no need for me to even specify "manifestations" with "internal, private, intrinsic, etc.", as where the hell else would there be the possibility of such displays except with "what it's like be certain brain processes or their artificial slash extraterrestrial equivalents"? But I suppose one must make the distinction for commonsense realists who apparently believe in a phenomenal-like presence of the world even if said world was devoid of qualitative-perceiving entities who can generate that experience of it, despite many of those commonsense realists probably being materialists who should instead view the universe (as in itself) being like the non-experience they encounter after death: That is, manifesting as nothing at all -- existing in a non-phenomenal manner that abstract technical methods may ATTEMPT to describe.

The only thing problematic about "manifestations" arising in or with correlation to brain processes is the radical emergence of them, a brute add-on to the physical sciences. Doesn't have precursors, doesn't follow from pre-existing explanatory frameworks. There are fringe developments like "process physics" that may remedy that by supplying proto-stages of experience in the generic interactions throughout the cosmos, but they are just that: Not mainstream yet.

Quote:
Where is the "I" in the machine ? Not that I don´t believe that we can get there eventually...


Memory. "I" is a new story level or concept for unifying all bodily activities under, a time-saver (China wouldn't want to refer to China each time by naming each citizen and what they're doing and how they're connected). Memory is normally there to tell its 40-year old Bob story that he is somehow the same Bob that was alive at age 6 --he's descended from the latter. Empirically, the "self" of Bob is just his body, the fact that in our human experiences he is individuated from the rest of the world in terms of his behaviors and workings (regardless of how he might be assimilated into a background monism either behind appearances or in some reason-spawned scheme that challenges everyday experience).
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 02:03 pm
@Proxima,
Proxima wrote:

It is very self-centered. It takes into acount the fact that people may react. They just don't have their own lives outside of the lives interacting with you. So in a sense they are "living" but only in contact with you and they are still just a part of your imagination


Well put, Proxima. It IS excessively self-centered. We cannot function without a bit of self-centerness--the ego is an illusion but a necessary one.
I go to the other extreme in my personal "religion." I see myself as one with the world. Indeed without others I do not exist. I am a function of relationships with the world, social, physical, etc.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 12:57 am
@G H,
1 - I would rather say that some operations exist, but would n´t dare to present a frame of reference such like "internal" or "external", once that already implies functionality in action relative to a non absolute referent...I on that regard prefer the abstract broader approach.

2 - While memory it is certainly a central aspect of identity, it is not sufficient for justifying the meta-phenomena of conscientiousness all alone...that much I think we both can agree.

3 - One wonders, the so called thing in itself, could it be anything else but the whole ? Anything but the whole must exist as the expression of function, a bridge, or a segment in between other functions in a chain of decreasing or increasing sets of relations...only the Whole in its entirety gets the status of "object".

I find your observations a step forward in quality when compared with the grey background in which most around trade their concepts...its certainly refreshing to find a more developed, mature and encompassing perspective on these subjects.

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Egoism(ego-ism)
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 06:10:20