Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
A
comfortable pool could be to a person's
addiction to comfort what a
specific bar or a
specific brand of beer is to an alcoholic's
addiction to alcohol, or what a
specific sexy person is to a sex addict's
addiction to sexual gratification.
They each are
an example of a tool or object the addict can use to give into or feed their
addiction.
Typically, we can say the the
tool or object is tempting to the addict.
As I use the terms, anyone who experiences temptation is therefore on the addiction spectrum.
Thus, arguably every single human being is on the addiction spectrum.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
I could agree if addiction is not understood negatively, as something contrary to human well-being, perhaps only if understood as the ability to be passionate about things, which is not necessarily bad, unless one gets carried away and our passions start dominating us.
In one sense, there is no "bad" or "negative" in my philosophy, so anything I say can be interpreted in a context in which it is not "bad".
However,
temptation is not merely
being passionate about something. In fact, it may be closer to the exact opposite.
For instance, someone who is passionate about losing weight and hitting some goal body-weight might therefore have to deal with the temptation to overeat temptingly delicious sugary food.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
However, the antithesis of that is also arguable, meaning one could argue that some exceptions exist such as those human beings who have allegedly reached some kind of perfect state of nirvana, enlightenment, graceful salvation, or such. For instance, some might claim that Jesus or the original Buddha stopped experiencing temptation at some point in their human lives before human death, and possibly that others can or have achieved such a state. I wouldn't personally take a side in that argument, and would instead settle for the more agreeable idea that at least almost every human is on the addiction spectrum, some much more than others.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
The key word here is "allegedly". I don't think claims of such perfect states are realistic, and more likely they belong to religious legend.
I agree and favor your view. In that way, I believe that every human is on the addiction spectrum (i.e. we all experience temptation).
Other people think there are exceptions such as Jesus and Buddha, but like you I do not think there are exceptions.
Some people describe that belief that you and I share by saying, "nobody is perfect", or "all humans are sinners" or such, so I generally roughly agree with that kind of sentiment, even if they throw in an exception like saying, "Nobody is perfect except Jesus" in which I can ignore the exception as a part of their unique faith. However, I prefer to think of it like this:
"No human is perfect except in the ways that we are all perfect."
In some senses, we are all perfect. In other senses, none of us are perfect.
In some senses, everything is perfect. In other senses, nothing is perfect.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
For instance, in terms of metaphysics and the philosophy of mind (i.e. consciousness), I am not a dualist. Are you? I ask only so I can more accurately interpret your words.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
A monist, but also very close to a nominalist. Cowardice only exist as an abstract concept, a label applied to a set of conditions that could have concrete representation, such as someone's behavior in a given circumstance.
I don't disagree. I generally work under the assumption that all concepts are abstract.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
For me, the spectrum from ball-hood to people-hood is just another continuous spectrum that reflects our conceptualization, with the concepts being overly black-and-white and the concrete reality never being black or white but always infinite shades of figurative gray. Is an ant more like a ball or a person? Is a Roomba more like a ball or person? What about a Tesla car on autopilot? A dolphin? A monkey? A dog? A cat? A mouse? A tardigrade? The whole planet Earth? The whole solar system as a whole?
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
I would put Roomba, Tesla, planet Earth and the solar system on the same side of the ball. Ants, dolphin, monkey, dog, cat, mouse and tardigrade on the same side of the person.
If I am understanding correctly you are saying a single ant is more like a person than a ball. What about a single blade of grass? What about an apple?
Do you think it's possible that a man-made robot with AI could ever be more like a human than an ant is human-like?
Do you think it's possible that a AI-made robot with its own separate AI could ever be more like a human than an ant is human-like?
Personally, I might rank a self-driving Tesla as outranking an ant, on the humanity spectrum that is.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 8th, 2021, 5:03 pm
To say that someone is brave or coward "in essence" just means that they usually display these qualities in concrete life experiences, that they have a proclivity to that mode of being in given situations, not that they possess some hypostatized power or virtue.
Yes, I agree.
In the same way, to say a ball has what I've called "inner/intrinsic red" versus "outer/extrinsic red" just means that it
usually displays those qualities (of redness) in concrete life experiences, that it has a proclivity to that mode of being in given situations, but not that it possesses some hypostatized power or virtue.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
But the physical property of redness in a ball is not essential to being a ball. A cube could also have the same redness. There's no essential, intrinsic redness linked to being a ball, even if the ball stays permanently with the red color. If changing the shape from ball to cube and vice versa, caused the object to change colors consistently, then one would think its redness is intrinsically linked to its ballness.
I agree.
Likewise, being brave is not essential to being a human. Some humans are brave; some are much more cowardly. Some humans are cowardly but then learn to be brave, which may be analogous to changing the "inner redness" of a ball by painting the ball or burning it with fire until it turns crispy and brown. This is different then changing the "outer redness" of the ball by temporarily turning the lights off or by moving the ball to a dark room or a room with funky lights that change the color of things in that room.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
Indeed, even a coward can become brave, and even an intrinsically red ball can still change color. The change required is less circumstantial, and involves more change to the referenced object.
For instance, to change the extrinsic redness of the ball one can just move the ball to a dark room with no light, or just turn off the lights. But to get rid of what I've called it's "inner redness" one couldn't merely move the ball to a different room, or merely turn off the lights, but rather would have to make much more direct changes to the ball, and generally speaking those internal changes would have to
not result from the typical vicissitudes of its external circumstances (e.g. the lights being turned on and off).
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
Pretty much what I just explained with different words. But it is precisely the fact that the object changes color when its essential property changes, that will indicate the presence of an intrinsic, essential property of color also linked to the same object. In any case, external circumstances affect the properties, either essential or accidental, for example: if the ball is crushed (an external circumstance) and transformed into a plate, it stops being a ball.
It seems we agree.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
A fourth option besides the terminology of inner/intrinsic/essential qualities (versus outer/extrinsic/accidental qualities) would be just use word
persistent and
non-persistent. To avoid falling into the typical overly black-and-white thinking of humans and computers (at least non-quantum ones), we can alternatively use the terms
more persistent and
less persistent. For instance, for a given red ball, when we compare the persistent redness that is inner red with the non-persistent redness that it outer red, we can recognize or explicitly acknowledge that the persistence is not absolute.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
As I said before, a persistent or non-persistent redness will not be an indicator of redness being an essential or accidental property...
Perhaps; That's why I think they may be better terms to use. I don't essential or accidental are the best words to use to describe what I mean when I refer to traits like bravery or cowardice as being more inner/intrinsic than feelings like fear or "outer/extrinisic" conditions like wealthiness.
When I talk of the "inner red" of a ball versus the "outer/red" of a red ball, I am referring to that greater tendency of persistence.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
I think we are using the terms differently. I could be wrong but you seem to be falsely conflating what I would call "pleasure and comfort" (or "circumstantial satiation" or even "circumstantial happiness" or "fleeting happiness") with what I call
inner peace. But they are not the same thing as I use the terms. They are very different. That's not to say you must use the terms as I do, but just to point out that then you are talking about a completely different thing than I what I am referencing with the term
inner peace.
As I use the terms, if a person has
inner peace when in their desired humble log cabin in the Swiss mountains but then through no fault or choice of their own loses the cabin and is forced to live in some bougie overly lavish mansion the person will still have inner peace in the mansion despite being uncomfortable in the mansion and being the kind of person who would prefer to be in the humble cabin if given the option.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
hat I meant is that
you define a set of [external] circumstances for which you can
settle in and find fulfillment, away from practical necessity (which necessarily involves the stress of dealing with constraints), and closer to other more intimate needs, such as being surrounded and in more direct contact with natural beauty, or away of people and urban spaces (if you're an introvert), or just the opposite if you're an extrovert. Whatever makes it for you.
[Emphasis added.]
That is
not what I mean by inner peace. Perhaps, to avoid confusion, you can stop calling that thing "inner peace" and instead call it "circumstantial satisfaction" or "pleasure and comfort"?
Regardless, it doesn't matter if it is a log cabin or a million dollars, if you could say to yourself,
"I lack inner peace and am persistently discontent now, but if I could get the greener grass of having a log cabin (or a million dollars), then I will finally have inner peace." Then, that is
not inner peace, not how I use the term. As I use the words, the log cabin (or million dollars) could bring you comfort and pleasure; they could be necessary external conditions for your comfort, pleasure, and/or circumstantial satisfaction, especially if you have those things, meaning you will feel discomfort if they are taken from you.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
Now, about your concept of inner peace, it seems to be some kind of essential substance, some internal, autonomous force not affected by the social or natural environment, something that supposedly comes from within the subject. This is for me the equivalent of magical powers.
It's no more magical than bravery. Or confidence. Or
gracefulness, namely in terms of having
grace under fire.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
As I use the terms, a person with inner peace will still have inner peace no matter where they are forced to live or forced to not live. Even if they are put in prison against their will, or put in a Nazi concentration camp, they will still have inner peace.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
I'm very doubtful of this. These situations imply stress, worries, struggles, unhappiness, it is very unlikely they could represent inner peace.
Again, you are using "inner peace" differently than I do. If you replace your usage of "inner peace" with "pleasure and comfort", then I agree with what you say.
You are talking about feelings that are more or fear (versus the comfortable feeling of feeling safe).
I am talking about a trait that is more like bravery/cowardice than fear/fearlessness.
You are talking about a feeling that is more like hunger while I am talking about a trait that is more like self-discipline.
One's level of inner peace would tend to be as affected by a million dollar lottery win as one's level of bravery, which is not much if any.
The same goes for an introvert winning an all-expenses paid log cabin in the woods. They might be much more comfortable there and much less comfortable elsewhere, and they might feel much less fear there and they might feel much more fear elsewhere such as in a crowded city with lots of gang violence and awkward social interactions. One presumably would feel a great deal of pleasure winning the lottery or winning a log cabin or otherwise getting what they want.
In contrast, one's level of bravery or inner peace would generally not be affected in any noteworthy way by the gain or loss of a million dollars or a log cabin.
There are two important concepts that help illustrate the difference: Desire and Temptation
The happiness, pleasure, and comfort of which you speak tends to come from getting what one desires.
I am talking about something that one has regardless of whether they get what they desire.
In that way, inner peace could possibly be defined in part by a transcendence of desire in the same sense that bravery is defined by a transcendence of fear.
And there's nothing necessarily magical about that transcendence (e.g. bravery).
To see that there is nothing magical about transcendence one can also consider temptation. If you have experienced temptation, then you have experienced the capacity for transcendence, which is surely associated with
the opposite of temptation in some way.
Temptation (and its opposite) cannot even be described without referencing in some way that kind of transcendence, the difference between the true self versus the ego, the urges of the body, or some kind of other false self (i.e. some other feeling that the true self is consciously observing). Dissociation helps some people respect the difference, such as saying, "I notice my body is feeling fear" instead of saying, "I feel fear", or saying, "My body feels comfort in log cabins," or saying, "My body tends to have an anxious fear response in social situations." I find it helps to associate with choices, and by extension that which I can control, rather than uncontrollable feelings. If I choose to go on the treadmill, I have inner peace even though by most other metrics it is a uncomfortable unpleasant miserable endeavor that is tantamount to literal torture.
It's only magical if one thinks consciousnesses is magical. Or if one thinks love is magical, true conscious love, the kind of which a philosophical zombie would be incapable, the kind of love we can't have for a creature if we somehow come to know for a fact that it has no true consciousnesses with which to lovingly sympathize. Needless to say, you can't love or sympathize with a spirit (i.e. the consciousness of a being) if you don't believe it exists.
I don't personally believe in magic.
I don't believe in anything supernatural or paranormal.
I'm not even a dualist.
Scott wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 8:01 pm
In analogy, it could be compared to sportsmanship in sports in terms of how graciously one responds to winning or losing. One has just as much if not more potential to show good sportsmanship after losing than after winning. Likewise, one has just as much if not more potential for inner peace when deprived of what they desire, be it a mansion or a humble log cabin, a cupcake or a bottle of whiskey, good looks or a fat wallet, a sexy spouse or a desert island on which to live alone.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 9:24 pm
Just as with inner peace, sportsmanship is not a force inside, but how we describe a particular social behavior, which is probably motivated by a set of personality traits (psychology) that develop through social interaction.
Sure, I don't disagree.
Sportsmanship, inner peace, bravery, confidence, and grace do not need to be thought of as magical forces. I don't think of them that way.
Nonetheless, they are the kinds of
traits of a person that are not as susceptible to day-to-day happenstance and not very susceptible to sudden changes in external circumstance, such as winning the lottery or being put in prison against one's will.
In contrast, things comfort, wealthiness, hunger, fear, and bodily pleasure are very susceptible to day-to-day happenstance and sudden changes to external circumstance such as winning the lottery or being put in prison against one's will, or being forced on a treadmill against your will, or going on a torturous miserable treadmill by your own choice.