Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[chewybrian]

Replying to Good Egg and Smelly Wossname...

Yes, generalizations are necessary and useful. Yet, their proper targets are objective physical things in the universe. Even these might be problematic in some sense. My dog was terrified of my dryer, because it had a loud buzzer. I left it running and left the house, and because it had some magic fluff cycle to keep your clothes from getting wrinkled, it would turn on every so often for a few minutes and then buzz loudly once again. I only realized all this was happening after she had been buzzed many times while I was off at work one day. I managed to turn off the buzzer, but never to turn off her fear of the dryer. (Poor little Mercks-my dog)

However, when I got a new dryer, she was unafraid. Why? She did not have the category of 'dryer' in her little brain, and therefore did not attribute features of the old dryer to the new one. In the same way, we might be relieved of some of our anxieties if we were not so quick to categorize. When it comes to math, science and such, however, the categories seem to benefit us much more than they might ever hurt us.

When we map categories onto people, though, we're bound to be wrong and thus unfair to them much of the time. We can't say we have human rights unless we all have them. We justify all sorts of cruelty and discrimination when we project our desires onto others and judge them or punish them for being different from us (rather, our idealized version of ourselves that we think we are or pretend to be). Lots of useful idiots or brown shirts are led along by narratives by nasty people who want power at the expense of justice. Those narratives often outlive their creators, as in the case of racism. These are the kinds of narratives I was after here, not about categorizing something as a washing machine or dryer.

This does seem to relate back to that pesky topic of the hard problem of consciousness. We simply can't get a real handle on what it is like to be my dog, or a bat, or Mary who never saw colors, etc. Neither does it make sense to say that consciousness is epiphenomenal. The philosophical zombie would do just as well at being me as I have (which is not much of an accomplishment, I would say) without the sometimes torturous experience of experience that I experience. So why bother having the experience?

Perhaps paradox is not a perfect term for the problem, but I think it boils down to something much the same. If I travel half the distance to the fridge, then half the remaining distance, and so on, and each halfway trip takes some small amount of time, then I will starve before reaching the fridge, as there are an infinite amount of half trips along the way. Diogenes faced the distance paradox and his solution was to get up and walk out of the room, demonstrating that motion is in fact possible. He couldn't 'prove' it, but he had a solution and a sort of proof without showing his work.

I feel the same about free will. We can't take any objective system of reduction, purposely designed to look beyond my perceptions and yours to something that would be still be true without us being here, like science, and describe accurately what it is like to be me or you. Therefore, I can make the choice to walk to the fridge and arrive on time, and dispatch the distance paradox and the free will problem together at once. Motion is possible because I can do it. Free will is possible because I experience it.

I hope we don't end up hijacking the thread for another discussion of free will, unless there is something truly new to add (not that I managed to add anything new myself). I only brought it up for the fact that it might be called a narrative, and that I might be accused of clinging to it in the face of evidence (though I don't take correlation for proof that consciousness is physical, or that my choices or opinions were stuck in place at the big bang).

I should add that I don't think free will means total disconnection from the past or the influence of the outside world. I think it means just what it is in my experience of it. I can form opinions (foolish narratives or well founded ones) and try to act upon them as I see fit. I will often be prevented from achieving my goals because my influence on the outside world is very limited. If I confine my desires and aversions to those things in my control, I can have a smooth ride most of the time, as if I am going down the river in a tube. If I choose to swing upstream, I'll have a rough time most of the time, but I could make that choice, too.

[chewybrian]

chewybrian, is this what you expected, or hoped for?

I just wanted to see inside the minds of people who prefer simple narratives to evident reality.

I think (hope) it's not binary. I think I use both, as I feel is appropriate. Maybe I even get it right, now and again?

I think it's fine to use narratives if you think they define the world in the best possible way, or if you see some utility in using them. However, you should leave them open for scrutiny at all times in the manner of Descartes, or of a scientist. If you use a narrative that says Mexicans are lazy, I will think less of you and try to provide evidence to dispute it. I'm not sure I would argue with Canadians being friendly, though.

You saw what happened, though, when I tried to bring up Singer in another thread. People don't like to have their narratives challenged with facts and logic, and they will twist and wiggle and throw out some tortured arguments to protect the fortress they have built. Cognitive dissonance hurts, but no pain, no gain for the would be philosopher:

“The philosopher's lecture room is a 'hospital': you ought not to walk out of it in a state of pleasure, but in pain; for you are not in good condition when you arrive.”― Epictetus

[B0R5]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I see in it both sincerity and a desire for clarity — as well as a reminder of the dangers of unquestioned narratives. I agree: the stories we live by — whether personal or collective — have great power to shape the world, but also to distort it. In the spirit of TCR, every narrative is a proposal for consensus: a map, not the territory; a lens, not reality itself.

If I hold on to a narrative as “the best possible,” it’s only as long as it helps build shared meaning — not shut it down. And only as long as it remains open — to conversation, correction, confrontation with Revelation, with experience, and with reason. Not because truth doesn’t exist, but because we are not its owners — we are participants in its uncovering.

When we defend a narrative at all costs — emotionally, stubbornly, as if our entire being depended on it — we often forget it’s only one version. One of many attempts to grasp what is. Consciousness doesn’t need fortresses; it needs transparency. And yes, that can hurt. But maybe that’s exactly why Epictetus called the philosopher’s classroom a hospital.

In TCR, consciousness constructs reality through relation, and relation requires trust and humility. If someone brings a different narrative — even if its tone or implications unsettle me — I try not to respond with defense, but with an invitation to co-create consensus. Because if our shared reality is to have meaning, it must be made together — patiently, honestly, openly. And sometimes that means letting a cherished narrative die, so that a truer picture might emerge.

If philosophy hurts — it’s not because it wounds, but because it purifies.

[Sy Borg]

... raw data alone is inert until it’s enfolded into a meaningful framework. And meaning, in turn, is always relational — not just derived from numbers, but emerging between minds.

... narratives are not optional; they are the connective tissue of shared consciousness. Without them, data remains inarticulate noise — unintelligible to the collective. Narratives don’t merely decorate facts; they negotiate reality between conscious beings.

Well put. Ultimately, what we say and do IS inarticulate noise to every person who speaks a different language, to animals, and to those with serious brain injuries, especially the left side (as described in neuroscientist, Jill Bolte-Taylor's, famous description of her a stroke).

It's hard to imagine being able to communicate without narratives.

The Ruler of the Universe you referenced is a poignant symbol — a solipsistic endpoint of rejecting shared narratives. While he avoids false consensus, he also evades mutual meaning. And in that, he forfeits not just communication, but communion.

Yes, which is why the only place he can exist is a remote planet, where all his needs are catered for by others.

In TKR, experience becomes reality only when it is recognized, expressed, and shared. Narratives are the medium through which we weave private impressions into public intelligibility. Without them, there is no consensus — and without consensus, no stable world.

Yes, we have to compare notes to make sense of the world. To quote author, Terry Pratchett, whose view is not miles from Richard Dawkins's meme concept ("meme" as in memories that persist and birth related concepts in a form of selection, akin to natural selection, not "meme" as in photos with funny captions):

“Because stories are important.
People think that stories are shaped by people. In fact, it's the other way around.
Stories exist independently of their players. If you know that, the knowledge is power.
Stories, great flapping ribbons of shaped space-time, have been blowing and uncoiling around the universe since the beginning of time. And they have evolved. The weakest have died and the strongest have survived and they have grown fat on the retelling...stories, twisting and blowing through the darkness.”

[Wossname]

Well Chewy that was the kind of thoughtful and considered reply I have come to expect from you. We will continue to disagree about free will and I will continue to respect your position on this which I know reflects a deeply held conviction.

And yes, it is narratives that are generalisations about whole groups of people that are what concerns me most, as it does you. The readiness with which people grasp negative stereotypes about some other is something we would do well to educate ourselves and our children to be aware of and to guard against. Here in the UK, just in the last week, we have seen riots across a number of towns in Northern Ireland and violence directed against a number of different foreign nationals because of an alleged rape of a girl by what are suspected to be two Romanian teenage boys. Of course, as you point out, it has long been part of the play-book of unscrupulous politicians to exploit this readiness. They present themselves as clear minded, possessed of the clear vision that enables them to to see this “threat”, and possessed of the strong moral will and courage to do something about it. With increases in the numbers of asylum seekers putting strains on countries across the globe this is set to continue, and some of the rhetoric about asylum seekers from politicians and in the media in the UK is deeply disturbing. I will say I find Trump’s claims about illegal immigrant rapists and murderers flooding across the border and his apparent willingness to abandon due process to deal with this “threat” unhelpful to say the least. But I also know that most Americans are decent, caring people (and they must be because they are like people throughout the world), and I see images of them standing up against this vilification and I salute them for doing so.

[Good_Egg]

Lots of useful idiots or brown shirts are led along by narratives by nasty people who want power at the expense of justice.

There's a good example of a narrative. The one that goes "we believe in our ideas because they are self-evidently true; they believe in their ideas because they've been indoctrinated by evil media barons". Thus they are not like us.

This does seem to relate back to that pesky topic of the hard problem of consciousness. We simply can't get a real handle on what it is like to be my dog, or a bat, or Mary who never saw colors, etc.

Are you suggesting here that if we could "get a real handle on" what it is like to be others our problems would disappear ? That empathy solves everything ?

The proposition that others disagree with you only because they lack your level of empathy is another narrative to be exposed and questioned.

If I travel half the distance to the fridge, then half the remaining distance, and so on, and each halfway trip takes some small amount of time, then I will starve before reaching the fridge, as there are an infinite amount of half trips along the way.

We all know the answer to that one. You will never reach the fridge within the sequence of time-steps that you have set up. But that sequence converges - there are times that are outside of that sequence. You will get to eat after that infinite sequence of time-steps has ended. But that's a digression.

I agree that in this thread we don't need to debate free will. Just recognise thar it applies equally to those who watch Fox News...

One interesting narrative is that of the "magic money tree". The idea in economics that you don't have to worry about paying back what you borrow because all those good consequences of what you do with the borrowed cash will take care of it.

I first came across this in the context of borrowing to finance government spending where it was the left-leaning people who believed that economics works that way and the right-leaning people who were sceptical. But then during the short-lived government of Liz Truss here in UK, the idea re-emerged in the context of borrowing to finance tax cuts. And suddenly the right-leaning people were the believers and the left-leaning people were the sceptics...

Hav you ever come across the sort of (somewhat blinkered) Protestants who think they could convert Catholics to protestantism if only they could make a strong enough case that catholicism is unbiblical? It's a failure to appreciate how much of one's own working assumptions are unshared by other cultures...

[B0R5]

On narratives, data, and shared reality

I agree — data without context is mute matter, and meaning always arises relationally, between conscious beings. In the spirit of the Theory of Consensual Reality (TKR), narratives are a form of consensus activation — a shared matrix through which private experiences gain public form and become recognizable to others. Without narratives, we have no coordinates for meaning, and reality disintegrates into fragments of unintegrated experiences.

On stereotypes, manipulation, and social responsibility

Your remark aptly highlights the danger of manipulative narratives that, instead of building shared space, reinforce fear and isolation. From the perspective of TKR, every such narrative undermines the original trust between conscious beings and weakens the foundation of reality as a collective project. That’s why nurturing inclusive narratives based on recognition and understanding is so vital — without them, the world splits into closed, hostile realities.

On empathy, cognitive closure, and ideological assumptions

However, we must not oversimplify and claim that empathy alone solves the problem. The difficulty lies not only in caring, but in grasping how deeply foreign someone else's worldview may be. According to TKR, each mind interprets the world from within its own symbolic and experiential framework. Many conflicts are not due to malice, but to unacknowledged assumptions. As long as people believe their views are "self-evident truths" while others are simply "indoctrinated," communication becomes impossible. In such cases, narratives turn from bridges into walls. That's why metacognitive humility — awareness of one's own epistemic filters — is as necessary as empathy itself.

[Wossname]

GE you speak with passion which is fair enough. But I suspect most on this board are wise enough to understand that a thing may be self-evident because it is true but it is not true because it is self-evident. Chewy, of course, is well able to answer for himself, but out of fairness one of his stated aims for this thread is to discover ways in which his own narratives might be blinkering him, and he seems to recognise free will may be such a narrative, one he can question (he has, I have debated him), but in the end it is one he just cannot doubt. Is it not possible that the fact that he raised this thread for such a purpose (identifying his narrative blinkers) suggests that he recognises that empathy (while of course important) is not everything and, as BOR5 puts it, “awareness of one’s own epistemic filters is as necessary as empathy itself?”

In any event, and in the spirit of removing my own blinkers and exploring your comment about the magic money tree, can I gently ask you where it is that you think money comes from?

[chewybrian]

Lots of useful idiots or brown shirts are led along by narratives by nasty people who want power at the expense of justice.

There's a good example of a narrative. The one that goes "we believe in our ideas because they are self-evidently true; they believe in their ideas because they've been indoctrinated by evil media barons". Thus they are not like us.

This does seem to relate back to that pesky topic of the hard problem of consciousness. We simply can't get a real handle on what it is like to be my dog, or a bat, or Mary who never saw colors, etc.

Are you suggesting here that if we could "get a real handle on" what it is like to be others our problems would disappear ? That empathy solves everything ?

The proposition that others disagree with you only because they lack your level of empathy is another narrative to be exposed and questioned.

If I travel half the distance to the fridge, then half the remaining distance, and so on, and each halfway trip takes some small amount of time, then I will starve before reaching the fridge, as there are an infinite amount of half trips along the way.

We all know the answer to that one. You will never reach the fridge within the sequence of time-steps that you have set up. But that sequence converges - there are times that are outside of that sequence. You will get to eat after that infinite sequence of time-steps has ended. But that's a digression.

I agree that in this thread we don't need to debate free will. Just recognise thar it applies equally to those who watch Fox News...

One interesting narrative is that of the "magic money tree". The idea in economics that you don't have to worry about paying back what you borrow because all those good consequences of what you do with the borrowed cash will take care of it.

I first came across this in the context of borrowing to finance government spending where it was the left-leaning people who believed that economics works that way and the right-leaning people who were sceptical. But then during the short-lived government of Liz Truss here in UK, the idea re-emerged in the context of borrowing to finance tax cuts. And suddenly the right-leaning people were the believers and the left-leaning people were the sceptics...

Hav you ever come across the sort of (somewhat blinkered) Protestants who think they could convert Catholics to protestantism if only they could make a strong enough case that catholicism is unbiblical? It's a failure to appreciate how much of one's own working assumptions are unshared by other cultures...

GE, I am a little lost here. I don't know if you are trying to help me see my own narratives, just offering general narratives for consideration, accusing me of watching Fox news, or of supporting deficit spending or what. I'm autistic with ADHD. I'll get it better if you are more blunt.

I am a big fan of empathy, but the bit you responded to was about the hard problem of consciousness, like "what is it like to be a bat?" For the record, I don't watch Fox news. I don't support deficit spending for tax cuts, but I might support it for investments in infrastructure or education.

I definitely don't know the answer to the distance paradox, though. I can do basic math until you toss a couple infinities in the mix. I side with Diogenes. Sometimes real world evidence is better evidence.