Sociopath Community

Tacky said: 

Free will is not real either. If anything the belief in free will causes a ton of issues. Accepting deterministic and materialistic reality can help people respect everyone's lives more. Free will justifies inequality and poverty within the infrastructure.

Isn't it hardwired for people to believe they are in control of their own destiny? Most who accept a deterministic outlook tend to show a marked increase in apathy or depression. 

How often do you find someone happy to have no control over their own lives? 

Tacky said: 

Turncoat said: 

Prove it. 

 Okay I'd say God would be contrary to the laws of physics and there is a total lack of legible evidence. It's unreasonable to believe in things that ascend laws of physics according to the observable reality we live in and are a part of. It also creates a myriad of issues when people believe in the supernatural at any amount of sacrifice towards respecting physical and biological reality. 

Why is God contrary to laws of physics and why is that a problem? Wouldn't you need to understand the laws of nature to say what was above it, and why would it not be sufficient to say God is another law of nature, one Who bends the other ones?

Your thoughts are a bit jumbled so it's difficult to understand what you wabt to say.

Toast, how do you define soul?

To me, there are three forms of provable Soul: The music, the place, and the food. 

Jada said: 

Toast, how do you define soul?

My definition of soul is strongly similar to what I think one might define consciousness: what it feels like to be something.  However, one might pare it down so that it's more that there's a level of awareness enough to give a capacity for experience, unique to that entity.  The capacity to have that feeling (which is an experience).  In some ways, it may sound a lot like Atman.

Of course, this leaves the concept very permeable to explanations yet to be discovered or even a new way of thinking of ones we may already have.  It could be on a spectrum of epiphenomena, panpsychism or even idealism.  This definition also leaves open the question of how much identity and self-hood (to be distinct from the idea of The Self) contribute to more common ideas of the soul, which I think matters a lot to people for matters of history, uniqueness and importance for moral behavior.  This definition also doesn't necessarily conflate with other topics like free will and agency, and their consequences.  However, the soul and its definition might be important when weighing those matters.

While it is important to discover explanations and do the research, if we're not even sure what we're looking for and how it matters to us, its salience is lost.  The soul is not "real" in the sense that love or happiness isn't "real".  They could all "just" be electrochemical processes and hormones, which on the aggregate give us a set of phenomena which matters to us, having import to how we live and think about our lives and the world in which we do it.  Call it whatever you want, what might be more important is that we find something to agree about.  Using "soul" to refer to it can be reduced to data compression, if you wish, for the sake of communication.

Turncoat said: 

Isn't it hardwired for people to believe they are in control of their own destiny? Most who accept a deterministic outlook tend to show a marked increase in apathy or depression. 

How often do you find someone happy to have no control over their own lives? 

 Apathy is better than self-righteousness.  It doesn't really equate depression or a lack of control. If anything it shows a lot of ego to think that deterministic reality would steal control. You could ask the same question to homeless people or impovershed children but why would a relativist have to actually care? A relativist can just make-believe as to why that is occuring and what their response (or lack of) can be.

Tacky said: 

Turncoat said: 

Isn't it hardwired for people to believe they are in control of their own destiny? Most who accept a deterministic outlook tend to show a marked increase in apathy or depression. 

How often do you find someone happy to have no control over their own lives? 

Apathy is better than self-righteousness. 

Not for the individual, the latter at least provides enough drive for the day-to-day. 

Why do anything if it ultimately amounts to nothing? While I agree over generally nihilistic points, I wouldn't say I am a model one ought to strive to follow either. Functionally speaking it is better to be somewhat deluded. 

It doesn't really equate depression or a lack of control.

It kinda does though, doesn't it?

I haven't really seen any examples of happy apathy anyway. Even acceptance tends to use more peaceful language. 

If anything it shows a lot of ego to think that deterministic reality would steal control.

This kind of thinking tends to be lumped in with "Black Pill" for a reason, people aren't wired to focus on their own pointlessness without it taking something fundamental away from their functioning. 

As long as they don't fall into maladaptive delusions, it's those with the biggest egos that tend to do the best. 

Toast, how do you define soul?

My definition of soul is strongly similar to what I think one might define consciousness: what it feels like to be something.  However, one might pare it down so that it's more that there's a level of awareness enough to give a capacity for experience, unique to While it is important to discover explanations and do the research, if we're not even sure what we're looking for and how it matters to us, its salience is lost.  The soul is not "real" in the sense that love or happiness isn't "real".  They could all "just" be electrochemical processes and hormones, which on the aggregate give us a set of phenomena which matters to us, having import to how we live and think about our lives and the world in which we do it.  Call it whatever you want, what might be more important is that we find something to agree about.  Using "soul" to refer to it can be reduced to data compression, if you wish, for the sake of communication.

 Soul is a wildly inaccurate way to represent brain functions and promotes a culture of superstition over (actually 'responsible') realism. Yes we are just chemicals and hormones and there would be less issues if people could embrace reality instead of fearing and chastising it.

So in your definition soul does not exist independent of the body? Thats very different from what the majority of people mean when theg talk about the soul.

Jada said: 

So in your definition soul does not exist independent of the body? Thats very different from what the majority of people mean when theg talk about the soul.

 In my opinion, it would be better for society if people were taught about the brain and its functions in school. 

Tacky said: 

Jada said: 

So in your definition soul does not exist independent of the body? Thats very different from what the majority of people mean when theg talk about the soul.

 In my opinion, it would be better for society if people were taught about the brain and its functions in school. 

What would be the societal benefits?