Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Amen sister: "collective loss of reasoning and common sense" pretty much nails it. However, I wonder if "we" ever had it in the first place.

I will offer this perspective from armenian mystic George Ivanovich Gurdjieff:
Gurdjieff claimed that people cannot perceive reality in their current states because they do not possess consciousness but rather live in a state of a hypnotic "waking sleep".
"Man lives his life in sleep, and in sleep he dies." As a result of this condition, each person perceives things from a completely subjective perspective. Gurdjieff stated that maleficent events such as wars and so on could not possibly take place if people were more awake. He asserted that people in their typical state function as unconscious automatons, but that one can "wake up" and become a different sort of human being altogether.

Mystic, subjectivist nonsense.

Humans, like all living organisms, must take specific actions in order to survive. Those actions would not be possible in a "hypnotic waking sleep." We are conscious, and to be conscious is to be conscious of something. There is a universe, and it exists independent of perception -- not because of it.

Wars don't happen because people are asleep. If the world was truly subjective, then why would wars even matter? Or how could you even be sure that there was a war?

[Chomsky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

That certainly will be a challenge, because there's no such thing as "unconscious impulses." The unconscious mind does not force you to do anything. All actions and choices are made volitionally, through free will. The fact that some people choose to evade the consequences of their actions, or choose not to focus or not to critically view the things put in front of them, is much, much different from saying that we are somehow controlled by unconscious impulses. Humans do not, and in fact cannot, simply wander around the world and rely on their unconscious for survival. In order to be acted upon, memories or concepts must first be made conscious -- whereupon they come under the influence and control of the conscious mind, which means choice and free will.

In the case of smoking, people made a choice to listen to advertising; perhaps they used those words and pictures to justify their evasion of the knowledge that smoking is harmful; they wanted to smoke, and were happy to find any reason to support that view, in spite of knowing that it was actually harmful. Blaming their subsequent actions on "unconscious impulses" is simply a cop-out.

You say this as though it were fact, but really it's very much unproven and subject to eternal ethical debate. Having convictions is great, but it doesn't mean you're right (or wrong).

Regardless, the point is that people are easily and subtly influenced, and there are manifold influences shaping people's behavior, often to their detriment.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

You say this as though it were fact, but really it's very much unproven and subject to eternal ethical debate. Having convictions is great, but it doesn't mean you're right (or wrong).

And just because something has been eternally debated doesn't mean that it isn't a fact, or that it can't be proven to be true. The underlying issue is, of course, philosophical -- as is the acknowledgment of the existence of any facts at all (along with their knowability).

Regardless, the point is that people are easily and subtly influenced, and there are manifold influences shaping people's behavior, often to their detriment.

People aren't "influenced" by external forces beyond their control. They allow themselves to be influenced; the resulting change in behavior is a matter of choice, not force or the "unconscious". The difference is crucial.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Much good could be accomplished if a way could be found to get rich people to act in the best interests of all. I wish I had a good idea.

Do you mean doing something instead of providing jobs and investment capital? How is that not in everyone's best interests?

Is a rich person's money better spent by giving it away, or by investing it to increase not only their wealth, but the overall wealth of society?

I hope you're not thinking along the lines of Michael Moore:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._its_ours.html

[jk]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

That certainly will be a challenge, because there's no such thing as "unconscious impulses." The unconscious mind does not force you to do anything. All actions and choices are made volitionally, through free will. The fact that some people choose to evade the consequences of their actions, or choose not to focus or not to critically view the things put in front of them, is much, much different from saying that we are somehow controlled by unconscious impulses. Humans do not, and in fact cannot, simply wander around the world and rely on their unconscious for survival. In order to be acted upon, memories or concepts must first be made conscious -- whereupon they come under the influence and control of the conscious mind, which means choice and free will.

In the case of smoking, people made a choice to listen to advertising; perhaps they used those words and pictures to justify their evasion of the knowledge that smoking is harmful; they wanted to smoke, and were happy to find any reason to support that view, in spite of knowing that it was actually harmful. Blaming their subsequent actions on "unconscious impulses" is simply a cop-out.

sharky, you are a font of wisdom. not only are you, by your own testimony, cognizant of the only true and objective morality, you are also an expert in the foundations of behavior and neuroscience. amazing.

the only thing greater than your knowledge is your modesty when you share it.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

sharky, you are a font of wisdom. not only are you, by your own testimony, cognizant of the only true and objective morality, you are also an expert in the foundations of behavior and neuroscience. amazing.

the only thing greater than your knowledge is your modesty when you share it.

Really? An ad hominem is the best you can do? No questions about how I can support the things I said? You just dismiss them out of hand? Why?

I'm an atheist too. Care to heap on any more sarcasm? Maybe with a dish of dogma or two?

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

That certainly will be a challenge, because there's no such thing as "unconscious impulses." The unconscious mind does not force you to do anything. All actions and choices are made volitionally, through free will.

Repeatedly I been told this sentiment, but repeatedly I have not been convinced.

Because there are so many examples where both groups and individuals, even entire populations, repeatedly engage in behavior which is not just unknowingly negative, but knowingly negative.

In other words, the so called free will of these decision makers decided on behavior which was bad in every sense of the word.

Until this behavior can be explained - and stupidity isn't the only reason - the idea that there is nothing but free will is and will continue to be a myth albeit an attractive one.

Indeed, the best evidence of "free will" being a myth is often the person believing it. They somehow think they are alone, as lamp-posts in the night, standing tall and strong in their free will and self-sufficiency, when in fact they are connected to the rest of the grid by the same cables.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

This is a subject dear to my heart; but for different reasons. As I see it, we have been enormously influenced by what I have come to believe is the primary influence; instinct. A good example is if you move your hand towards a butterfly, it will "instinctively" move away from your touch. That, as such, our instinctive reaction to many events in our lives comes not from the use, or application of, knowledge; but instead, we are reacting to our instinctive impulse to react. Moreover, that such instincts take us right back to the beginning, many billions of years ago. That our instinctive reactions, long before knowledge, have shaped the way we think today. Even more so, shape "of action", must therefore be seen to be based upon each individual experience, built upon all those billions of years, of instinctively reacting to each individual event, along our individual lines of separate evolution.

That religion, (as an example), is in fact, our "instinctive" reaction to that which, in the past, we had no knowledge base upon which we could base a rational explanation for events we could not understand. That even the simplest things we take for granted today; lightening, thunder, plants dying off in the winter and re-growing in the spring, wind and rain; all must have seemed inexplicable a thousand years ago, let alone one hundred million years ago. As we all evolved from creatures that lived themselves with the same "instincts" of the butterfly; we carry that as our evolutionary burden.

It is time to move on into a more enlightened future.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Because there are so many examples where both groups and individuals, even entire populations, repeatedly engage in behavior which is not just unknowingly negative, but knowingly negative.

In other words, the so called free will of these decision makers decided on behavior which was bad in every sense of the word.

Until this behavior can be explained - and stupidity isn't the only reason - the idea that there is nothing but free will is and will continue to be a myth albeit an attractive one.

Engaging in behavior that is knowingly negative doesn't happen because of a lack of free will.

The primary cause is a willful suspension of one's consciousness; the refusal to think. It's a form of evasion; not blindness, but a refusal to see. It's not automatic, or imposed; it's a conscious choice.

The motivation is wanting to have your cake and eat it too -- to want things that are contradictory, such as smoking and health, or overeating and being skinny, etc. Since it's impossible to deny reality, people evade it instead; if they don't think about something they don't like, then they can pretend it's not real. If they do this enough, it can appear automatic (although it isn't), but that doesn't change the fact that the behavior is ultimately there by choice.

[Sharky]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

As I see it, we have been enormously influenced by what I have come to believe is the primary influence; instinct.

An instinct is a fixed, innate behavior; something you are born with.

Can you give an example of a behavior in humans that you think is instinctual -- something that requires no learning and therefore no use of concepts or rational thought? Religion, for example, isn't instinctual, because it requires concepts, learning and thinking, and we aren't born with it.

[jk]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Really? An ad hominem is the best you can do? No questions about how I can support the things I said? You just dismiss them out of hand? Why?

I'm an atheist too. Care to heap on any more sarcasm? Maybe with a dish of dogma or two?

1. have you LOOKED at my avatar and understood it? i prefer doubt to dogma, and flexible analysis to rigid belief. certainty is comforting, i know, but unfortunately it is usually wrong.

2. how many neuroscience courses have you taken, sharky? how many papers have you published in relevant fields? why should we accept your view of what shapes behavior? you are welcome to whatever belief system you wish to hold, but i think you are foolish to assert its validity quite so dogmatically. i have been impressed over the years that those who know and understand the most are quite aware of the limits of their knowledge.

if you want to say that what you are asserting constitutes a religion or ideology, then of course it cannot be questioned. but face it, that's what you are propounding.

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

The primary cause is a willful suspension of one's consciousness; the refusal to think. It's a form of evasion; not blindness, but a refusal to see. It's not automatic, or imposed; it's a conscious choice.

If your language has no word for blue, you can't say or see it.

Is then your inability to see or say blue a 'willful' act?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...-guy-deutscher

What about the numerous example of subconscious bias I've posted? The research which shows that many people - including scientists - are influenced by their belief systems despite a clear agenda to seek the truth?

Is this also willful?

The problem with your dichotomy is that it is backwards: you assume that just because the optimal course wasn't taken, that the only proximate cause is lack of will - and you engage in all sorts of twisty rationalization to prove it.

The Calvinist doctrine of predestination has much the same dogma - and much the same responses. Only the Calvinists are buttressed by their dogma that God is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore there cannot be free will - whereas you believe choice is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore there can only be free will.

[vinoveri]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

1. have you LOOKED at my avatar and understood it? i prefer doubt to dogma, and flexible analysis to rigid belief. certainty is comforting, i know, but unfortunately it is usually wrong.

2. how many neuroscience courses have you taken, sharky? how many papers have you published in relevant fields? why should we accept your view of what shapes behavior? you are welcome to whatever belief system you wish to hold, but i think you are foolish to assert its validity quite so dogmatically. i have been impressed over the years that those who know and understand the most are quite aware of the limits of their knowledge.

if you want to say that what you are asserting constitutes a religion or ideology, then of course it cannot be questioned. but face it, that's what you are propounding.

I have also found that the wisest tend to be those who recognize the limitations of their own knowledge.

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" ... is really a statement reflecting this principle. Humility. All cultures as far as I know throughout history have recognized and given thanks to "the gods".

In my view atheism is the easy route (and is its own dogma). Man doubt's God, Truth, purpose and meaning, but fails to doubt himself (and what we have is a narcissistic culture as a result).

When faith (read: humility prevailed), man doubted himself, but did not doubt that there is Truth, meaning, and purpose, and so sought those out, always doubting himself living up to the Ideal. The age of Ideals, chivalry, etc, are more preferable than the age of narcissism IMO.

If "Faith and Reason" is objectionable to atheist, how about "Humility and Reason"?

[cjppjc]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

As Gurdjieff said, the worst thing you can tell a man is that he is asleep.

[DSpencer]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

My perspective:

Consciousness and Free Will are two different concepts and not equivalent. Making a conscious decision does not mean it's isolated from outside influence nor does it mean that "free will" made the choice.

I believe that humans are wired to make decisions they perceive to be in their own best interest. They may make decisions that don't achieve the desired goal (and may even have no chance). They also prioritize based on different factors and different time frames. The decisions are generally conscious decisions but the basis for why they are made is shaped by many factors which can simplified into the concepts of nature and nurture.

I think this is where the idea of "unconscious impulses" comes into play. A person may make a conscious decision to eat a steak rather than a hamburger but he may not fully understand why he considers it preferable. Some of it may be predisposition to liking the flavor. Or maybe a recent steak advertisement. Or health concerns. He may or may not even bother to question why he makes that particular choice.

Given that I believe in cause and effect and that decisions are made through physical processes, I don't see how "free will" would exist, depending on how it is defined. Many people seem to consider it some type of mystical quality that humans have. I admit that I don't particularly "like" to believe there is no free will. I also don't like some of the implications of that belief.