I don't believe in people

[andrewducker]

Well, on one level I believe in people. But on another level, what I believe in is very complex combinations of different chemicals that react in a variety of ways to the stimuli around them.

I certainly don't believe in any kind of 'inner essence' that makes a person what they are, nor any kind of spirit (ahem - bearing in mind that I'm still hedging my bets on psi, I still wouldn't count that as any more 'you' than the other bits). This means that I don't think of people as embodying anything in particular. A person is not "a loser" or "cool" or "mean" or "kind-hearted". People perform acts and they have higher/lower likelihoods of performing particular acts in the future. They are fluid, self-contradictory (which, once you discount any central 'self', seems perfectly reasonable). Over time, different parts of the different impulses in them come to the fore, these impulsed being governed by their past, current external stimuli, current chemical makeup, etc.

This, I know, makes me far more forgiving of people than others who believe that a person is evil or annoying or stupid or some other negative attribute. I see people as performing acts which are evil, annoying, stupid, etc. (bearing in mind that those are perceptions too, but for the purpouses of this I can happily leave that to one side).

I know that my refusal to damn someone eternally for having performed acts that I agree are wrong has caused problems with friends in the past, and it undoubtably will do so again in the future. And I understand the problem they have with me. But I can't see the world as being some kind of collection of embodiements of platonic ideals rather than a shifting storm of mutable patterns, and so I can't damn a pattern for being one way at one moment when it may be something quite different the next.

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Despite believing in magick and similar phenomena, I completely agree. One of the major constants in the universe is change and people change constantly. This is the major reason I have a great deal of trouble with the whole concept of karmic-based reincarnation. Other than providing a pleasant feeling as you think about someone you dislike returning as a deformed cockroach it seems (to me) to be a generally silly idea. Also, if applied to people's current lives, there is a vast element of blaming the victim (as in someone who was born poor, disabled, and with various congenital illnesses was an exceptionally bad person in a previous life) which is philosophy that I find to be deeply vile.

I also believe in luck and definitely believe that people have differing degree of it (for example, I'm insanely lucky and trust in this fact frequently). However, after watching several unlucky people reshape their lives and ultimately their personalities, it is clear to me that even one's luck is subject to change, which honestly only makes sense.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

I feel compelled to comment, but nothing I have to say really seems appropriate. I'm so not interested in how other people are judged on any sort of eternal scale. I mean, I'm pretty self-centered and I figure as long as I'm squared away with my notion of morality then the rest of the universe will either take care of itself or be taken care of by someone else. I have no interest in condemming someone to hell. Is that something people do? How odd.

Though I AM likely to wish dire things on people who wear ugly shoes. That might be more of a personal prejudice though.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I too have struggled a bit sometimes in a world where most people seem to want you to make absolute decisions at some point and stick with them, despite whatever fresh data may come in, and who act like that themselves. People (for instance due to frontal lobe damage) may be incapable of making the kind of 'good/evil' decisions about their behaviour that most of us can but that doesn't mean that they are inherently one or the other.

So (I haven't changed my mind on this since we last spoke of such things) I'm generally with you apart from on the psi thing.
What kind of psi are you not sure about? I have seen too many well-desigend experiments on stuff like card reading in seeing at a distance etc etc pretty much prove that nobody does statistically better than chance, and I'm sure that you have too and that's not what you mean - so what do you mean and why do think it is plausible?

[andrewducker]

Actually, I was the other way round. I've seen too many studies which show incredible statistical unlikelihood to entirely deny the possibility.

Of course, what I've actually done is read about them in other places, not read the studies themselves...

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I think i recall reading about slightly worse than expected results, but again, where??

Well, you know what we have to do then, don't we. We need the experiment description, number of subjects and the results. I'm sure I retain enough grasp of experimental design statistics to work out what it means (if anything).

I do know that James Randi was involved in a lot of debunking stuff of this nature, but more concentrated on illusions, guessing star signs etc. IIRC.

Isn't there a magazine on just this sort of thing called "The Skeptical Inquirer"?

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

"But I can't see the world as being some kind of collection of embodiements of platonic ideals rather than a shifting storm of mutable patterns, and so I can't damn a pattern for being one way at one moment when it may be something quite different the next"

while this does indeed preclude damning someone, it also precludes making friends.

Why bother if any second the friend pattern will shift?

[andrewducker]

Because they are still patterns. If I believe that the pattern I dislike at the moment may change in the future, then I'm not going to damn them eternally. I may, of course, avoid them at that time.

Re:

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

it seems to me that with "Because they are still patterns" you are acknowledging that there is a core persona there, which is something you were trying to rule out.

[andrewducker]

I don't believe in a single core personality. I can be tempted towards multiple core(ish) drives, but certainly not a single core.