chiefdan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Chief Dan Roth) (03/10/88)
I'd like to suggest that "Individualism" is a myth.
It has already been pointed to by the jokes about being an individual and
therefore not joining this group.
What does it meant to be an "individualist?" To act autonomously from the
groups and people in society which try to influence our behavior?
From the point of view of behaviorism, this is just plain silly.
However, one does not need to be a behaviorist to reject individualism.
We often reject "labeling" because we claim it does not adequately describe who
we are. However, are we not reducible to a description of oursleves (whether
functional, material, mental, behavioral, spiritual, or some combination)?
Each of these characteristic puts us in a group.
For example, Ronald Reagan is...
1) A Republican
2) A Conservative
3) A Senior Citizen
4) A Former Actor
5) A Victim of Nose Tumors
6) A Male
7) An Actor
8) A tall person
etc, etc, etc.
If you list all these groups to which he belongs, you have a complete
description of Ronald Reagan.
What I'm saying is that our individuality does not rest separately from the
groups we are classified as belonging to. Rather, our individuality comes from
the intersection of all these groups. I am unique because the physical,
social, ethnic, and other groups I am a part of are different from every other
person's collection of groups.
To reiterate: Our individual selves are defined by the groups that we belong
to, not by separating ourselves from these influences.
(For any philosophy-types, I'm suggesting something similar to the
"rectification of names" - but as a source of identification and not
necessarily as a guide to proper behavior.)
Anyway, think on the above for awhile and please respond.
--
ARPA: chiefdan@vax1.acs.udel.edu "Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts"
UUCP: ...{ihnp4,uunet}!vax1.acs.udel.edu!chiefdan
"They nailed him to the cross and they laid him in the ground, but they should
have known you can't keep a good man down." -- Larry Normantsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (03/10/88)
In article <779@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> chiefdan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Chief Dan Roth) writes: >However, are we not reducible to a description of oursleves (whether >functional, material, mental, behavioral, spiritual, or some combination)? >Each of these characteristic puts us in a group. > >Our individual selves are defined by the groups that we belong >to, not by separating ourselves from these influences. I suspect this post is just to get an interesting discussion going. I can't believe that he really believes this. Regardless of whether that is true, here's my response: The basic question is what a "group" is. I could assume that a "group" is a set of people. In that case, if you know all of the groups that I belong to, you do NOT have a complete description of me. In the presence of enough computing resources and knowledge of physics, a complete description of me would allow you to know what I would do next. Listing all of the groups of which I am a member does not let you know whether I will be inhaling or exhaling at noon tomorrow, so it is not a complete description of me. If, instead, I assume that a "group" is a bunch of words describing a property, and that my membership in the group depends upon whether that bunch of words fits me, then you do have a complete description of me, provided that all of the predictions you want to make about me are expressable in words. For instance, you could check my membership in the group "people who will be inhaling at noon tomorrow" and "people who will be exhaling at noon tomorrow" to determine whether I will be inhaling or exhaling at noon tomorrow. For the purposes of argument I'm assuming here that the mapping from words to meanings is a thing that exists independently of who is performing the mapping. This is actually false because different people will have different interperetations for the same words. If I measured my height this morning as 5'8", does that make me a "tall" person? Depends on what the person who is making the decision means by "tall". Regardless of what a group is, the general idea that "our individual selves are defined by the groups which we belong to" has no practical significance. You have no guaranteed way to determine which groups I belong to. Thus when you try to interact with me you should focus your attention on my behavior, rather than the groups you think I'm a member of, because you have more accurate information about the former than the latter. If you want to deal with people, you had better treat them as individuals regardless of your philosophies. -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
carrier@oreo.berkeley.edu (Stephen Carrier) (03/16/88)
> tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) >> chiefdan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Chief Dan Roth) >>However, are we not reducible to a description of oursleves (whether >>functional, material, mental, behavioral, spiritual, or some combination)? >>Each of these characteristic puts us in a group. Each of these characteristics _incidentally_ puts us in a group. It is not necessary to derive a sense of identity from the groups that one belongs to. One point of individualist philosophy would be that it is a bad thing to do so. The most common group identification in the world today is the ethnic one so I will go with that for a while. (Or maybe it is religion?) Some examples of deriving identity from a group would be: I am a man (woman) and proud of it. I am a white man (black, asian, native american,...) and proud of it. To point to the `achievements' of your ethnic group and be proud of them is pathetic. Also, to be ashamed of the `crimes' of your ethnic group is a different kind of pathetic. This is to be distinguished from respecting or condemning the achievements and crimes of others, without trying to take false credit or false blame for them. It is also different from trying to draw on the experiences of others who face problems similar to your own, such as discrimination, by imitating them or by adopting their philosophy. But if you need to feel worthwhile then do something worthwhile. Besides the pride/shame factor, there is the problem of political settlements between ethnic groups (affirmative action), genders (comparable pay (sic)), labor and employers, landlord and tenants, etc., all of which negate the individual nature of complaint and conflict and seek to impose group settlements according to political power play. The underlying assumption behind _all_ such settlements seems to be that the individual doesn't count for shit, and that `fairness' only means something when applied to _groups_. Anyone who doesn't want to be part of groupist power-plays, who wants to address their personal problems without crying `oppression' to the governments, really doesn't have a chance in this lawyer-bound groupist society. (I guess I exaggerate for effect, but it isn't getting any better.) >>Our individual selves are defined by the groups that we belong >>to, not by separating ourselves from these influences. >I suspect this post is just to get an interesting discussion going. I >can't believe that he really believes this. Regardless of whether >that is true, here's my response: I do believe that he really believes this. Because "Our individual selves are defined by the groups that we belong to" is anti-individualism in a nutshell and is seriously believed without question and without reservation by very very many people. Sad but true. So true that sometimes if you try to tell them what it is that you believe in contradistinction to what they believe that they can't understand what you are talking about! Tim Freemans's response remains appropriate: >The basic question is what a "group" is. >I could assume that a "group" is a set of people. In that case, if >you know all of the groups that I belong to, you do NOT have a >complete description of me. In the presence of enough computing >resources and knowledge of physics, a complete description of me would >allow you to know what I would do next. Listing all of the groups of >which I am a member does not let you know whether I will be inhaling or >exhaling at noon tomorrow, so it is not a complete description of me. There is much grist for philosophical mills here. May I point out that my social security number is sufficient to uniquely define me as a human being. This is very different from _being_ my social security number. I think the important thing is that the individual has _value_ as a individual and that the individual's value is _not_ the same as their value to `society', as collectivists would have it. The uniqueness of individuals is an incidental fact. That diversity is a social value might be a belief of some `individualists' although not the ones who deny that their is such a thing as `society'. (These are beliefs of mine. That diversity is a social value and that `society' exists.) . . . >when you try to interact with me you should focus your >attention on my behavior, rather than the groups you think I'm a >member of, because you have more accurate information about the former >than the latter. If you want to deal with people, you had better >treat them as individuals regardless of your philosophies. This could be an anthem. Thank you. Although it is not the accuracy of information about group-membership that is important, but the relevence. Group membership is easy information to put on a punched card, for example, and that is what bureacrats know about you. Hence the oppressiveness of bureaucracy. Stephen Carrier ucbvax!bosco!carrier
chiefdan@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Chief Dan Roth) (03/27/88)
In article <7705@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> carrier@oreo.UUCP (Stephen Carrier) writes: >I do believe that he really believes this. Because "Our individual >selves are defined by the groups that we belong to" is >anti-individualism in a nutshell and is seriously believed without >question and without reservation by very very many people. Well, I actually don't believe it. And it looks like it didn't get too far in starting a conversation after all. (All those not following by subject, SORRY). -- "I promise, if elected, I will borrow even-larger amounts of money in order to keep pace with the ever-increasing interest payments on the national debt!" "You've got my vote! So long as you don't cut spending or raise taxes." -Stamaty ARPA: chiefdan@vax1.acs.udel.edu UUCP: BACKBONE!vax1.acs.udel.edu!chiefdan
prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) (03/31/88)
In article <7705@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> carrier@oreo.UUCP (Stephen Carrier) writes: >I do believe that he really believes this. Because "Our individual >selves are defined by the groups that we belong to" is >anti-individualism in a nutshell and is seriously believed without >question and without reservation by very very many people. No, unfortunately it is NOT believed by very very many people, despite the fact that it happens to be absolutely true. Anyone who thinks they are truly self-defined, self-determining, or self-actualized, is either an arrogant egotist or a complete idiot. Does anyone care to refute the idea that our individual selves ARE defined by the groups we belong to, by the environment and surroundings we grow up in, by the biological combinatory randomness that forms our genetics? ... ... ... I didn't think so. As I just said, the problem isn't that too many people believe it, it's that too many people DON'T believe it.
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/31/88)
In article <4344@chinet.UUCP> prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) writes: >Anyone who thinks they are truly >self-defined, self-determining, or self-actualized, is either an arrogant >egotist or a complete idiot. Does anyone care to refute the idea that our >individual selves ARE defined by the groups we belong to, by the environment >and surroundings we grow up in, by the biological combinatory randomness that >forms our genetics? ... ... ... We may have a problem in definitions here. What do you mean by ``defined''? Influenced? I'll buy that. Completely determined. Nope. I'm neither a philosophical determinist nor a fatalist. Are you denying the existence of free will? -- The universe is expanding, but I still can't find a parking space. Laura Creighton uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@toad.com
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (03/31/88)
Proof by ignoring the problem! Beautiful! The original statement is our individual selves are defined by the groups we belong to. The Professor (would he be so obnoxious without the alias?) wants to convince people that this is true, so he asserts that our individual selves ARE defined by the groups we belong to, by the environment and surroundings we grow up in, by the biological combinatory randomness that forms our genetics and declares success, even though the statement he asserted does not imply the statement he is arguing for! By the way, because of the peculiar cause and effect of quantum mechanics, it is impossible in principle to make a specification of a person which suffices to predict his behavior. We all know it is impossible in practice anyway. Thus the reality of each person is more than can be described, and each person is an individual, not an automaton. If the Professor keeps posting at this rate, and he doesn't become more polite, then he goes into my kill file tomorrow... -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
morrow@topaz.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) (04/04/88)
In article <4283@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >We may have a problem in definitions here. What do you mean by ``defined''? >Influenced? I'll buy that. Completely determined. Nope. I'm >neither a philosophical determinist nor a fatalist. Are you denying >the existence of free will? I'll give it a shot. I'll, for the sake of arguement (read: I don't really believe what I am about to say for religious reasons...), argue against free will in the context of a universe with no "supernatural". Will is a product of the mind. The mind is the product of the physical brain. "Free" implies a choice. I assert that no choice really exists because the brain, being a physical entity, is a collection of chemicals, bound and unbound, reacting with each other and chemical reactions don't make choices. Claiming that you have "choices" is like claiming that a computer chooses to put a "T" on the screen when you execute the line '10 PRINT "T"' in basic. You, like the computer, are programmed for certain behavior. This programming is often called instinct but it exists in everyone. You have an "instinct" to learn to speak because your brain is programmed in such a way that it reads and interprets audio signals and processes them through a language center not unlike a speach recognition module for a computer. It them processes it which consists of programming for storage and meaning. If necessary, it can be run through and output module making additional hardware (the body) move and speak. So? A glorified computer. If you touch a fire and get burned, your brain processes the physical stimuli for the fire and associates it with the consequences. The next time fire is encountered, the brain "knows" what it is and it sets up checks to block actions that will cause pain. "AHA," you cry. "I can CHOOSE to put my hand in the fire." Normally you would not because the programming is there not to. That programming may be overridden by higher goals. You would do something like that to prove free will. That seems to have high priority for some reason (the programming doesn't have to be logical) and to PROVE it, the brain processes how it can do that and it comes up with "stick hand in fire", overriding the "don't" message. As a matter of fact, if I just said "you don't to things that endanger your life", you would search the table of things that do and if "hand in fire" was the first thing you hit, you would have said "but I can stick my hand in a fire," right? Basically, you would not choose to stick your hand in the fire without a reason Where is the choice? I can drive just by popping the destination into my mind. I just "wind up there". Why? I set up a parallel, sub-mind, process that works just like it would if my mind was getting the output and I do it. If things become important, my mind illustrates the situation for storage and I "pay attention". That doesn't mean I am "choosing" anything, just that I am storing it. In short, the brain is a chemical processor that doesn't choose anymore than a computer chip. The mind, as a reflection of that, doesn't really choose but illustrates a train of thought. If you want to claim the mind is seperate, you must prove it. Scientifically, I doubt it can be proven. A dead body without a mind weighs as much as a live body with one just like a computer which is off wieghts as much as one that is on. Making a choice implies that you can make the wrong choice. How can your brain function under "wrong" physics? >The universe is expanding, but I still can't find a parking space. Try getting them to build a deck... >Laura Creighton
dstalder@gmuvax2 (Darren Stalder) (04/04/88)
In article <Apr.4.00.38.15.1988.25156@topaz.rutgers.edu>, morrow@topaz (John Morrow) writes: >If you want to claim the mind is seperate, you must prove it. >Scientifically, I doubt it can be proven. A dead body without a mind >weighs as much as a live body with one just like a computer which is >off wieghts as much as one that is on. Making a choice implies that >you can make the wrong choice. How can your brain function under >"wrong" physics? Actually that is incorrect. There have been measurements made and the body weighs some 300 grams less after other things such as water loss are taken into account. I wish that I knew where I read this since I know that everyone will want the reference. But I dont know, so you can accept it or not. -- Torin/Darren Stalder/Wolf Blessed Internet: dstalder@gmuvax2.gmu.edu Be! Bitnet: dstalder@gmuvax ATTnet: 1-703-352-8124 Hail uucp: multiverse!uunet!pyrdc!gmu90x!dstalder Eris! Snail: PO Box 405/Fairfax, VA 22030/USA DISCLAIMER: I have enough problems getting credit what I do do for work, much less this stuff.
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (04/04/88)
In article <916@gmu90x.UUCP>, dstalder@gmuvax2 (Darren Stalder) writes: > ... There have been measurements made and the > body weighs some 300 grams less after other things such as water loss > are taken into account. I wish that I knew where I read this since I > know that everyone will want the reference. But I dont know, so you > can accept it or not. The idea that the body, during death, loses the mass of the "soul", and that this loss has been measured and well documented is another one of these recurring, modern myths. This is not quite an urban myth, but fits nicely into the genre of "science supporting religion" myths. Another good example is one that made the rounds for years: that NASA, in calculating the trajectory for the Apollo moon flight (or whatever), couldn't get things right until Joshua's "missing day" was taken into account. At least this latter myth is easily dispelled by anyone who knows that Newtonian (or relativistic) mechanics is invariant under displacement in time, and who realizes that NASA does not use astronomical measurements made before Joshua's time. I have seen both of these myths claimed as true in various books. But the authors of such "references" declined to document their source. These myths remain myths. Russell
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (04/05/88)
Reply to John Morrow: Do you believe in artificial intelligence? Do you think you have a self? I don't think that your brain makes you a self, I think that your brain (and the rest of your body) *is* yourself. Can you think of yourself as an emerging property of the chemistry of the brain? Try to think of free will the same way. By the way, this discussion of free will has been going on for more than two years in talk.philosophy... Laura -- Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand. Laura Creighton uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@toad.com
gautier@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Jorge Gautier) (04/09/88)
In article <4344@chinet.UUCP> prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) writes: >Does anyone care to refute the idea that our >individual selves ARE defined by the groups we belong to, by the environment >and surroundings we grow up in, by the biological combinatory randomness that >forms our genetics? ... ... ... I do. These "groups" that you mention are merely convenient abstractions devised to help us in thinking about the complexities of existence. To claim that the "groups we belong to" define our selves is ridiculous. At most these "groups" will influence our selves, but never completely determine them. "Let's see, I belong to the group of brown-haired-animals, the group of animals-with-freckles-on-their-face, the group of catholic-high-school- alumni, the group of 23-year-olds, ... Yeah, I guess the (infinite) sum of all these groups defines my self. How useful and enlightening." Groups do not exist. Individuals exist. --- Jorge Gautier @ Wisconsin, gautier@cs.wisc.edu "The fact that my internal arrangement differs from yours, doctor, pleases me without end."
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (04/10/88)
In article <5539@spool.cs.wisc.edu> gautier@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Jorge Gautier) writes: >..."groups" ...are merely convenient abstractions >devised to help us in thinking about the complexities of existence. To claim >that the "groups we belong to" define our selves is ridiculous. At most >these "groups" will influence our selves, but never completely determine >them. > >Groups do not exist. Individuals exist. One might argue also that material objects are really abstractions devised to help us in thinking about the complexities of exitence. As we know, the solid appearance of an object is a illusion, as atoms are mostly empty space. To paraphrase: Objects do not exist. Atoms do not exist. -- "To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer." - Robert Sheckley pan@well.UUCP (you figure out how to get their).
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (04/10/88)
Er....let me try that again.
to paraphrase:
Objects do not exist, atoms exist.
--
"To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer."
- Robert Sheckley
pan@well.UUCP (you figure out how to get their).Q2816@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Creative Business Decisions) (04/11/88)
>In article <5539@spool.cs.wisc.edu> gautier@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Jorge Gautier) writes: >>..."groups" ...are merely convenient abstractions >>devised to help us in thinking about the complexities of existence. To claim >>that the "groups we belong to" define our selves is ridiculous. At most >>these "groups" will influence our selves, but never completely determine >>them. >>Groups do not exist. Individuals exist. So what? People act AS THOUGH the groups exist. You do. I do. I try not to, in many cases; in some cases, acting in awareness of "groupness" is considered sensitive; in other cases, it is considered bigotry. In most cases, nobody cares much. Also, why the ironclad dichotomy between group and individual? (Does a jellyfish exist?) In some cases, knowledge of group membership allows you to individualize your conduct, especially if the object of your action likes to be thought of as a member of some group, or whatever. Roger Lustig (Q2816@PUCC.BITNET Q2816@pucc.princeton.edu) Die Gedanken sind frei! Wer kann sie erraten?
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (04/12/88)
In article <5646@well.UUCP> pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) writes: >In article <5539@spool.cs.wisc.edu> gautier@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Jorge Gautier) writes: >>..."groups" ...are merely convenient abstractions >>devised to help us in thinking about the complexities of existence. To claim >>that the "groups we belong to" define our selves is ridiculous. At most >>these "groups" will influence our selves, but never completely determine >>them. >> >>Groups do not exist. Individuals exist. > >One might argue also that material objects are really abstractions devised to >help us in thinking about the complexities of exitence. As we know, the solid >appearance of an object is a illusion, as atoms are mostly empty space. > >To paraphrase: > >Objects do not exist. Atoms exist. Philip's analogy leads to the conclusion that Jorge is right, which may not have been what he wanted. To continue with Philip's analogy, when you deal with atoms grouped into material objects, you have to be prepared for them to act as a collection of atoms, because some of the details you throw away when you make the "material object" abstraction may turn out to be important. Mapping that back to Jorge's original domain, when you deal with people in groups, you have to be prepared for the people to act as individuals, because some of the details you threw away when you formed the "group" abstraction may turn out to be important. The difference here is that people are more intelligent and interesting than atoms (thank goodness!), so the "group" abstraction is less reliable than the "material object" abstraction. Read General Semantics by Korzybsky; he repeats himself a lot, and his ideas about mathematics and the workings of the brain are wrong, but his ideas about how the process of abstraction works are useful. -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo.css.gov!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf