Salsa and cigars?
1 Like
To know what an AF person values in such a situation is the point of all this. I’ll explain it further later in this remark.
It stumped me previously when you brought in “is he a criminal, is he…” The heart of the question was: An AF person is in a situation where he must risk his life in order to avert the danger posed to his child.
Whatever extra elements you add to the situation shouldn’t change “must risk his life”. If you do, that’s missing the heart of the question.
By “Throw yourself at the attacker”, I didn’t mean trying to attack the attacker irrationally even though you know you were going to be killed. Thinking so is missing the heart of the question.
This is not related to moral philosophy at all. That’s your projection from your understanding of how you thought when you were a feeling-being(that’s my projection based on what you wrote how you used to feel).
Hypothetical questions will bare what our values are. Trolley question is about an enquiry into our nature. The conflict between emotions and logic. The irrationality of us. So instead of seeing the merit in it, Cuba, you and others are apparently denouncing it as a fruitless intellectual masturbation.
The point of asking hypothetical questions is to go beyond vague answers like “fellowship regard”, “acting intelligently” towards more concrete and useful answers.
I have a problem with “acting intelligently”. Acting intelligently requires one to know what is more valuable and and what is less valuable. Lot of times we wouldn’t know. Hypothetical questions help to bring them out. They help us understand ourselves better. It’s merely a tool, so don’t go “Why don’t you practice EAETMOBA?” like Cuba did. I do that, but there are some emotional obstacles that repeatedly play spoilsport. So other tools are needed.
Feeling beings say what is valuable to them and may act differently in actual situations because they are driven by feelings. AF people are not hindered by feelings. So what makes them act differently in the actual situation than what they say in a hypothetical question?
A primary psychopath(not sociopath) will unreservedly say how he would act to save people those who he value. He will take measured risks. But if push comes to shove, he’ll categorically choose themselves over anything. Even if it means burning down the whole planet to save his life.
But AF people choose to answer with “Act intelligently”, “fellowship regard”.
I gave you an example of how we have regard for a chair, a dog, a stranger, a family member, one’s own child. The value we accord to each of them is evidently different. Nevertheless, we value and care all of the above. So saying “An AF person cares” doesn’t mean anything. I wanted to know how much he cares. Give me a measure. Like I gave the hierarchy previously. For a psychopath his life sits at the top of the hierarchy. A feeling-being can’t be clear because he is driven by feelings. What is it for an AF person?
This is not a moral question. I envy psychopaths: They are closer to AF people than feeling beings.
This is not a debate either. This is not to “win”. As Cuba, Claudiu and you seem to have understood.
I have a problem with “acting intelligently”. Acting intelligently requires what is valued more and what is valued less. That is, a hierarchy of values need to be there for one to act intelligently.
Suppose, you have to save a dog and your son, what would you choose? You act based on what you value.
Don’t bring in "Can both be not saved? Does the dog have rabies? Can the threat be neutralised? " Because doing so misses the heart of the question as explained above.
@Kiman Just so you know my name is actually Kuba (my fault for putting the C in the avatar I know 
) I will leave it to others to address the rest of the post if they like as I don’t really have much else to add atm without spinning round in circles.
I think this is really the heart of the matter as far as you are concerned, Kiman. This is simply not true.
This comes from misunderstanding the point of actualism as to “stop feeling”, and that actual freedom is “elimination of emotions”. As psycopaths have fewer emotions, the logic must go, therefore they are closer to actual freedom. And of course, therefore, why would actually free people not act in their complete and total self-interest, given they have no emotional regard for others, just like a psycopath would?
But actual freedom isn’t “elimination of emotions” per se. It is “elimination of ‘being’ itself”, of ‘self’ in its entirety. Emotions are not the enemy. They go away when ‘I’ go away, more as a ‘side-effect’ if you will, of ‘me’ going away (because ‘I’ am ‘my emotions’).
Along with the elimination of ‘self’ comes the elimination of ‘self-centeredness’. This is why actual caring is only possible in a PCE, or when actually free - because there is no ‘self’ in the way to be self-centered. Any form of caring as a feeling-being intrinsically ties itself back to ‘me’ in an automatic manner, even when ‘I’ am felt to care about others! And this is not something to be believed, but rather something to be experienced.
Whereas a psycopath, by comparison, is not less self-centered than the average person… they are far, far more self-centered, to the point of it being a pathology.
That is to say, the feeling-caring that a feeling-being father feels for their child, does not even come close in comparison (either quantity or quality) of the actual caring that an actually free father has for their child. The actually free father cares more, not less, in a way the feeling-being father cannot even imagine.
So in any situation of a potential stabbing or murder of said child, it is as Geoffrey said… the most beneficial outcome will be if the father is actually free.
Maybe it’s not too late to change it? 
I had a look, it appears you can’t change the username. Unless one of the admins can do some magic and change the C to a K?
Not when it comes down to risking their lives to protect the child, I suspect. A feeling being takes massive risks to protect the child, if it’s required. If there’s 70% chance of losing his life in order to avert danger for the child by 20%, he’ll take the risk. I mean majority of parents; this is a qualitative point. Saying “well, it’s factually incorrect because psychopaths and abusers don’t do that” will not take anything away from the point.
I vaguely thought your parents were communism inspired people because post the disintegration of the Soviet Union, China wasn’t yet on the scene, so Cuba was the only standing beacon of communism. Stalin and Lenin are common names that socialists would give to their children.
If I was talking about sociopaths, this would probably hold true. “Elimination of emotions” doesn’t correspond to psychopaths.
I get it: Extinguishment of me is extinguishment of emotions and vice-versa (as opposed to “elimination of emotions” which connotes to eliminating emotions from something else). I said Psychopaths are closer to AF because they have a weaker “me”, or rather they are a weaker “me”.
That’s a misunderstanding of a psychopath. You are mistaking a narcissist for a psychopath.
Done – enjoy
Haha that would have been a much cooler origin for my name vs what it actually is. Kuba is short for Jakub which is the Polish equivalent of Jacob.
Oh damn and I just realised someone did change it for me haha that was swift! Thank you @claudiu 
2 Likes
There are eight possibilities in a situation of 3 people, regarding whether they live or die.
With the father being actually free, then…
If the most beneficial thing that the father can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account, has the result that the attacker live, the child live, and the father live, that is what will happen.
If the most beneficial thing that the father can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account, has the result that the attacker live, the child live, and the father die, that is what will happen.
If the most beneficial thing that the father can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account, has the result that the attacker live, the child die, and the father live, that is what will happen.
If the most beneficial thing that the father can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account, has the result that the attacker live, the child die, and the father die, that is what will happen.
If the most beneficial thing that the father can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account, has the result that the attacker die, the child live, and the father live, that is what will happen.
If the most beneficial thing that the father can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account, has the result that the attacker die, the child live, and the father die, that is what will happen.
If the most beneficial thing that the father can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account, has the result that the attacker die, the child die, and the father live, that is what will happen.
If the most beneficial thing that the father can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account, has the result that the attacker die, the child die, and the father die, that is what will happen.
Now in the situation of both the father and the child are actually free, then…
It’s the same except with “If the most beneficial thing that the father and child can cause to happen, taking all aspects into account […]”
Now, if the father, the child, and the attacker are all actually free, then there will be no attacker in the first place 
What is the basis for the “most beneficial thing”? I said it depends on the value we accord to different entities. Like I said, between a dog and human, what’s “the most beneficial thing”? It’s human, usually, because of the higher value we accord to a human. Between a neighbour and your close relative? The latter. Between a close relative and your child? The latter.
So it’s not that we aren’t aware of the “most beneficial thing”. For a psychopath, who is unencumbered by strong emotions, the value hierarchy is much more clear, even in the midst of facing the situations actually.
When an AF person answers, “intelligently”, it feels like evasion: An AF person is an epitome of self-awareness. So them not being aware of what they value the most is the nth degree of contradiction.
Why should actualism be posited as a winner vis-a-vis feeling-beings on every count and in every respect?
I don’t know how best to answer this. It’s an experiential thing.
As a feeling-being, the ‘most beneficial thing’ is essentially based upon a chimeric, mercurial, capricious, often contradictory self-centric mix of feelings, emotions, passions, morals, identities, etc. And whatever it may be, one can be sure that ‘me’ as a feeling-being takes primacy (‘me’ dying for ‘my’ children has more to do with ‘me’ instinctively wanting ‘my’ genes to propagate, rather than any concern of the welfare of ‘my’ child as a flesh and blood body in their own right – though I must say this is intellectual not experiential on my part as I am not a parent).
While in a PCE, for example, the ‘most beneficial thing’ is an intelligent, automatic, clear, usually simple evaluation of what is most benevolent and benign, with a general preference and understanding that nothing can go wrong, nobody ‘has’ to suffer, a fellowship regard, actually caring about this body and that body (e.g. for the actual flesh and blood body a child actually in and of themselves is, rather than what that ‘child’ means for ‘me’ and ‘my’ genes, schemes, ideals, plans, etc), a preference for everyone and everything to thrive, a total absence of malice and sorrow, etc.
A PCE also results in a total lack of concern for what the answers to these questions may be… the PCE is what gives you the answer. Though, as stated, it is not the answer ‘you’ want .
Well, just compare the cases of the feeling-being vs. the PCE above and it should be clear!
It feels like evasion, yet is the answer.
Because it feels that it isn’t the answer, you go on to project that “what they value most” has to be obvious to them via self awareness.
Actual Freedom has no self awareness. That’s the entire point.
There is only the sensate, intelligent body, completely free of any “self” to be aware of, and thus any of the values a “self” claims to have.
Have a read of the first page of the AFT.
Richard: “One can free oneself from all the beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams.” (emphasis added).
So, asking what an actually free person values, it makes sense you are looking for the type of values you are familiar with ; felt values.
the self that needs values to to keep itself in check isn’t there in actually free person, so it’s very much like asking the sun, moon and stars what they “value”.
It’s really a reading comprehension test.
Again, to keep this human, and harmless as possible, i was also objecting on a similar point to you when i first came across actualism.
2 Likes
Andrew, you missed it entirely. By values I didn’t mean “moral values”, Richard meant “moral values” in what you quoted.
What does it mean if an AF person saves a human from a fire accident but not a dog although both are stuck in flames and smoke and the situation is such that he could save only one? AF people have values, although they are not moral. Please read my prior posts.
It’s my bad that I shouldn’t have used self-awareness. In AF terms, I meant apperception.
Incase you object to me adding the word “felt” to “value”, have a look at what you titled this thread…
You start by asking if they “experience any emotions”, but have spent most of your time writing about “value”.
So, as feeling beings we store our claimed values in emotions, so it is incomprehensible (feels like evasion), when the answer is essentially “no, actually free people don’t feel emotions and don’t require values to actually care”.
It should actually feel far scarier/more shocking than “evasion”.
By the way, you have adjusted your estimate of feeling beings that will die for their child to 70%.
Can you give me an estimate of how many feeling beings would let their own child die to save another person’s child on the basis that the other child is superior in every way?
There is no end to the hypothetical exploration of “values”.
In my question, one has to ask another whole set of questions based on another set of values.
I may value my child above all else, society may compare my child to all others and determine otherwise in relation to other people’s children.
What then? Am i correct, or the masses that make up society?
If we define “Value”, we generally mean that something has a usefulness we will pay something for. That usefulness may be anything from peeling potatoes to increasing our social status (i am looking at you Ferrari, hmmm, Ferrari 
).
Ok, moral values.
What’s the difference?
You want the assurance that an actually free person will save things in order of their value, like this;.
1] their own children first,
2)then your children,
3) then their dog,
4)then your dog,
5)then their deck chair,
6)then your deck chair.
But most importantly, they must assure you upfront, that this is exactly what they will do. Because it is how they value everything and if you are agreed that the order of values are the same as yours, then… Well, then it’s obvious that you don’t actually have to change at all.
Infact, all that is happening (and i did read everything you wrote), is that you are dodging your own point.
You asked, do actually free people experience emotions.
No, they don’t.
Let me hypothesise about what you are feeling ; you can’t make sense of how they can store their “values” without emotion, you are worried that if you become actually free, one day you may let your own child die because you didn’t sacrifice yourself and will be seen by society as being less valuable. At that point, you will be unable to live with yourself or in society, and it is clearly a mistake; you should have stayed a feeling being.
I actually very much enjoyed the thread, because of the fact it highlights all the things i am not doing to otherwise do the very best i can for my children. Forget about some hypothetical (and statistically improbable) event, i have actual things i can be doing now; feeling good being the best start!
3 Likes
My little hypothesis on how you are feeling actually brings up another salient term; “social identity”.
The idea that one must risk their own life to save their child is an example of a social value.
That value is based on what exactly? That all subsequent generations should be arbitrarily preserved at the cost of the previous generation?
Are all offspring intrinsically more valuable then their parents?
Can you answer these questions?
Do you value all children the same, or just your own? (going back to my previous hypothetical)
What if (as in the trolley hypothetical), i can save just my child, or 5 children of other people?
It seems that it’s more fruitful to consider these as social identity questions.
Besides, as someone who has been around a lot of death, being alive when others close to you are not and perhaps i could have done more, i can get a glimpse of the sheer guilt that a child would feel knowing that their parent had died to save them. Also, just to go further down that rabbit hole, that child now has to live in a world where they are less valued than everyone around them. (because the person who valued them with their own life is dead, and other parents don’t feel the same about this now orphaned kid).
It seems like this may be a situation where you would do better to consider what they mean by ‘intelligently’ rather than expect them to cater to your feeling of evasion.
I don’t think you’re asking a question at this point. If he must risk his life in this hypothetical, then it sounds like Geoffrey or another AF person would be risking their life - - since that’s what you’re saying they ‘must’ do. So what’s the question? I thought it originally started out as ‘would you risk your life to save the child or not?’
Geoffrey’s entire point seems to be that details matter. He would react depending on the situation. It’s that simple. Feel free to give him more details if you like, but it seems like you’re removing them if the person ‘must risk his life.’
That’s not true. It’s entirely possible for a feeling being to cower in fear. It’s entirely possible for a feeling being to decide that it’s not wise to save the child. People can and do kill their own babies - I suspect those feeling beings wouldn’t do anything. I think you’re overestimating our ability to ‘do the right thing.’
Again, details matter and the details are as infinite as the universe.
3 Likes