Humanity’s wishful belief in karma part 2

•October 31, 2017 • 1 Comment

It’s been almost 6 years since I made my last blog post. The way I think about the world has changed a lot in the past few years, although my core beliefs in nihilism remain the same.

I wanted to expand on my last blog post, the one titled “Humanity’s wishful belief in karma”. Some commenters have tried arguing that karma does exist by saying something to the effect of ‘just go punch someone and see how that react, if they punch you back that’s karma’. Although I can see their thought process, I feel like a comment truly misses what karma really is and why it doesn’t exist. It is a common misunderstanding so let me explain.

How someone reacts when you punch someone is not karma. If someone punches you back, both in the literal and figurative sense, how they react is a defensive mechanism to prevent you from harming them again. Which is expected, it’s common sense. That’s completely different from karma. What a belief in karma is, a belief in some kind of powerful God, an omnipotent Santa Clause, keeping a list of who is naughty and nice and checking it twice.

You don’t even have to believe in some figurative Santa Clause, maybe you think the universe is somehow keeping track of a karma list, and people with positive karma are rewarded while those with negative karma are charged a karma interest rate. The truth is the universe doesn’t care. Unless if someone explicitly sees you doing a harmful action, and has the power to punish you for that action, no one is keeping track of karma. And even on that individual level the consequence of one’s action is completely unreliable, because not only of the fact that ‘harmful’ is a completely subjective experience depending on the viewer, people are punished with ‘good’ actions and punished for ‘bad’ actions all the time. You may be familiar with the saying “no good deed goes unpunished”. I only say good and bad in quotes because I don’t believe good and evil objectively exists, although there are actions that are conventionally considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

The power of reacting to ‘negative’ (or positive) actions such as punching someone is reliant on the fact that

1. The viewer(s) sees the action as a negative (or positive) one and
2. Has the power and will to react (positively or negatively) to the action

So of course if you punch some guy in the face he will react negatively. That’s not karma. Karma is when you do a negative action that either no one knows about or no one who knows about it has the will/power to react, and the universe magically keeps track of this action and punishes you for it later. That doesn’t happen. Karma doesn’t exist.

Humanity’s wishful belief in karma

•December 9, 2011 • 9 Comments

I grew up believing that if I behaved well, that life would reward me. If I listened to my parents, if I followed the rules, then I would be rewarded for my good behavior. However, as I grew up I saw people get things that they didn’t deserve, and others deserved things that they didn’t get. People may never get the life that they deserve no matter how well behaved someone is. Perhaps it is in accordance to our inner sense of fairness or rightness that we always hope the good guys win, and that they will live happily ever after. The fact is, however, that life is not black and white, and there is no such thing as right or wrong, only consequences. What your character is itself does not matter, the only thing that matters are the consequences of what you do.

I hate it when people complain about how selfish humanity is. It is the nature of human beings to be selfish, that’s how they survived millions of years of evolution. If someone was not programmed biologically to be selfish, their genes may have been wiped out years ago.

Might makes Right

•April 16, 2011 • 12 Comments

The only basis for morality is by force. Morals, whether derived from logic or not, cannot be enforced without force. If a individual feels that murder is wrong, then that is his own morals, but that does not stop someone else from murdering. When a large enough group of individuals agrees that something is wrong, that morality is defined in a law. Legal morality is based upon the ideas of a majority of the society in which it is drafted. As that society changes, the morality of it changes. Moral stances are backed up by force and the threat of force rather than by reference to an absolute morality. An idea that something is wrong or right does not become an “universal” moral rule until it is backed up by the people that believe it, and enforced by those people. If the people who believe in a certain moral rule do not exist, then the moral rule or law ceases to exist. A moral rule is fully dependent on the people who believe it and enforce it. Might makes right.

Even if a God exists, how is the morals that God imposes on the universe any different from a mortal human being’s own moral beliefs? The only difference is that God is all-powerful, and a mortal is not, which again proves that might makes right.

Deep pictures/comics

•April 10, 2011 • 4 Comments

Extension on Nihilism

•August 21, 2010 • 1 Comment

Free will continued

•August 21, 2010 • 7 Comments

If there is something that gives us free will, that free will could be explained through chemical and physical reactions, therefore making it not free will.

If everything could be understood, then obviously there would be absolutely no free will

But because we don’t understand everything because of our limited reasoning faculty in our brain, sometimes we assign things we don’t understand to ‘god’ or other magical forces.

I mean, if the whole human body can be understood through science and chemical reactions, then free will is completely destroyed.

It is because of our ignorance that we are still able to believe in such things as free will.

There is no such thing as “living beings”

•August 9, 2010 • 6 Comments

This is an extension to the “Human being are nothing but objects” post I made awhile ago. I thought of a better way to put it.

There is no such thing as “living beings”, but rather just complex biological machines programmed to survive through the use of irrational desires and emotions, which are the product of nothing except physical chemical reactions. Basically organisms are a complex arrangement of matter that became able to serve different functions and replicate its complexity through some sort of reproduction.

Complexity does not make us living beings, we are still dead matter.

A weird thought just hit me

•August 5, 2010 • 6 Comments

Teleportation, a machine de-constructs our molecules and re-constructs them somewhere else. You teleported to that somewhere else.

So what if the machine delays the de-construction but still re-constructs somewhere else. Or even doesn’t de-construct at all. Will you be two people at the same time?

Or what if that machine does de-construct you, but re-constructs you in two different places, would you be two people?

Let’s say that you are about to be teleported in an hour. You will be re-constructed in heaven and in hell. Should you be excited or sad?

How do you define yourself?

Are you defined as the actual atoms in your body? But then teleportations means you are dead. Plus, atoms flow in and out of your body all the time.

Rather are you defined as the formation of atoms in your body, but not the actual atoms themselves? But this poses another serious problem. Who is to say that you are the same person each day? Every moment and second there are chemical reactions and molecules moving around in your body. If you are not defined as the actual atoms in your body, but the formation of them, aren’t you a different person every moment of your life? Because the molecules in your body keep shifting.

After thinking about this for some time, the most enlightening, yet un-reassuring thought occurred to me:

Evolution made us think of ourselves as the same person all throughout our lives so that it can protect the same genes all throughout our lives.

… the definition of self is an illusion…

After this thought, all I could think of was… What The Fuck

Illusory Superiority

•August 4, 2010 • 1 Comment

“The data does suggest that those with a positive self view are more likely to display the above-average effect, as opposed to those with a negative self appraisal. Similarly, those with low self-esteem appear to engage in far less illusory superiority, showing more realism in their self rating” Wikipedia

“Psychology has traditionally assumed that generally accurate self-perceptions are essential to good mental health.[2] This was challenged by a 1988 paper by Taylor and Brown, who argued that mentally healthy individuals typically manifest three cognitive illusions, namely illusory superiority, illusion of control and optimism bias.[2] This idea rapidly became very influential, with some authorities concluding that it would be therapeutic to deliberately induce these biases.[30] Since then, further research has both undermined that conclusion and offered new evidence associating superiority bias with negative effects on the individual.[2]

One line of argument was that in the Taylor and Brown paper, the classification of people as mentally healthy or unhealthy was based on self-reports rather than objective criteria.[30] Hence it was not surprising that people prone to self-enhancement would exaggerate how well-adjusted they are. One study claimed that “mentally normal” groups were contaminated by defensive deniers who are the most subject to positive illusions.[30] A longitudinal study found that self-enhancement biases were associated with poor social skills and psychological maladjustment.[2] In a separate experiment where videotaped conversations between men and women were rated by independent observers, self-enhancing individuals were more likely to show socially problematic behaviors such as hostility or irritability.[2] A 2007 study found that self-enhancement biases were associated with psychological benefits (such as subjective well-being) but also inter- and intra-personal costs (such as anti-social behavior).”

“Subjects describe themselves in positive terms compared to other people, and this includes describing themselves as less susceptible to bias than other people. This effect is called the Bias blind spot and has been demonstrated independently.”

The irony…

I just realized that I am an eliminative materialist

•August 3, 2010 • 2 Comments

Eliminative Materialism

I happen to stumble on this term while I was browsing the internet. And now I am a eliminative materialist, and I have been for a long while now but I’ve never found a term for this belief until now.

Don’t know what it is? Look it up.