Do People Change?

[!Luck]

I don't mean outwardly, the essence of your humanity.

I don't. People dull or sharpen aspects of their personality.They may appear unrecognizable to the outside world, but you stay you.

[spoonitnow]

Yes, you change fundamentally as a person.

If you disagree with that, then take it up with neuroplasticity.

/thread

[a500lbgorilla]

Yes, discovering truths of the world can change how you navigate it and the world itself is subject to change. After all, what are you but a meatsack doing things?

[a500lbgorilla]

You know that philosophical thinkaround about the ship that is refurbished over the years so that no speck of the original is a part of it now, is it still the same ship?

Same thing with you. No part of you stays with you, and your form isn't maintained nearly as well, so can you say that some essential part of you remains unchanged?

[!Luck]

Are all thought physical? Does thought exist outside of the physical world? Should we apply physical processes to the metaphysical?

Re:ship
That only supports my thought, new parts, same structure same ship.

[Renton]

Yes, all thoughts are physical.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah, stroke patients attest to the fact that the brain carries thoughts and that a change to the physical brain changes the thinking.

[!Luck]

I think that is overly simplistic and you just "conclusively" proved that the world is deterministic and thus free will does not exist.

[a500lbgorilla]

Re:ship
That only supports my thought, new parts, same structure same ship.

I think it's an illusion because the ship's plans never changed. The only thing connecting the old and new ships are the continuum of ships in between. While the line of yous through time is continuous, if you take two snapshots far enough apart, there will always be differences. It's because the continuum of yous exists that it's tempting to believe something about you is unchanging.

[a500lbgorilla]

I think that is overly simplistic and you just "conclusively" proved that the world is deterministic and thus free will does not exist.

I mean, we're jumping around a lot, but I like to believe that absolute free will probably isn't a thing, but relative free will is.

Absolute free will would mean you could stand before god and do something he couldn't predict. Relative free will says that I can stand before you and do something you can't predict.

[oskar]

Your brain is more afraid of you than you are of it.

[a500lbgorilla]

That's why I marinade it in so much alcohol. Keep the bastard soft and sloppy.

[Renton]

I don't think that the concession that free will probably doesn't exist and that all behavior is deterministic is all that bad. Human behavior is still extremely complex, and the result of random particles bouncing around in patterns so intractable that we cannot hope to pinpoint what they are.

I do not feel like I am inextricably attached to guide-rails that determine my fate, because I don't think I am. My behavior is the result of all of the stimuli I receive on a constant basis, on how others behave toward me, and how others respond to my behavior. I can "change" by becoming more adept at recognizing what behavioral changes I can make that will result in increasing my life's equity. The circumstances that lead to this might have been inevitable. But again, I think its so complex that it approaches randomness, so the anti-determinism people need to chill the fuck out.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This conversation lacks definitions on all meaningful concepts being discussed.

*
I am not the person I was at the beginning of this thread / post. My experiences have added to the gestalt of what is commonly considered "me." Fundamentally, if 2 things are not identical, they are not the same. I moved my finger; I'm a new man!

This definition serves little purpose to us, and causes all kinds of culpability problems.

*
It seems we need an abstract quantification of how much change would constitute a new thing. Since we're not happy working with, "any change at all is a new thing," and we assume that 100% change is def. a new thing, then we're working with a continuum of changes, and we want to know where the "newness" starts.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? At what point is the newness overriding enough to classify as different?

Well, lizards were laying eggs long before the first avian. But surely we mean the chicken or the "chicken egg," right? So here's the problem. Speciation doesn't occur in one creature or a single mutation. Speciation occurs when a mutation has taken over as a dominating trait in a population. All the traits of chicken-hood were there for generations before anything was considered a chicken. Then there were 1,000's of chickens (and chicken eggs) declared on the spot. So neither came first, the declaration of their species didn't really have any meaning for them.

*
Ultimately, I think there are parts of our personalities that seem static and other parts which seem dynamic. I remember the past. My memories match up the the first person narrative of my self that I currently inhabit. Does that prove they're mine?

So draw me a line / tell me a definition of concepts like "change" and "self" and I can tell you my answer. I'm not sure the answer will be useful, but perhaps we can discuss speciation and something useful will come of the conversation.

[dhubermex]

Interesting topic. I've given some thought to this the last few years. People change all the time, imo.

From my experience, you might meet someone who has a certain thought process or personal value system, then run into them again later on and find that you're talking to a completely different person... who has completely rearranged his/her personal value system based on experiences.

I read somewhere that cells in our bodies take a maximum of 7 years to perish... meaning physically there is a completely different person every 7 years (if what I read is correct... who knows). I'd say I'm definitely a different person with a completely different value system now that I have kids. That changed me 11+ years ago... lol before becoming a father I had very little patience with kids... now it's a different deal and the twins actually have their friends over to play video games while I'm here and I'm cool with it.

I also believe people can change when it comes to work ethic... depending on the project and professional work environment. I've known people who I worked with who may have been completely worthless for one project, then found something they truly enjoyed and started to pwn... and vice-versa. Just my two cents. I'm curious to what other members think on this topic.

[wufwugy]

I think we stay mostly the same just with more experience and calm.

Free will and determinism have no meaning fundamentally. It could be one way, either way, both ways, or neither way and it wouldn't mean anything since it's not assessable.

Neuroplasticity also reinforces behavior. You lose what you don't do and keep what you do do.

[spoonitnow]

Are all thought physical? Does thought exist outside of the physical world? Should we apply physical processes to the metaphysical?

Re:ship
That only supports my thought, new parts, same structure same ship.

Yes, all thought is physical. No, thought does not exist outside of the physical world aka outside of the world. Metaphysics has no coherent place in this discussion.

[Savy]

Yeah people change, I'm a much different person to 6 years ago and you only have to look at children and how they change. I think as you get older you become more prone to less change.

I've also recently met people I've not seen since school and some people I liked were dicks and some people I thought were dicks were ok.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah people change, I'm a much different person to 6 years ago and you only have to look at children and how they change. I think as you get older you become more prone to less change.

I've also recently met people I've not seen since school and some people I liked were dicks and some people I thought were dicks were ok.

The only logical solution is that you liked dicks.

[CoccoBill]

We are the sum of our capabilities and experiences, both of which change whether we like it or not. So yes, we change.

Re: chickens, egg was first. The first chicken egg became the first chicken, and it came out of a non-chicken mother.

[!Luck]

Yes, all thought is physical. No, thought does not exist outside of the physical world aka outside of the world. Metaphysics has no coherent place in this discussion.

lol. must be nice.

[spoonitnow]

The only logical solution is that you liked dicks.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[!Luck]

Some things that drove this, I've know people who swung wildly from conservative to liberal and vice versa, but these people were always, what I call "rule followers". They needed someone to guide them.

Its the same shit with people who "cure" themselves of alcohol addiction by finding jesus. They replace one broken thing inside of them with another.

The broader question i'm trying to ask is, do people change the method of their coping mechanism. I've seen kids who used to run away from their problems, as a adults they turn to drugs (legal and illegal) to cope with their problems.

[!Luck]

*
Ultimately, I think there are parts of our personalities that seem static and other parts which seem dynamic. I remember the past. My memories match up the the first person narrative of my self that I currently inhabit. Does that prove they're mine?

So draw me a line / tell me a definition of concepts like "change" and "self" and I can tell you my answer. I'm not sure the answer will be useful, but perhaps we can discuss speciation and something useful will come of the conversation.

What is you, what defines you.

Are you the collection of passed actions and results of life. Or are you the thoughts you had to attain those actions.

That's why drugs are fascinating they seem to be able to break a person, which supports renton's and spoons assurance that all thought is physical.

Why is it for some people when they are on anti-depressants they say they feel "themselves", while for others only when they are off the meds to they feel themselves.

There are broader issues at play here that, seem to be at the root cause of much of human misery.

[wufwugy]

Some things that drove this, I've know people who swung wildly from conservative to liberal and vice versa, but these people were always, what I call "rule followers". They needed someone to guide them.

Its the same shit with people who "cure" themselves of alcohol addiction by finding jesus. They replace one broken thing inside of them with another.

The broader question i'm trying to ask is, do people change the method of their coping mechanism. I've seen kids who used to run away from their problems, as a adults they turn to drugs (legal and illegal) to cope with their problems.

This is basically me. On more than one topic. I would call myself pretty much the same person throughout, just with more ability to apply wisdom. Still pepperoni pizza, but maybe with a different additional condiment or two. Or prepared from a different parlor.

[wufwugy]

I don't think drugs can break a person, unless you're talking about severe abuse. In which case they break a person chemically.

I think perhaps people who say a drug can change a person isn't that introspective and isn't that cognizant of who they really are. The kind of change a drug can give you is by letting out what your ego buried. Like that one time I got slobberknocked shitfaced and woke up the next day with people telling me I was moaning about how much in love with a certain chick I was. The circumstances didn't allow me to get what I wanted out of my love for her, so I buried it and few knew about it, but it all came pouring out when alcohol subdued my ego.

[a500lbgorilla]

Drugs helped make me aware of my internal emotional state. A little chemical love in your chest will make you wonder the source of those other feelings. Drugs also made me think about the actual act of thinking. A couple specks of some chemical in your blood can dramatically change the experience of experiencing.

So yeah, I think drugs can change a lot about your internal process. If, for nothing else, by bringing more aspects of it into conscious focus.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If people don't change, then wouldn't we have learned tens of thousands of years ago that offering forgiveness is a life-threatening decision?
(I guess that's a hypothetical question.)

Evidence of people changing:
Education exists.
Death happens.

What is you, what defines you.

This is subjective.
Even empirical definitions of "self" are tricky.
A person is a person. A sandwich is a sandwich. The person eats the sandwich.
That person poops/pees/sweats/exhales.

A dominating percentage of dust is human skin cells.

The number of "human" cells in your body is outnumbered by nonhuman cells (i.e. bacteria) by about 10:1.

***
So the thing that buoys me in this regard is that medical doctors are amazing at what they do. It's less relevant to me than the measurable results of medical practice, but they do undergo 11+ years of specialized training to earn their MD.

I trust their practical, utilitarian definitions of what is me more than anything.

Are you the collection of passed actions and results of life. Or are you the thoughts you had to attain those actions.

Yes and yes, with no "or." Also, add the preceding medical perspective.

I believe that fracturing or departmentalizing my definition of self is folly. I am what I am, and probably a lot more than I understand of what I am, on every level.

That's why drugs are fascinating they seem to be able to break a person, which supports renton's and spoons assurance that all thought is physical.

Add me to the list of "all thought is physical" believers. There is a preponderance of medical data in the form of brain scans which indicates that thoughts and feelings are chemically manufactured in the brain prior to conscious awareness.

The brutal fact is that we make our decisions first, then that chemical decision is sent to the rational part of the brain, which assumes it just came up with the idea and immediately begins postulating why it did so.
All of this feels like we're thinking over a situation and coming up with a conclusion. The timeline of chemicals belies our feelings.

Why is it for some people when they are on anti-depressants they say they feel "themselves", while for others only when they are off the meds to they feel themselves.

If certain parts of the nervous system are artificially stimulated, then they produce a different personality. If the brain gets knocked about hard enough (by concussion or chemical damage), there will be physical damage that is irreversible.

I have no idea why "some people" feel the way they do.
I'd say that, from an evolutionary perspective, the struggle to be a unique individual has been a major boon to the species.
That may be rooted in a deep need for a sense of self and personal identity.

I should prob. stop at IDK.

There are broader issues at play here that, seem to be at the root cause of much of human misery.

This reminds me of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths:
1) Crap is everywhere; everything is crap. I bet you've felt like crap recently - maybe even right now.
2) You're probably are all like, "None of the last of the millions of shiny toys made me happy. Oh, look! A shiny toy! This will make me happy!"
3) You really don't have to keep doing that, fyi, btw.
4) Read my blog on "Eight things you can do to be Suffer-free" | TL;DR: Concentrate. Learn. Be a good person, FFS.

I always get stuck somewhere between (2) and (3) as well.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Drugs helped make me aware of my internal emotional state. A little chemical love in your chest will make you wonder the source of those other feelings. Drugs also made me think about the actual act of thinking. A couple specks of some chemical in your blood can dramatically change the experience of experiencing.

So yeah, I think drugs can change a lot about your internal process. If, for nothing else, by bringing more aspects of it into conscious focus.

My first few experiences with LSD were definitely the kind that made me a better person. Repeated usage proved a rapid diminishing return on useful introspection. Eventually it was just a party drug that wouldn't understand that the party was over.

[a500lbgorilla]

I remember staring at a dos equis sign with the two big Xs and watching as they morphed into different letters WI YK shit like that. Seeing my brain try to guess and check at the symbols before me was hilariously fun.

[!Luck]

So the thing that buoys me in this regard is that medical doctors are amazing at what they do. It's less relevant to me than the measurable results of medical practice, but they do undergo 11+ years of specialized training to earn their MD.

I trust their practical, utilitarian definitions of what is me more than anything.

Off topic.

Oh my fucking god man. i'll probably get flamed here, but shit man. Do you realize how dangerous the above is? How much harm this type of appeal to authority is causing in your life?

Training means shit*. The establishment means shit. You always have to critical think about shit. It's exhausting and it's painful.

Doctors are some of the least introspective people I've met, who commit travesties upon the world with the best intentions. This is no hyperbole.

The medical profession selects for confidence, how is that not retarded? Worst of all I am just as culpable for the reasons for this as anyone. When evaluating things you don't understand you rely on your personal reading ability of another human, the human goes "You NEED this procedure to save your life" vs. "It appears that there is a chance that the condition you have may be solved by operating like this, i've seen this work some of the time and fail at other times". The majority of people prefer the later doctor than the former. And that is some nasty shit.

Medical science as a whole is a boom to society, but man that shit didn't come without a cost. Too many coin flips in medicine.

Doctors are a bunch of monkeys throwing shit at the wall eventual they hit "something" and then they know "something". True understanding is quite far away.

So many drugs were designed to do X, but during trials they found it had the side affect Y, which is what that shit is now used for. We are barely out of the stone age of medicine and i'm not even sure about this.

Side affects and multiple drug interactions is poorly understood, the building blocks are missing or wrong with modern medicine.

Semi on topic
the reason i lol'ed at spoon is that they conclusive decided on how things work on something philosophers have been debating 100s of years. Doesn't mean i'm not mostly in their camp, but their confidence is lulzy. Though it may make life decisions either for them...I don't know.




*surgical training being the exception as those who practice cutting shit get good at cutting shit.

[a500lbgorilla]

Training means shit*. The establishment means shit. You always have to critical think about shit. It's exhausting and it's painful.

Relevant: https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/

[!Luck]

Relevant: https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/

Read it this morning.

you read longform.org?

[a500lbgorilla]

Read it this morning.

you read longform.org?

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's less relevant to me than the measurable results of medical practice

I'm not glorifying any establishment. I'm not trying to say all doctors are good or that any one doctor is always right.

I am untrained in medical knowledge. I have the First Aid skills of any good Boy Scout, but I have to defer to people who are experts in the field on any medical matter. That doesn't mean that I trust everything they say without critical thought. It just means I recognize that I'm a layman and that there are experts.

We're all a bunch of monkeys throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks... how is choosing a profession supposed to change that?
For me, what changes it is the institution of scientific doubt that permeates the community and encourages everyone to look for and call a turd a turd when they find it.
It's not a perfect system.
It's a system that encourages participants to say, "That's some good shit. I did what you said you did, and I found what you said I'd find. A+ work," or, "That's fucked up! I did what you said you did, but I did not find what you said I'd find. You're full of shit."

Barely out of the stone age? Maybe in some places, but I'd say using anti-matter to scan your body is fairly to moderately non-stone-agey.
A PET scan is a Positron Emission Tomography scan.
Meaning they (muhahaha) inject you with a substance that will release positrons. Positrons are anti-matter versions of an electron.
Man, it's so much more complicated than that. Stone Age? I don't see it.

***
Back to a more direct line on topic.

When I wonder at what is my self? / What is not myself? / What defines my self?
I am faced with a lot of angles.
When it comes to the measurable, tangible, physical angle... there are loads of professionals with a long history of results to observe.

I trust the body of medicine that saved my life when my appendix ruptured during my appendectomy operation.
I'm grateful to have my father alive, no matter how many bypass surgeries it takes to keep his heart working.

I'm not "blindly" trusting any establishment, man.
I'm admitting that whatever else I am, I am a chemical machine. There are chemical mechanics in this world.

[!Luck]

It's a system that encourages participants to say, "That's some good shit. I did what you said you did, and I found what you said I'd find. A+ work," or, "That's fucked up! I did what you said you did, but I did not find what you said I'd find. You're full of shit."

I didn't mean to imply that you never think critical of the advice you are given.

The above is how it's supposed to work, but the reality it isn't like that. Medicine and science have been politicized and social engineered.

One prime example is the FDA approved food pyramid and the untold amount of damage it has done to the american public.

[spoonitnow]

Off topic.

Oh my fucking god man. i'll probably get flamed here, but shit man. Do you realize how dangerous the above is? How much harm this type of appeal to authority is causing in your life?

Training means shit*.

I think it's interesting to see that it's almost always the same type of people who subscribe to this attitude towards things.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I didn't mean to imply that you never think critical of the advice you are given.

The above is how it's supposed to work, but the reality it isn't like that. Medicine and science have been politicized and social engineered.

One prime example is the FDA approved food pyramid and the untold amount of damage it has done to the american public.

Not for nothing, but I'm talking doctors who treat patients and their definition of what constitutes a human body (and not the tricky parts at the beginning and end, even), and you're talking about a regulating committee and their advice on nutrition.

On the subject of "Do people change?":
I'd say that physically, people change all the time.
Some physical changes result in emotional changes.
Some of those are reversible and others are not.
Some chemicals can cause physical changes, which may or may not be reversible.

Our life experiences alter who we are in an experiential way. Our ability to remember the past - but not the future - means that as we live longer, we have the capacity to have witnessed more. The accumulation of these experiences with a dash of intelligence amounts to most people's idea of wisdom. (Although this doesn't mesh at all with the D&D and general RP-world notion of wisdom being a character trait that is akin to intelligence.)

People change in the experiences they have. These changes can lead a person to make different choices.

However, I feel like we're really dodging the real bullet in the question.
Is a pedophile curable?
Will someone who has a certain deviant lust ever stop having that lust, through any means?
(I, for one, have never been exposed to compelling evidence of such.)

Will an alcoholic ever stop in their struggle to remain sober? Is the act of choosing to remain sober enough to constitute a change?

[Savy]

Will an alcoholic ever stop in their struggle to remain sober? Is the act of choosing to remain sober enough to constitute a change?

Is being sober actually the cure or is it just the most obvious way of dealing with a problem? Surely a real cure would allow people to use alcohol and not have a problem with it?

[spoonitnow]

Is being sober actually the cure or is it just the most obvious way of dealing with a problem? Surely a real cure would allow people to use alcohol and not have a problem with it?

Just want to throw in that some people believe any use of alcohol is a problem, so you have to decide what having a problem with it means too, etc.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Now we're at the crux of the question.

Tell me what constitutes "change" and I'll tell you if people do it.

[!Luck]

change is stopping making the same type of mistake.

[MadMojoMonkey]

change is stopping making the same type of mistake.

This removes some ambiguity, but introduces more.

What are the types of mistakes?

It seems like we're still in arbitrary territory.

[spoonitnow]

change is stopping making the same type of mistake.

That's the worst definition of change I've ever seen in my life. You should get better at posting before you try to make these types of threads.

[!Luck]

practice makes perfect spoon. only failure is to give up sir.

[JKDS]

Is a pedophile curable?
Will someone who has a certain deviant lust ever stop having that lust, through any means?
(I, for one, have never been exposed to compelling evidence of such.)

Will an alcoholic ever stop in their struggle to remain sober? Is the act of choosing to remain sober enough to constitute a change?

This is the cool question, and one step further is the question "are genetics deterministic?" If there is a pedophile or alcoholism gene, are people with those genes destined to be pedophiles and alcoholics? I dont think the scientific community has found an answer yet, though this question has generated a lot of debate and research over the years (included questions over a potential 'gay gene').

If there is such a gene that predetermines such things, are there other genes or bodily chemical reactions that could override those genes? Does gene A have any effect on a theoretical alcoholism gene? If a bodily chemical reaction has an effect, could we take or eat something to cause that reaction and combat the gene?

If we're just talking about moral change though, if someone can change the way they think about the world and how they interpret events, of course they change. Its regularly the case that people change opinions over time whether you're talking about maturity as kids grow older, political views as young liberals turn into old conservatives, or the deeply religious turning away from god after life-altering events. People regularly go from being indifferent towards x, to loving or hating x.

If its physical change, then that depends on definitions. I cant make myself taller, but i could make myself fatter. Then i could get surgery to reshape my eyes to see better. This question seems less interesting.

Idk, im with MMM. The question is far too broad and illdefined.

[JKDS]

change is stopping making the same type of mistake.

This doesnt really work. Mistakes sometimes involve events outside of our control. For example, I used to make mistakes when determining the value of x in the equation x^2 +2x +1 = 4, I dont anymore. This is a scenario completely within my control. But, try as I might, I cant seem to arrive on time to class 100% of the time (alarm breaks, or I got poor sleep, or my car broke down, heavy traffic, etc)

Then, are we talking about subjective or objective mistakes? Are we talking about decisions made under pressure or stress?

-----

I cant help but wonder if you have a specific topic you're thinking about, or if this is purely philosophical. If its the former, context would help provide an answer. The latter, then you need to be very careful and precise with the both the wording of the question and the definitions provided.

[!Luck]

I think it's interesting to see that it's almost always the same type of people who subscribe to this attitude towards things.

Is this to me or MMM?

[spoonitnow]

Is this to me or MMM?

You.

Edit: Let me clarify this since I realize now how easy it would be to miss the context and get super offended or something, and I don't really want that.

Back a few years ago, you came to me and asked what you could do to help your tilt and focus in poker. I suggested meditation and gave you some information on how to go about that in a simple way, and your response was pretty much along the lines of LOL NEW AGE BULLSHIT I'M NOT DOING THAT, and you continued to complain about your struggle with tilt and focus.

My point is that some people find it easier to find excuses not to go with what works, and some people tend to find excuses to go with what works. From my experience both personally and in this thread, you're the former. It's not that anything's necessarily wrong with that so much as it's really a pain in the ass to deal with you sometimes.

[!Luck]

Ha. Spoon.

Spot on. I am a pain to deal with IRL, all my friends would agree.

I'm so skeptical of everything that I sometimes miss good shit, but historically it protected me of some "really bad shit".

Re mediation. I found that yoga helps, which along the same lines and for whatever reason staying calm in business is 5x easier for than in poker.

Not sure why, since I have 100x more on the line in my professional career than at poker.

Youre quite insightful or/and im very transparent. Either way, appreciate your feedback.

[!Luck]

Also, I'm more inclined now to believe that mediation has benefits, but now it's general laziness more than fundamental disagreement.