Forgotten Decisions

Go to joesnotesblog.com!

There's no reason to think that people are able to remember everything they think about. We are constantly going through internal ruminations, whether we are paying attention to them or not. I don't think that the internal monologue is something that we turn on and off at will or consciously. I'm not sure if the stream of consciousness that is verbal is always running but when it is running our focus on it fluctuates. Sometimes one can really focus on observing the random thoughts that happen inside the mind. Sometimes one can direct the stream and try to focus where it goes. Sometimes one is completely unable to grasp the internal messages. 

Have you ever felt that when you forget whether or not you locked the door it's because you're not sure if you remember locking it just now or the 50 other times you locked it before? Habitual behaviors become automatic. You don't know you're doing them. This might be the same about thoughts in that some thoughts you have so often that you forget that you had them. For example, when you drive toward your old house because you have gone that way so many times your subconscious, which directs your actions, now just goes there unless consciously directed otherwise. Before you realize it you're already there. This habituation only occurs after one has deliberately directed consciousness repeatedly. One can create these habituations consciously but once it becomes a habit one can forget their role in its creation. 

Maybe one becomes distracted from their internal monologue long enough to forget it exists. It's still somewhere softly analyzing and contemplating in the background. Maybe one is imagining how the next day will develop while watching a TV show. Their mind is only taking in stimulus but every so often their stream of consciousness breaks through and one is interrupted by an already occurring mental conversation. You pick up a few things about going to your favorite restaurant but then you get distracted again and it's such a mundane thought you disregard it. Then, the next day, when internally debating where to eat you decide to go to your favorite restaurant. The decision was actually decided by yourself long before you realize it. Or at least it was primed. Like when someone tells you the wrong lyric and when you hear the song you can't hear anything other than the wrong word that sounds correct now. 

Can one take credit for the forgotten conscious influences one inflicts on one's self? The forgotten fleeting thoughts that are like dreams. Whispy like fog. Like when the right word is on the tip of your tongue. In the back of your mind. Consciousness is like a river in that it is always changing and one day it will not be in the same place. Is it still the same river? Are you responsible for the changes?

Am I a product of only deterministic scientific happenstance? Causes and effects that are completely out of my control? If it is possible to willfully create habituation then it would provide a mechanism for free will to manifest itself in reality and not just in concept. If this mechanism is real then that would mean that it exists within the nervous system and is theoretically identifiable. If free will is a physical reality then determinism has a flaw. This would introduce some amount of unpredictability when it comes to assuming that the future is a series of determined, and predictable causes and effects. 

But what about the thoughts that cause the habituation; how can these thoughts be justified if they just erupt out of nowhere? How can free will be proven if the proposed mechanism relies on thoughts that emerge due to the prior causes that are determined by physics? If thoughts are not purely a reaction to the current environment then maybe thoughts arise as a direct result of a free will mechanism that is not verbal, or has become subconscious prior to being verbal? 

Maybe the first few years of childhood is a period where a system starts to develop that allows for self-observation and mental manipulation. As the system for self-directed behavior matures the person is consciously learning how to learn, how to speak, how to listen to themself, how the world works, how to imagine multiple outcomes, and how to choose different directions. This system of different sectors of the brain networking together to create something new allows for the development of consciousness and the potential for free will. 

As time passes the act of willful self-determination becomes almost entirely habitual and because humans do not develop the concept of consciousness until later in life the subjective perspective that includes both the verbal and nonverbal streams of consciousnesses we collectively call consciousness is almost indescribable. The brain is both emotional and intellectual and yet its functions are elusive to the observer. The system becomes habitual enough at an early enough age that the experience of directing our bodies is forgotten. It goes underground but still provides a mechanism for free will.

As language develops a child begins to incorporate verbal communication into the preexisting paradigm. Self-expression begins to become codified, constrained, and efficiently communicable. As one interacts with reality and develops a language to communicate with others one begins to see the world in a different way.  In a way that is constrained by language. When one is aware of one's own attempts to direct one's own path via the verbal route then consciousness becomes possible to communicate about but is not the sole arbiter of free action. 

In order to understand this concept of a mechanism, rooted in consciousness, that allows for free will one has to overcome the habituation process and redirect the flow of verbal consciousness, knowing that it isn't the only controlling factor. Learning to control one's emotions becomes another skill in strengthening the potential for free will. Another skill that is needed is the ability to examine past failings and plan to correct them with repetitive thoughts and actions. 

If one finds that every time they encounter a certain emotionally distressing situation they act in a way that is dysfunctional then they can make a plan to change how they think about this situation, how they act before, during, and after the situation occurs, and try to understand the underlying emotional states that the situation produces. The more one is self-aware the more they can alter the way they react to situations or attempt to avoid them altogether. This kind of self-awareness is not entirely concerned with internal states but also takes into account the environment that they exist within. The ability to engage in free will is tempered by a person's understanding of everything that can and will affect them. 

The concept of responsibility is not the same as the concept of free will. People are responsible for their actions, generally speaking, regardless of the perception that they are in control of their actions. A drunk person is responsible for the consequences of their actions just as a psychotic person is responsible for the consequences of their actions. They may not have any insight into the conscious thoughts that existed prior to or during the act but from the perspective of others, they are the ones to blame. They are the ones to set apart and deal with. Attempting to accept all actions as a matter of fate is a recipe for chaos and discounts the ability of people to control themselves, even without a well developed moral system or strengthened free will. 

In conclusion, in regard to thoughts, we are mostly unaware. When we are aware we have an opportunity to self-direct and with enough repetition, we can create new automatic or partially automatic habits. We can consciously control unconscious behaviors through this process. I postulate that before language this ability may have been more open to us and over time our subconscious takes more and more control. Our relationship to consciousness changes as we acquire language. Or maybe it is only after we acquire sophisticated language and maturity that we start to be able to review our thoughts and bring them into some kind of control. It is difficult to halt the momentum of cause and effect that propels us forward but if one can reflect on and redirect their thoughts they just might be able to make lasting change in how they think, how they act, and who they are. 

Who is this "We" you speak of?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPw0p2CWbdI

I am not in control of others. I am barely in control of myself. 

The only way to control others is through force, everything else is a negotiation.

When I listen to certain people prognosticate about what we all are doing or should be doing I can't help but become curious about what they mean by "we". "We" is a collective noun that takes on different forms depending on the context it is used in. A Christian can address a group of Christians and say the word "we" and it is to whom they are referring. Namely, Christians. But if that same Christian was in a room full of atheists and used the word "we" he might be referring to his fellow Christians or he might be appealing to a more general "we" as in "we are all humans," or "we are all Americans".

The term "we" requires an assumption on the part of both the speaker and listener which offers two opportunities to misinterpret the meaning of the word. The speaker assumes that the listener knows which group they are referring to and the listener assumes they know what group the speaker is referring to. Both parties may be wrong in their assumptions. This is just another reason why clarification is important and why using vague, abstract or lazy terms is problematic.

Another issue with using the word "we" is that if the group being referred to is large enough it loses any generalizability or coherency. Saying, "We should all do this or that", referring to all people or all Americans, for example, is either so generically obvious it doesn't need to be stated such as in the statement, "We should strive to make the world a better place" or it becomes so vague as in the statement, "We, the people of the United States of America..." that it holds no specificity and therefore does not offer to reveal any real identity.

Another example is in the following sentence, "what we did in Vietnam," and we assume that what they mean is America if they are American, which is exceptionally vague because the "we" in this statement attempts to hold a large number of people responsible for something they had nothing to do with. Not that no one in America still living had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam. Even if the speaker is referring to the historical fact that America did something in Vietnam the meaning is still not clear as the definition relies on the ever-changing definition of the peoples of America, for the word "we", when spoken by a person, typically includes humans and certainly does in the above statement.

The definition of "America" in 1969 would not only include all the individuals that lived during that time but would also describe their actions. Obviously, this is an impossible thing to do accurately, hence the simplifying use of the word "we". The actions of the government would be the most representative of the US to anyone outside of the United States so one must include the actions of the government as well, which means that you have to separate out the individuals that made up the government and weigh their actions heavier than the civilian population. Then you might want to include the most financially affluent as they probably funded many of the politicians that ended up in the government and for their contribution to American culture. The words "America" and "Americans" only represent an abstract concept and it's actual definition evolves constantly.

Can a nation be considered a continuous entity? What is the statute of limitations of a nation's crimes?

Considering that I have asserted that a "nation" is nothing more than a concept referring to individual people, then holding a "nation" accountable could be dealt with in a similar fashion as holding individuals accountable. One can not sit a "nation" down and demand recompense, as the true definition of a "nation" should include the sum total of its inhabitants at a given time. That does not mean that one can't identify those that made decisions that directly lead to the guilty act. This is typically the responsibility of the governing body of the nation but might also include the wealthy and otherwise influential.

When you hold all the weapons you are only accountable to yourself.

If a speaker is using a form of "we" that is devoid of persons or includes non-humans then it should be clear within the context of the statement. Maybe in a world full of sentient aliens and humans, the use of the word "we" would grow to include non-humans as a norm. Also, if the word "we" refers to all biological entities then it refers to non-humans as well but when was the last time someone said the word "we" to refer to all biological forms?

I suppose that part of the reason that I have a problem with anyone using the word "we" in a way that ascribes responsibility is that groups of people don't do anything. Individuals do things and make decisions. When they work together it is easy to group them up and consider their efforts as a whole. It makes it easier to talk about what happened and what you think should have happened.

To be accurate one should name everyone involved but it is hard to say all the names of the people involved when groups become larger than a few people. When there are too many people to state their names one can take shortcuts. The problem with linguistic shortcuts is that when they are repeated without consideration their original meaning can get lost and one stops using our critical faculties. This is one of the reasons that abstract language leads to misunderstandings. Another abstract concept is represented by the word "group". This is another vague term that relies on context and shared knowledge. The word "group" is the more objective version of "we" just and the word "they" is an externalized version of "we".  

The pyramids were not built by groups of people. One might say that it was built by Jews, a recognized group of people, but one should not say that it was built by "the Jews". Many Jews had nothing to do with it and considering that it was so long ago the accuracy of any statement about the history of the pyramids should be suspect. Even the word "Jew" as an identifier of individual characteristics is not well defined. In using the word "group" in this fashion one is forgoing every bit of information related to the actual physical reality and representing it in an alternative way. They are redefining the event and abstracting its contents. This is a necessary aspect of communication via language as efficiency is important. People do not have the time to name and address every human and activity related to an event. All of history is told using abstractions, metaphors, and vagueries. 

The story of the pyramids is what lingers. Not of the actual entities that were involved.

The pyramids were built by lots and lots of individuals that used their bodies to accomplish work. While one can create endless categories in an effort to describe similarities or differences among individuals the fact still remains that it is individuals that act. They may use justifications that appeal to communal concepts but they still act of their own accord even if not totally of their own volition. They are responsible even if they are not completely in control. Environmental pressures and the drive for survival have a great influence on behavior but even in the face of death, some have had the will to fight their instincts and act of their own will. 

So, then in what circumstances is one permitted to use the word "we", you might ask. I actually think it is perfectly fine for people to use the word "we" whenever they want but one should be aware that it may lead to miscommunication and misattribution. One should strive to be accurate in their speech and not succumb to the laziness of using vague words and idioms. If one is referring to all humans then they certainly can use the word "we" but in most other cases one should be careful and deliberate with their use of the word. 

Maybe one of the reasons that the word "we" is used so wantonly is that it promotes communalism. By using the word "we" one can hold many people responsible for something without having to find and name all the individuals. Humans are a highly social species and do not thrive in isolation. In fact, I would venture to guess that group identities were formulated well before individual identities in humanity's linguistic past. The identification of outsiders was and is a survival instinct that has roots that go deeper than our Homosapien speciation. Therefore, the notion of a "We" is hardwired into we humans. A small person might be called a wee human. 

One of the problems with using the word "we" in a lazy fashion is that one will likely end up holding someone responsible for something they had nothing to do with. This makes it easy to identify large groups of people, some of which might actually be immediately responsible, but some might have just been on the outskirts of the group and knew nothing of the occurrence. Groups are rarely in full unison and while many may act as if they always agree with their group's decisions in public many will debate its merits in private. Groups of humans are not mental monoliths or cyborg hiveminds. 

The question might then arise, "are a state's citizens responsible for the actions made using their tax dollars but without their direct permission or involvement. Governments make many decisions that are never put in front of the citizenry so can a citizen be held morally responsible because they did not withdraw their financial support? Can a citizen be expected to risk their life and their family's life to disobey a government that acts against their value system? 

While a citizen might not be expected to withdraw financial support to a corrupt government by not paying taxes, they can still use other means such as voting, petitioning, speaking out, or whatever else is not deemed illegal by the sitting government. What is important to understand here is that the government is another group that is incapable of taking action. It is simply a concept. A narrower but still vague "we" that is actually made up of individuals who make decisions and take action. Individuals are responsible for what the government does but it is easy to spread the responsibility thin in a culture the masks responsibility under the guise of communal togetherness.

On Consciousness and Free Will:

Maybe if the universe is deterministic then it doesn't matter if we hold the wrong person responsible for things. Maybe we are all on a rollercoaster that never ends and our momentum leads us down the only path available. Maybe that means that there is no "we" as there is no "you"? If the self is an illusion then so is the concept of we. What is a group of illusions called? Are we only an illusion to ourself or is it that our concept of ourselves is an illusion? Is the entirety of our internal conception of ourselves an illusion or are some aspects real? If the external world is real then are others not real? If others are real then I am real to others? If they are real to me but not to themselves then there is a contradiction.

Either, we are all real or we are all an illusion.

The definition of the self becomes important here. I would use the following to begin to define the self:

1. The self is a minimally reducible entity that still maintains the other attributes.

2. The self is composed of a person's physical body, regardless of deformity or loss of organic material.

3. The self is alive.  (Unless one believes that the self is separate from the body or denies biology in general.) 

Here is a short list of things I attribute to my personal concept of my self:

4. I am conscious.

5. My consciousness relies on my biology and is born of it. 

6. I am responsible for my actions. 

7. I am only partly in control of my actions. 

8. I can discipline my will power and grow its effectiveness.

Free will is an acceptance of your participation in the actions of your body. Free will is taking responsibility because someone has to. Free will is holding people accountable for not trying. While free will is not always activated it is always available unless the person is broken somehow. That is why we do not imprison people we deem mentally incapable of exercising their will power. 

Is it not just an expression of our total narcissism as a species that we might think that we are important or in charge of the world. 

The whole concept that there is something bigger out there is based on the collective value system and the vastness of the external world and the hierarchy of the pack. 

I think many times when people say "we" they mean "I" such as in the sentence, "How do we feel..." If the speaker had used the word "I" instead, it would have no inaccuracies and cause no confusion about who is being referred to. But when they use the word "we" they create a disconnect from the subject of the statement. They broaden their scope and add something when something more is not needed and may not exist. They are obscuring the meaning of the statement and creating an unnecessary abstraction.

If one draws a picture of people standing around then there are only individuals. If one then draws a circle around them and then calls the group "they" or "we" then one is still referring to individuals but pulling back on the detail which leaves room for entropy and a lack of clarification. One is sacrificing the truth for convenience and efficiency, which is not all bad, and utilizing an abstract concept that only exists within the brain as opposed to referring to actual physical bodies, ie: the individuals.

There are things that exist outside of the body and there are things that only exist within the neural network that exists in the body. Consciousness seems to be an emergent phenomenon that exists due to neural networks. Until recently the only notable network was within the human body but now there are networks outside the human that may contain the same emergent properties such as on the internet. Maybe this is not a meaningful distinction or category of existence. 

On AI:

When Sam Harris or Elon Musk talks about the future of AI and say things like, "we" have to consider this or that or that "we" need to be careful, who the fuck are they talking about? Maybe they are just talking to those who are responsible for creating and developing AI and robotics or those that are funding research but because the word can apply to everyone in this context it is hard not to be confused about what they are asking of me. If the "we" here means every human then I am not sure what I can do to stop AI, especially considering it is already here and that I have no idea how it works. 

Now, humans have created catastrophically bad technologies but again I ask, who is to blame? It seems like it would be the individuals that acted to create these terrible technologies or who chose to use them. The same human drive that created the atom bomb created the polio vaccine. It seems that with the explosion of creativity and scientific understanding we get a combination of both terrific and terrifying technologies. Thus the universe stays in balance. A balance between chaos and order. Entropy and cohesion. Humans are constantly encountering the sublime and the horrific. 

Thoughts On Storytelling and Consciousness

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”
― Henry Ford

As humans developed language they were better able to teach and pass on adaptive strategies for survival.

Storytelling is the most effective way to pass on lessons. It takes the lesson and puts it into context which makes it much easier to relate to and remember. Songs do an even better job of helping people remember by adding patterns and rhyming to the story.

I wonder if people started using language to impart helpful information about survival and emotional states before they were able to observe themselves in a conscious way. It seems that many animals have a language or other form of communication but we do not think of them as conscious or of having a sophisticated self awareness and certainly not free will. This would indicate that language evolved prior to consciousness, if consciousness is a new phenomenon so it is reasonable to think that people were telling primitive stories prior to the modern conception of consciousness.

I think that storytelling may be the precursor to the development of consciousness and the more complex the storytelling the more complex the expression of consciousness can manifest. To tell a story is typically to incorporate time into the information being communicated. It also involves the creation of characters, archetypes and perspectives. If communication can develop from primitive grunts to sophisticated storytelling then it may be possible that consciousness is a product of this development.

This would explain why we are so drawn toward narratives and stories. We understand identities and memories as stories that we tell ourselves and others. The more abstract the language the more abstract the self identity and since abstraction seems to be beneficial it grows and is propagated throughout time ever adapting.

I don't think that consciousness came about like a switch being turned on. I think it is the result of incremental advancements in communication over long periods of time. It is a social and mental adaptation that is much more subtle and illusive than physical characteristics. It hides in the brain and taunts from the shadows.

As humans increased in population they begin to interact with others who do not communicate in the same way and therefor do not think in the same way. They would have differing principles and expectations for how one should act. This can lead to conflict but if the two groups can come to an understanding and find some mutual benefits in working together they can trade and intermingle which would allow for more potential adaptation and refinement of survival strategies.

In the modern world groups have become very entrenched in their ideas and some survival strategies seem to work better than others and some are certainly not compatible with others. National identities consist of individual identities which are products of stories.

This is all to say that storytelling is a very powerful force aiding human expansion and proliferation. Storytelling is also a powerful tool for defining the self. Telling yourself a story of woe and sorrow defines the parameters that you see enclosing you, just as telling yourself a story of triumph and empowerment can free you to be the hero of your own story.

"Be the hero of your own movie. If your life was a movie and it started now. Forget about whatever financial disasters you’ve had, personal failures, relationship failures. What would the hero of your life’s movie do right now? Do that, do those things. We define ourselves far too often by our past failures. We look at our past and we say, “Well that’s me”. That’s not you, you are this person right now. You’re this person right now, you’re the person who’s learned from those failures and you can choose to be the hero of your own movie right now. Write down your goals, write down things you want to improve, write down things you won’t tolerate from yourself, write down things that you’ve done in the past that you never want to see yourself do again. And go forth, from here, as the hero of your own movie. Build momentum. Build confidence and momentum with each good decision that you make from here on out. You can do it, anyone can do it. We live in unique times. We live in one of the rarest times in human history where you can choose almost all the input that comes your way, whether it’s the movie that you watch, the books you read, the podcasts you listen to. You can choose to be inspired. Do that. Do that and be the hero of your own movie."
— Joe Rogan

Too Abstract

Sometimes people speak too abstractly and lose something in the translation. Such as when a headline says, "Wrestling still isn't sure what to do with women..." What they really mean is that women do not occupy a major role in the wresting industry. "Wresting" isn't a thing that can do things to women. People personify concepts such as "wresting" and give it agency. This is partly in an attempt to understand it better and creates a subject in which to assign blame. You can't understand something better by defining it incorrectly and to blame a concept incapable of physical action is irrational.

Another example of this is when someone says "we" when referring to all people. Someone may say, "We are all just animals," or, "We all want happiness," or, "We are fundamentally good," what they are doing is abstracting their own concept of who they are and projecting it onto the world of people. In many cases it would be more accurate to say "I" in these circumstances. (One can make accurate generalizations about all humans but they have to be based on some evidence and not just an assertion about the nature of humanity.) Also, I used absolute examples here, which is another example of people not using precise language. Absolutes are rarely accurate.

When people use idioms and cliches too much they are also utilizing abstraction to a degree that can lead to a lack of precise thinking and communicating. Prescribed phrases such as, "Obviously" or, "Don't cry over spilt milk", allow people to blurt out what seems like the right thing to say but is really just an automatic response indicating a lack of contemplation and autonomy. (More examples of idioms: http://www.smart-words.org/quotes-sayings/idioms-meaning.html)

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
― George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

I try to listen for people blathering and I wonder whether they know just what they have said. 

The art of bullshitting becomes a fast friend to those that find it difficult to admit that they don't know something. Abstraction makes this easier as well. Saying vague things like, "Boys will be boys," or, "it is was it is," one can hide in the abstract instead of the concrete and plain. 

Try to use your own words and think about what it is you're actually trying to communicate. It isn't always necessary to create an elaborate metaphor or use a pithy phrase. Sometimes, "I'm hungry," or,"I'm sad" are more effective than, "I could eat a horse" or, "It is what it is." 

Metaphors can be very powerful tools for communication so sometimes they are highly effective and aid the speaker in relating a concept to their audience and I have used plenty of pithy phrases but I think it is important to get out of the automatic response system and search for the right words to express myself as much as possible. It can be clunky at times and awkward pauses are bound to happen but I enjoy the rare occasions where I say exactly what I'm thinking. 

Sacrifice Self for Service

I spent the last six years working for a large electronics retailer and most of that time was as a Store Manager. In the last year I worked there they changed the title to Store Leader to try to infuse some ownership or enthusiasm into the role. The company was constantly changing terms, role definitions and performance evaluation standards in an effort to create impactful "cultural" changes but it mostly led to inconsistency and confusion. Frequently redefining evaluative tools, job descriptions and philosophies indicates a lack of central vision and understanding of psychology. Ambiguity and inconsistency muddy the waters of an organization's central goals and frustrates managers.

While I can go on about this company as a whole it was really the day to day operations and interactions with customers and the corporate structure that weighed on me year after year slowly but surely embittering me toward retail in general.

One of the main reasons I left was a growing feeling of stagnation and sometimes regression. A few years into my time there they created a leadership scoring system from 0-5, where 0 was about the be fired and 5 was about to be promoted to district manager, but the language for determining these levels was too broad and could be interpreted in different ways and it ended up being confusing and dis-empowering. By the end of the first year of implementation I had scrambled my way to level 3 which seemed appropriate and at least meant I was progressing and getting some kind of acknowledgement for my success and commitment.

I made it through the holiday season that year, made a ton of money for the company and worked extra hours with a new team. I had a few anxiety attacks as well as developing a general depression due to the stress and by the end of the year, like past years, I resolved to find something new as soon as possible. When the new year came around I found that I was starting over on the leadership system. I was back to level one and trying to reestablish the basics. Fine. But even after many months and conversations with my district manager I was not progressing. Was I really a lesser manager than the year before? Around this time I started seeing a therapist and when every conversation was about work I realized it couldn't last much longer.

My frustration with the system was leading to poor customer service on my part and after a few conversations with my district manager about it I felt like I was starting over every day. I had lost any enthusiasm for helping people and forgot what I was doing there. Then, one day, I remembered that we sold video games and my store was crushing sales goals. I sold entertainment to people and it should be fun so why did I feel so bad? I realized that the direction and perspective that my superior was offering me was not only demeaning but was simply wrong. I realized that when left to my own style of management my customers, my staff and my self were happier and more effective. I lost respect for the corporate system all together and accepted that it was not going to change and therefore I had to change.

Another reason I was getting fed up with my work was dealing with low-lifes and thieves. My store was essentially a pawn shop and operated under local second hand laws. Many of the customers that would try to sell their property were normal, intelligent people who didn't mind waiting to examine things and would accept the offer prescribed by the computer. Then there were the douchebags. People with brand new controllers that had never been touched and who didn't care that they were losing 60% value because everything is profit when it is stolen. Or people who just take their dirty, stinky stuff out from under their TV and bring it in all wrapped up in wires and wonder why it isn't worth much because it is covered in soda and old stickers.

Shop lifters and scammers were a constant issue and three days before my official last day I had my first snatch and grab. This 20 something white kid comes in and asks to buy two systems and some games. I was stupid enough the put the systems on the counter which is completely my fault. Then, when I ask him for an ID, he grabs the two systems and tries to run out. He fell backwards, dropping them on the floor and created a huge mess. I ran out from the counter and by then he was grabbing one of them and ran outside to a waiting SUV in the parking lot. He only got the one item but it was still very shocking. I should have never had the expensive items within arms reach but in six years I never thought it would happen to me. During my last two shifts I couldn't help but imagine every young man as a threat.

Dealing with the police was always pleasant enough but having to accept obviously stolen property because of discrimination policies was frustrating. I understand why they exist but sometimes it would have been nice to tell someone to fuck off and never come back. My boss would say, "What would you do if you owned your store?" and I can say I would have done things a bit differently. Such as getting rid of certain customers and using payroll more flexibly but I always tried to do what they wanted.

 Before I decided to quit I looked into the future and only saw myself becoming more and more bitter and depressed. The money was good but I was still living month to month, barely saving anything and it certainly wasn't worth the stress and lack of fulfillment. The longer I live and the more I listen to wizened elders I think that fulfillment in one's life and a feeling of accomplishment will lead to more self-esteem and happiness. Finding something that is self directed, creates value, allows for freedom of expression and is personally worth while is not easy but I don't think everyone needs a dream or calling to be successful. They just need a chance.

I think that sometimes taking a risk and venturing into the unknown is the only way to take the power back from those that would use you for your hard work and loyalty without truly caring about who you are. Feeling like an easily replaceable cog in a bloated corporate machine is a great way to sacrifice self for service but I wanted more. Maybe I'm delusional or narcissistic but there has to be more to life than selling video games for shareholders.

So, I quit. If I had stayed I would have had the biggest bonus to date, $1000 or more in free gaming swag and been given two awards for beating sales goals. But would it have been worth another holiday season? Another Black Friday and after Christmas sales? Would it have been worth the frustration and stress of trying to do everything I was told like a good manager? I don't think so. Nothing is worth feeling terrible when I have the luxury of choice and the knowledge that time is all I have. It wasn't a bad job and the company wasn't a bad company but it wasn't for me.

My brother offered me his garage and I moved in with him and his family a few weeks ago.  We are starting a business in media production and I miss my friends already. I moved far from the home I made in Eugene but I'm excited to learn something new, work hard, and try doing something creative and valuable. I am starting over and I don't know exactly what my future holds but I'm doing something for myself for a change and that is proving to be supremely liberating. I don't miss working there for a second.

Thanks for reading!

Causalism not Determinism and Some Ruminations on Free Will

One problem I have in accepting determinism is the word determinism. Determinism implies a determiner which assumes some sort of agency. This makes sense due to the roots of determinism being either religious or scientific. From the religious perspective all actions are pre-determined by a deity agent and from the scientific perspective knowledge is gained from observation from human agents. Determinism from the scientific point of view is based on cause and effect and the lacking of true human agency in the equation. Humans are simply subject to prior causes and the effects cascade toward more cause and effect chains. This would be better described as "Causalism", not determinism.

Because determinism rests of the concept of knowable causal forces it is simpler and more objection to call it causalism. If causality can be mapped with perfection then the future would, presumably, be predicted but not determined. Determination seems like inevitability based on an agent's word instead of an objective assessment of what physical forces should do. The future doesn't exist and I believed that no matter how precise we can observe reality there would likely be missing data, error, or other mysterious forces such as underlying quantum chaos that would make perfect knowledge and predictability impossible. We might get to 99.9% but it still wouldn't be determined, just very accurately predicted.

Are all physical forces consistent, constant and reliable? I am not sure. While logic has taught us to rely on physics due to it's reliable predictive power it doesn't mean that there is some room for variation and change. The universe is mysterious and science is a fairly new discipline. We should not be so vein to think that we understand what is immutable. For example, if the speed of light is not fixed then many calculations would be wrong. We should be skeptical about our assumptions. This is an interesting TedTalk about the potential misconceptions in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

This doesn't mean we should discount science. The scientific method is certainly the best way to test truth claims about reality but I think there is room for philosophy as well.

Ruminations on Free Will:
Why can't a mind be a direct cause of an effect? If so why can't the agent, who owns the mind, be in control (choice) of that cause? Free will may lie somewhere in the chaos of the mind or somewhere in the conscious effort to change the future. The mind is just as physical as genetics and environment so why can't it have a discreet effect on reality and the future?

If all causes are products of prior effects and causes then can there be a first cause? This seems to lead toward a deity outside of time and space. The "turtles all the way down" argument doesn't lead anywhere.

If causes and effects can occur spontaneously or arise from complexity then the mind seems like a prime candidate for a machine capable of creating new chains of causation.

I do admit that I want Free Will to exist. I think it allows for more personal responsibility and change and I feel that I am free to make certain decisions. I do not believe in complete freedom and I admit that most actions are a product of prior or current physical forces acting inside and outside of myself that I can not control. But in those few moments where choice comes into play, and I can slow down and see the potential outcomes of an action I believe that "I" am free to choose. This may be rare and training myself to recognize them may be a lifelong discipline but it seems to increase my well being.

Here is a great conversation between Sam Harris and Dan Dennett about this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g
Check out Sam Harris's podcast for great content here:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast

This is a great talk between Sam Harris and David Deutsch about the power of explanation and the limits of knowledge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J21QuHrIqXg