Yes and the unconscious comes from where? The input from the deterministic universe. So if unconscious is the exoself then the exoself is just the universe- not "you" or anyone at all. It is just is.
But you are saying I don't exist.
No i'm not perfect and I have biases come to my attention and fly under the radar etc- but I don't ask myself what I would do. I don't ask myself what someone else would do. I literally have no role models and can't think of any I ever had. I do make decisions as they come up and if I ever was to base one off the fact that "that's what Dan would do" then that throws up a red flag to me. It says ask the question again and find a real answer because maybe I don't have a real reason.
What you are describing to me sounds like a short cut to a nasty bias that self perpetuates- telling you to never question anything just follow the status quo.
You don't have to calculate every single factor from scratch. You can use "this is what i ate yesterday" and "last week this diet made me feel good" rather than start from scratch. For example you can take for given that you don't have to calculate if you are still on earth or not to decide what to eat. Using data of recalled past experience and keeping already collected data such as food nutrition is ALOT different then asking "What would X do?". Even while using this stored data, as you start to apply it you can ask a quick question of how reliable the data was. Did you study it in a book? If so, you can probably summarize the time length wasn't long enough that information would of changed and that maybe the source was reliable from the start so doesn't need re-evaluating yet. In another example if you lived a sheltered life where you grew up and carrots were the only food source you would say "My self image is a carrot eater. When I am hungry, I eat carrots". Presented with a new variety all the sudden if you asked your self image for help rather than calculate a new answer then you'll continue to eat carrots forever and nothing else. Especially if you came upon the self image of an exclusive carrot eater (just because there was nothing else at the time when you made your image)- in which case you might even feel embarrassed or like you are failing yourself if you eat something else because your self image will say "but I only eat carrots...yet i'm eating banana... so i'm not being myself... oh dear".
Honestly this IS how i think and I DO have time to make these calculations. I really wouldn't say I do anything other than "try to maximize utility"- I don't need to constrain myself to any action other than that. Yes I can describe what I have liked in the past- but that doesn't prescribe what I will do in the future- instead it is used as height weight data during my next decision.
My point was though that even using this stored data is much better than the blanket question of "What would my self-image do?". Asking what your set self-image would do will only yield 1 answer continuously and disallow further growth and change.
Question: What is 1 + 1 Answer: "what would jesus do?"....
Not helpful is it... Wouldn't it be better to have a cognitive model that knows how to process data rather than reaching for the cheat button?
Even if the question was "If a man was drowning etc etc" the answer "what would jesus do?" is never going to be as effective as having a data processor that can custom build an answer for the exact question...which isn't what X would do but what is the right answer.
Self image is just another word for bias.
I am an X. X's always do X things. I have to do x things
Why can't people make calculations in real time rather than inserting a pre-made stand in? For example: Problem: a circle of paper with a diameter of 3cm is required Answer: grab an already constructed circle and hope it fits or Answer: note the size requirement for the paper and construct one out of new material so it fits perfectly
which is like
Problem: A man is fleeing from a large mob and hides in a location you know. The mob catches up and ask if you seen him Answer: You reach for a pre-fab self-identity responce such as "I support underdogs" so lie to the mob or "I'm always helpful to everyone i speak to" so you inform the mob or Answer: You don't assume you will do anything other than break out your mental calculator and do the math. This will also likely include trying to find out more data to render the most accurate answer compared to the true reality.
I thought losing the concept of "I am X so I do Y" and replacing it for "the world in front of me is current 1+1 so 2 is my answer" was part of growing up. That is to say I don't dig in to my pockets for change when I see a homeless person because "I think this is what X would do" but because "I have money i can spare et etc etc etc (insert rationalized equation here)".
I too have grown up not liking to dance. I could say "I don't like to dance"- but that would only be a description of my behavior and experiences up until that point in time. If I did dance- I would not feel shame. I would not say "Dan's self-image doesn't dance so i'm not being Dan". If I did start out saying "I don't like to dance" but did so and liked it I would not say "I should not like this because I am Dan (and Dan doesn't dance)"- rather I would update my model of reality to say something like "In the past I have not enjoyed or pursued dancing but I have discovered it is enjoyable in the present". If I was to ask myself if I would do it again I wouldn't ask "Would Dan dance?" I would ask "What do I gain vs what do I lose by dancing?". Again it will be a question of utility return rather than a concrete formula of "X does X things". I think I learnt this lesson best from music. When I was growing up music was a lot more sectarian than it seems now. The statement "He likes Rap music" was synonymous with "He hates Metal music". Honestly I don't know about where you all live but this was literally true where I was. But even wihle really young it made me question how one statement meant the other. Why couldn't people like both? I realized it had nothing to do with music and sound waves but was just a stupid cultural bias and I was better off letting my listening experience create the decision since it would be grounded more with reality than a blanket stereo-type.
To give another example of what i'm talking about
I don't like racism. But when I say that, i'm not talking about "Dan's image is incompatible with racism". I'm talking about the simple maths that returns the value "Racism = bad". How that maths goes and how i define "bad" is a totally different story- but I can tell you it's one that is totally void of my own being and therefore any self image i could lump on top. In other words i'm saying that whether I exist or not racism is like 1+1=2 and for me to "like" it (or think it's not "bad") would be to say 1+1=3 (ie nonsense and not logical). I don't need to think i'm a good person to make a judgement on what is "right"- I just need a calculator and a logic that scans the numbers for bias and inconsistencies. I don't need to think anything about myself- my only task is to build a map that represents the territory accurately. I guess luckily my interpretation of the world says that what is "right and logical" is also "moral and just"- so I don't have to worry about if my utility gain is "evil" since it's only possible for it to go up if it's "good".
If I was to submit to the ideology of everyone needing or having a self-identity then it would be very rudimentary. A simple statement saying like "I am an agent which attempts to maximize utility" is enough to cover it. That tells me to "do the math"- but doesn't tell me what to do. It's enough to let me know I exist but isn't a pre-fabricated one size fits all play block.
Self-image to me seems like a biased filter to pass data through. I don't need to ask what I would do- the simple answer is "I do what I have already have and am yet to do" -and that answer is sufficient enough to not bottleneck my interpretation of the world and subsequent actions.
The whole problem with being human is biases pop up everywhere so the only sane thing to do is to ask "why?" often. "Dan does Dan things"- why? Um i dunno...because he's Dan? You need real reasons why you think/do things rather than stereo types that could of come from anywhere.
I was really confused about what point EY made that went over my head but i think I get it now.
It totally changes the game to play it infinite amount of times rather than 1 go to win or lose. I made my choices based on 1 game and not a hybrid between the two of them played multiple times.
If I play once, choosing 1a is just taking money that's already mine. If I play infinite times, 1b earns money faster because failing can be evened out.
That's exactly how i felt too.
"Don't gamble" is the key. 1a allowed me to indulge that even if i was boxed into being in the game.
So in question 2 I want to follow "don't gamble" but both are gambling. Additionally, both gambles would feel the same risk to most human who didn't record statistics (other than subconscious and normal memory effected observations) so could be cheaply rounded off to say they are the same. If they are "the same" but 1 pays more money...
Oh one more point "easy come easy go". If you can lose 2 either way you won't feel like you ever had anything. However even before you pick 1a and they physically hand you the money, it's already yours (by virtue of the ability to choose 1a ) until you choose 1b and introduce the probability that you won't be paid. I say already yours because if you are guaranteed the choice of 1a forever and unconditionally unless until you choose 1b- that's no less "having money" than when you "have money" but it's in your pocket or in your wallet in the other room. It might not be your money anymore if you fling your wallet out the window hoping it will boomerang back (1b) but it was until you introduced that gamble rather than just choosing to clutch the wallet (1a).
I feel like i must be missing the point or something because they seems so obviously right...
Ok that is exactly my line of thinking and why i can't understand the broader point of this argument.
Yes I can see the statistical similarity that makes it "the same"- but the situation is totally different in that one offers "certain win or risk" and the other is "risk vs risk" with a barely noticeable difference between them.
So my decision on both questions goes like this 1a > 1b because even if i was offered MUCH less, i'd still likely take that deciding that i'm not greedy and free money always feels good but giving away free money (by trying to get a bit more) always feels foolish and greedy.
2b > 2a because if the statistic played out over 100 times, the average person will think it was equal value between them- unless they logged the statistics to find the slight difference. Therefore if it takes that much attention to feel the difference it's easy to pretend they are the same risk but one is 11.12% more money- which is a lot easier to notice without logging statistics.
I don't see how these decisions conflict with each other.
I just went to reply you but after reading back on what was said I'm seeing a different context. My stupid comment was about popularity not about usefulness. I was rambling about general public opinion on belief systems not what the topic was really about- if philosophy could move something forward.
I guess i don't "want" myself to do anything. I don't decide what is right in advance because if i do anything to predetermine my answer before a question arises then i'm starting off with a bias.
In a way what i'm saying is 1+1 could equal 2 tomorrow (which it can't) and I will still probably get the answer right because i didn't decide to stick with the answer 1+1=2 before the question was asked (therefore before this mysterious universe switched the answer).
I'll sound completely biased and unbelievable when i say this but i'll say it anyway- in my experience of breaking down my expectations for who "Dan" is and what "Dan does" i've made really good choices for the good of everyone around me. People around me have a model of what Dan apparently is which is empathetic, nice, generous etc. I'm always the first to point out a bias such as racism or nonfactual emotional opinions etc. I don't have to see myself as any of those things though. All I have to do is keep asking questions properly and at the right time and then output a response. No i'm not a calculator but the results are good according to everyone I meet and interact with.
The problem with that is if you fix an answer like cement in to your brain based on one set of data- even if the data changes later you will have this cement lump in your head saying it's "so good that you wouldn't disagree" and so you don't recalculate. I mean why would you calculate an answer you already know?
What you really need to do is not make accurate biases to pre-determine or influence your answer but work on removing all your layers so you make the calculations properly and unbiased. That way you won't have to worry about if you dance or not- which ever one is right will be determined when the question comes up. Again this isn't just a theory of what i think you should do- this is what i do so don't tell me it isn't possible.