Hello fellow forum users.

[Antiheld]

Actually, I might have been wrong about that. Based on your replies, you might be a psychopath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
It's about 1% of the population.
But you may just be an extraordinarily bad liar for a psychopath (which is somewhat of a redeeming quality if anything).

Yes maybe I am a psychopath, I don't know. I have empathy however so maybe I am just something else.
Is there a way to test myself for psychopathic tendencies without consulting a psychotherapist?
EDIT:
I did a test online. While this is nowhere near a conclusive diagnose it was quite interesting:

I scored 88% in the @channel4 psychopathic traits test. How psychopathic are you? Take the test http://www.channel4.com/psychopath #psychopathnight

This is based on you noting that friendship is helpful to you, your reluctance to have useless friends, etc.

I wouldn't describe it as a reluctance to have useless friends, more a reluctance to have bad friends or to befriend people that hurt me. I can connect this partly to my past where I have been deeply hurt by many I once considered friends.

And it sounds like you would readily cheat them if it were literally impossible for you to be caught, but you're just very pragmatic about it.

No I won't cheat my friends. Those I really consider friends. I would not cheat them, even the thought of me cheating them disturbs me deeply even if it where impossible for me to be caught.

This would also explain your lack of drive to believe in religion.
Most emotionally normal people have an immense desire to believe in heaven, because they want to imagine friends and family as happy after they die. This is something that reason has to push hard to overcome.

That would fit, but I never had religious family members who could influence me towards religion. Even my grandparents are agnostics.
In myself I can't find the capability to belief in something like a god. Religion is just seems to be impossible for me.

For a psychopath, that doesn't make any sense. They're gone from the world, so no longer of any use. Why does it matter if they're happy in heaven, suffering in hell, or just non-existent?

I am quite sure about the fact that they are non-existent after death. Not their matter but their conciousness, thought-patterns, memories, their knowledge. This would be the most logical thing to assume and it is what we can perceive. I don't believe that there is a soul or something like that. We are mere biological machines that decompose after death.

Only if they know you hurt them. If you actually found a perfect crime, what would stop you?

I would still not do it. Why? I don't know.

It sounds like the thing that makes you a bad liar is not conscience, but fear and anxiety of being caught, and the damage to your reputation that would entail.

I think you were confusing the feeling of shame other people have, with the feeling of knowing your reputation was damaged, and that it would cause difficulties for you later.
They are superficially similar feelings, but a little different in terms of cause.

I have both. In the case of friends I am quite sure that I would not want to hurt them, even when they would not be able to know that I did. Seeing them suffer would make me suffer myself. It has in the past, although I mostly haven't been the cause and I never have intentionally hurt a friend.

By fake, I just mean not sincerely caring for them; you can still truly enjoy their company, and like spending time with them. There's a difference between liking somebody and enjoying their company, and really empathizing with them.

You may view friends and family more like a cherished toy you enjoy. If it broke, you'd be sad because you enjoyed that toy.

No I do not think that fits.

"Very close to immortal" is still 100% mortal.

Now if we were talking supernatural beings, sure. They just don't exist.

Yes you are right, my own desire to be immortal has blinded me to the fact that it isn't impossible. I still hope I can somehow stop ageing.

Again, you're misunderstanding.

My argument relies on theistic "true" free will being false.
My argument relies on determinism and uncertainty being the guiding forces of human action.

You've got it completely backward.

If there was "true" free will, my argument would be wrong.
Since there isn't, then my argument has weight.

You might want to re-read it in that context.
I was talking about a provisional, perceptual notion of free will (not a strict "true" free will) when referring to the paradox.

Please explain that in greater detail I don't seem to understand it. It is an interesting concept.

[brimstoneSalad]

Yes maybe I am a psychopath, I don't know. I have empathy however so maybe I am just something else.

It's very likely that psychopathy is a spectrum disorder, like autism spectrum disorder, and goes all of the way from normal empathy, to low empathy, to none.

Apparently, psychopaths can feel empathy if they choose to, or have been trained to do so (either deliberately, or perhaps by environment):

http://www.sociopathworld.com/2013/07/s ... rt-of.html

Interesting site. I think they're misusing the term "sociopath" though ( https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wi ... psychopath )

This next article discusses those who may have been habituated against empathy due to environmental reasons, or excessive focus on self-interests (which may be your case, with your monomaniacal focus on hedonistic pleasure):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... t-disorder

And this one discusses the relationship between empathy and stress:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30831145

While there are probably genetic aspects that make a person more inclined to feel empathy, it seems like it can be trained (or reduced) by environment.

You could probably train your empathy, and get better at caring about children, people suffering in third world countries, and even non-human animals.

Caring more about the world around you doesn't make you less fulfilled in life; it's a focus on the self that does that.

Is there a way to test myself for psychopathic tendencies without consulting a psychotherapist?
EDIT:
I did a test online. While this is nowhere near a conclusive diagnose it was quite interesting:

I scored 88% in the @channel4 psychopathic traits test. How psychopathic are you? Take the test http://www.channel4.com/psychopath #psychopathnight

Not sure how accurate that is, but that's pretty high compared to the averages. I got 24%.

No I won't cheat my friends. Those I really consider friends. I would not cheat them, even the thought of me cheating them disturbs me deeply even if it where impossible for me to be caught.

That sounds like it could possibly be empathy, although you're focusing a lot on how it would make you feel (which isn't typical of empathy), so it might also be some kind of learned discomfort with an unidentified source.

I would still not do it. Why? I don't know.

It might just be childhood conditioning.
Can you remember any events, or any attitudes of your family, that might have conditioned you in that way?

Seeing them suffer would make me suffer myself. It has in the past, although I mostly haven't been the cause and I never have intentionally hurt a friend.

That sounds like empathy. When did this happen in the past?

Could it be possible that you experienced empathy in the past, and so have memory of this, but that your empathy has been lost or dulled now?
It could perhaps be habit, or expectation causing the anxiety.

Yes you are right, my own desire to be immortal has blinded me to the fact that it isn't impossible. I still hope I can somehow stop ageing.

Well, not ageing is possible, but not now. It will never be possible for you if you die before the technology is developed. There are a lot of serious hurdles to overcome. Telomere repair greatly increases the incidence of many kinds of cancer, for example, and there are a lot of different aspects to ageing.
Some of the most optimistic estimates guess we might have the problem solved in 25 years.
40 seems more likely, given that ten years ago people were saying 25 years too ( http://www.livescience.com/6967-hang-25 ... ality.html ) and in retrospect that's just not realistic at all.
And of course, when the technology IS here, there is no guarantee that most people will even have access to it; to put it mildly, there will be a bit of a waiting list.
Aside from absurdly rich people, those who will get it first are those who are oldest (that's just how health care rationing works -- based on transparent need): the people who have led healthy lifestyles, and have reached 95 years old or so (that is, mostly the very health conscious vegans). You might die of a heart attack or cancer at 65 waiting for all of the 95 year-olds to be rejuvenated.

If you're more than ten years old now, your chances of seeing that technology come to light aren't necessarily very high.
Unless you take some serious measures to reduce your chances of dying from heart disease and cancer in the mean time. It's no guarantee, but then it's not a complete joke.
Some people view having an optimally healthy lifestyle as a temporary thing, just to hold out until the technology is there.

Anyway, regarding the desire to be immortal; why is this?
And would that overrule your loyalty to your friends?

You and your best friend are both old and dying, your friend gets his rejuvenation juice in the mail while he's sleeping (an at-home kit), you still have another decade on the waiting list. You can use it on yourself, saving yourself from almost certain death and dooming your friend to almost certain death, or you can wake him up and give it to him.
What do you do?

Please explain that in greater detail I don't seem to understand it. It is an interesting concept.

1. Rational assumption: We are not special. In fact, we are most probably very typical.

2. Therefore: Most worlds out there with intelligent life are probably very much like our own (not all, but within a statistical spread)

3. If in the course of evolution of human society X happens (where X is not entirely reliant on a single instance of dumb luck), it is very probable that X has happened, is happening, or will happen on most other world.

If it turns out that humans start WWIII and drive ourselves into extinction, most other civilizations on most other worlds are probably doing the same thing. Not because we did it, no more than we did it because they did, but because we are similar, and are mutually caused by our natures to do that thing.

If it turns out that we overcome our lesser natures, and advance to a higher kind of civilization, chances are most other worlds have done, are doing, or will do the same thing. Not because we did it, but because we're all caused (by the same similar nature) to behave similarly.

If fundamentalist Islam takes over Earth, and drives humanity into an eternal dark age until the sun burns out, then on Zelthar 9, worshipers of Blergzep the devourer probably take over their world, and drive their species into an eternal dark age until their sun burns out.
Not because Islam took over Earth, but because being similar in nature, we are driven by the same tendencies to the same general sorts of ends (within a range of statistical probability).

So, when I say if good defeats evil on Earth, it is also doing so throughout the universe, and the multiverse, that's a comment on the nature of intelligent beings and conscience itself, and the tendency of good to generally defeat evil.

It is because we do not have 'true' free will to arbitrarily diverge from our innate tendencies, that we can make reasonable assumptions about other worlds, going through the same sorts of trials and tribulations we are.
If we had 'true' free will, it would be totally unpredictable, and the victory of good or evil on Earth would say absolutely nothing about the rest of the universe or multiverse.

[Antiheld]

So first I want to say that I'm sorry for not answering for such a long time. I was quite busy and couldn't for the first two weeks and then the subsequent guilt of not having answered prevented me from doing so which caused more guilt etc.
Now I finally got around to answer I have to cut out your quotes because I am going to answer in a more general way. I asked my psychotherapist (who's also a psychiatrist if that's the right term in English) about the assumption of me possibly being a psychopath. He did some tests with me, not only on being a psychopath but also sociopath and various other psychological disorders and in the end said that I share some traits with psychopaths but am not inherently incapable of empathy. He furthermore stated that he believes I have a way of ignoring my empathy for most distant from me but not for those close (both in a physical and relationship sense), which is probably learned and was imprinted into me by events in my past. I seem to be in between psychopath and "sane" person but leaning towards "sane". Also my ADHD (yeah nobody believes in it I know but it is one of the best researched mental illnesses of all time) causes me to be very impulsive and quick to react in stressful situations, a trait ADHD patients share with psychopaths. An example of such a situation would be a person in my school time totally going berserk on another guy at the end of class. The guy going berserk was mobbed and I liked and protected him because of that before. In that situation everybody was frozen still in shock while I simply moved to him and hold him still so he couldn't attack the other student any more. This would likely be the same or similar for a psychopath.
So to summarize the professional opinion of my psychotherapist: I seem to be able to blend out empathy for some but not for others and I seem to be sharing some of the traits a psychopath has but I am not a full blown psychopath.
In my own opinion, especially considering my lack of values (except for friendship) I seem to have only those who were "burned" into me as a child and adolescent kid. I myself was mobbed very heavily in my youth and had no friends, so when I finally started to have them I learned their inherent value was more than a measurable profit from having them.

Well, not ageing is possible, but not now. It will never be possible for you if you die before the technology is developed. There are a lot of serious hurdles to overcome. Telomere repair greatly increases the incidence of many kinds of cancer, for example, and there are a lot of different aspects to ageing.
Some of the most optimistic estimates guess we might have the problem solved in 25 years.
40 seems more likely, given that ten years ago people were saying 25 years too ( http://www.livescience.com/6967-hang-25 ... ality.html ) and in retrospect that's just not realistic at all.
And of course, when the technology IS here, there is no guarantee that most people will even have access to it; to put it mildly, there will be a bit of a waiting list.
Aside from absurdly rich people, those who will get it first are those who are oldest (that's just how health care rationing works -- based on transparent need): the people who have led healthy lifestyles, and have reached 95 years old or so (that is, mostly the very health conscious vegans). You might die of a heart attack or cancer at 65 waiting for all of the 95 year-olds to be rejuvenated.

If you're more than ten years old now, your chances of seeing that technology come to light aren't necessarily very high.
Unless you take some serious measures to reduce your chances of dying from heart disease and cancer in the mean time. It's no guarantee, but then it's not a complete joke.
Some people view having an optimally healthy lifestyle as a temporary thing, just to hold out until the technology is there.

Or maybe I can find a way to fuse myself with a machine or be frozen until the technology is available to everyone.
The chance is slim and in my day to day life I normally don't think of it.

Anyway, regarding the desire to be immortal; why is this?

Only an immortal being can have a perceivable impact on the universe and I want to have that so I wish to be immortal. My thoughts wouldn't just stop and I could see what becomes of humanity.[/quote]

And would that overrule your loyalty to your friends?

You and your best friend are both old and dying, your friend gets his rejuvenation juice in the mail while he's sleeping (an at-home kit), you still have another decade on the waiting list. You can use it on yourself, saving yourself from almost certain death and dooming your friend to almost certain death, or you can wake him up and give it to him.
What do you do?

I wake him up and ask him if he wants to have it. If he says yes I give it to him, if not I take it myself. It really depends on the opinion of my friend on that matter. If I know beforehand that he wants it I still would wake him up and give it to him. Afterwards I would go and steal an at-home kit from a stranger.

1. Rational assumption: We are not special. In fact, we are most probably very typical.

We still don't know in how many ways life is possible, but yes statistically we are most likely very typical.

2. Therefore: Most worlds out there with intelligent life are probably very much like our own (not all, but within a statistical spread)

Yep, same as above.

3. If in the course of evolution of human society X happens (where X is not entirely reliant on a single instance of dumb luck), it is very probable that X has happened, is happening, or will happen on most other world.

Yes but my doing it doesn't change it, it just makes it obvious.

If it turns out that humans start WWIII and drive ourselves into extinction, most other civilizations on most other worlds are probably doing the same thing. Not because we did it, no more than we did it because they did, but because we are similar, and are mutually caused by our natures to do that thing.

If it turns out that we overcome our lesser natures, and advance to a higher kind of civilization, chances are most other worlds have done, are doing, or will do the same thing. Not because we did it, but because we're all caused (by the same similar nature) to behave similarly.

If fundamentalist Islam takes over Earth, and drives humanity into an eternal dark age until the sun burns out, then on Zelthar 9, worshipers of Blergzep the devourer probably take over their world, and drive their species into an eternal dark age until their sun burns out.
Not because Islam took over Earth, but because being similar in nature, we are driven by the same tendencies to the same general sorts of ends (within a range of statistical probability).

So, when I say if good defeats evil on Earth, it is also doing so throughout the universe, and the multiverse, that's a comment on the nature of intelligent beings and conscience itself, and the tendency of good to generally defeat evil.

It is because we do not have 'true' free will to arbitrarily diverge from our innate tendencies, that we can make reasonable assumptions about other worlds, going through the same sorts of trials and tribulations we are.
If we had 'true' free will, it would be totally unpredictable, and the victory of good or evil on Earth would say absolutely nothing about the rest of the universe or multiverse.

It maybe says something about the rest of the universe but it doesn't change the rest of the universe and that was my point all along.
So while me causing the death and suffering of many animals shows that this probably happens in other civilizations around the universe it doesn't mean that my choosing to be a meat-eater changes the other civilizations, it just makes it more apparent to us how they must be.
It is not action - reaction but simply similar action or in other terms not cause and effect but parallel development.
Or short: I change our view of other species and civilizations out there but I don't change the species or civilizations themselves.

[brimstoneSalad]

Only an immortal being can have a perceivable impact on the universe and I want to have that so I wish to be immortal. My thoughts wouldn't just stop and I could see what becomes of humanity.

In terms of perceivable 'impact', you can also get that by being part of something bigger than yourself. This is true for people who are involved in all social movements, scientific progress, etc.

There are ways you can make your mark on things that resonate perpetually. Your contributions being significant, and only magnified by the legacy of the social movement that you were a significant part of.

If you want your "choices" to matter, they certainly can (see the reply to the third quote below).
If you don't believe you make any choices, then what exactly is this 'you', and how does it make any 'impact' on anything? How in any sense do you even claim to exist if you disown your choices?

Afterwards I would go and steal an at-home kit from a stranger.

In this thought experiment, that's not an option. Let's say it's the last one. Also, you're dying, you can barely walk across your front yard without lying down for a nap.

Yes but my doing it doesn't change it, it just makes it obvious.[...]
It maybe says something about the rest of the universe but it doesn't change the rest of the universe and that was my point all along.

What do you mean by "change"?

If you choose to do the right thing now, those like you across the multiverse (let's say something like 1%) will also be doing the right thing in a similar situation.
If you choose to do the wrong thing now, those like you across the multiverse will also be doing the wrong thing in a similar situation.

This is a defined group of people, in a certain context of common situations (being presented with a sound moral argument), which only becomes more prevalent over time given that good is growing, along with scientific knowledge.

If you're doing right, they are too.
If you're doing wrong, they are too.

In so far as you can choose to do right or wrong, you're choosing for everybody without causing it. It's equally true that they're choosing for you, without causing.

It's not causality in the traditional sense, but it's also not entirely accurate to say you don't "change" the universe in doing so, given the functional existential notion of "choice".
You may not have free will, but in cognitive terms, you probably do understand your actions as choices.

Look into quantum physics, and how wave function collapse is reported to work.

To use a crude Copenhagen analogy, YOU are, in a manner of speaking, "entangled" with every other being in the universe that is functionally like you. The rest of the universe is (from our perspective) in superposition.
As in the case of two entangled particles, they are in a state of superposition before being collapsed by measurement; this is more than simply being unknown. The result is not determined. If I measure one here and it's spin-up, then the other particle billions of light years away (which we could never reach), will instantly be known to be spin-down.
One did not cause the other, but it could have gone either way, and the other would always be the opposite.

In so far as you are making any choice at all, what you are doing is reporting a measurement on yourself (as a species of particle), which in turn changes the entire universe from our perspective by collapsing the unknown with new information. In so far as you make a choice, you are also making a cosmic one - a shared choice, with multiversal implications.