Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Free will
Posted 4/1/12 , edited 4/1/12

BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Libet's experiments really don't establish that there is or isn't free will.*


Your non-linguistic brain**, is still 'you.' It is not rational to assume that the part of your brain that talks all the time is somehow the end-all and be-all of 'you,' and any decision made outside of the boundaries of language is somehow 'not you.'


Anyone who has driven a car, or played a video game, has noticed that the talkative part of the brain is not smart enough to handle said tasks. By the time you can even forge the words, "turn left," it's often too late to actually turn left.


However, what sane person would say that just because a part of your brain that operates faster than language decided to move the car to avoid an object, that somehow it is not 'you' making the decision to swerve? It's not like it's someone else making the decision. And the manner in which you turn left is at least partially based on personal experience and learned behavior.


To me, what seems most apparent is that terms like, 'free will' and 'determinism' are extremely archaic, and so self-limiting that you almost have to adopt a pre-modern mindset to even have a discussion on the topic. To actually base a modern discussion on these terms is about as meaningful as us discussing which 'bodily humours' are influencing us today...or like discussing the Periodic Table of Elements in terms of the archaic notion of the elements, earth, air, fire, and water.


For that matter, to assume that the linguistic mind (whether or not it's based in the frontal lobe or any other one, small structure in the brain), is the 'self,' is also an archaic and borderline irrational viewpoint.


In brief, life, and human existence, is far too complex to start slapping on these kinds of binary distinctions and labels. We limit our very ability to discuss the topic when we lower ourselves to accept such terms as reality.





* -- not only do the experiments not establish the presence or absence of free will, to bring in the idea of free will inherently limits a thorough examination of the implications of the experiment. Simply put, the experiments establish that human decision making is much faster than some people had previously assumed, and involve more parts of the brain than just the frontal lobe (and other structures associated with linguistic thought). To bring free will into the discussion limits our understanding of what is being observed.

Again -- you aren't your Frontal lobe, your frontal lobe is simply one part of you.

And to be clear I'm using 'Frontal Lobe' to refer to all associated brain structures that are at present assumed to make up the conscious language-using part of the brain/mind. So it's as much as metaphor as a description of a neurological structure.

** -- Yes, I am intentionally avoiding the term 'unconscious mind/brain' because it is a term loaded with too many cultural and philosophical interpretations to be meaningful to a cosmopolitan audience.
Except I'm not a cosmopolitan, when I've actually established my argument straight from where you intended to neglect the most: our neural biological and evolutionary biological subconscious decision-making process.

And to further analyze your argument, you've made an error in cognition, when you used augmented reality experiences like car driving and video gaming to avoid linguistic altogether. Without yourself realizing that all you really managed to do was simply yourself adapting to the more recent forms of cultural deception. Whether or not it's "archaic" to your prejudgment is beside the point, when we humans as social animals weren't evolved as a species 40,000 years ago, from a cultural environment of car-driving and video-gaming.

Furthermore, your error in cognition also has its neural biological and evolutionary biological root. And it has to do with how our pre-frontal cortex acting as an "experience simulator" working badly in conjunction with our associative memory, or what's known as the "impact bias" on our expectation in modern psychology.

Dan Gilbert: Exploring the frontiers of happiness
Dan Gilbert presents research and data from his exploration of happiness -- sharing some surprising tests and experiments that you can also try on yourself. Watch through to the end for a sparkling Q&A with some familiar TED faces.

Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness.

Well, the question with which I'd like to end is this: If we're so damn stupid, how did we get to the moon? Because I could go on for about two hours with evidence of people's inability to estimate odds and inability to estimate value.

The answer to this question, I think, is an answer you've already heard in some of the talks, and I dare say you will hear again: namely, that our brains were evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are living. They were evolved for a world in which people lived in very small groups, rarely met anybody who was terribly different from themselves, had rather short lives in which there were few choices and the highest priority was to eat and mate today.

Bernoulli's gift, Bernoulli's little formula, allows us, it tells us how we should think in a world for which nature never designed us. That explains why we are so bad at using it, but it also explains why it is so terribly important that we become good, fast. We are the only species on this planet that has ever held its own fate in its hands. We have no significant predators, we're the masters of our physical environment; the things that normally cause species to become extinct are no longer any threat to us. The only thing -- the only thing -- that can destroy us and doom us are our own decisions. If we're not here in 10,000 years, it's going to be because we could not take advantage of the gift given to us by a young Dutch fellow in 1738, because we underestimated the odds of our future pains and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.
Let me put it frankly, your expectations on both car-driving and video gaming were already augmented by the advertisements and product placements, which were intentionally designed by marketing as an emotional but nonetheless irrational narrative/stereotype/scheme, to deceive your brain with sensationalized dramatizations. So while you're doped with an unrealistic expectation on an illusive future reward, made possible by carefully constructed cultural experience, your brain is further manipulated by its own socially perceived expectation of possible future pleasure experience, working in conjunction with our dopamine flooded brain circuitry.

Dopamine Jackpot! Sapolsky on the Science of Pleasure
Robert Sapolsky, professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, compares dopamine levels in monkeys and humans. Sapolsky argues that in both, "Dopamine is not about pleasure, it's about the anticipation of pleasure. It's about the pursuit of happiness." Unlike monkeys however, humans "keep those dopamine levels up for decades and decades waiting for the reward."
Posted 4/8/12
An idea is part of thought. When we see something, we have an ideas of it. When we hear music we have an idea of it being soothing. When we touch fire, we have an idea of being hurt. Our will tells us that we do no want to be hurt, so ideas are not part of free will. But since ideas make up your thought, your thought has no free will. Therefore you have no free will

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLO
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/8/12

RapeMonster wrote:

An idea is part of thought. When we see something, we have an ideas of it. When we hear music we have an idea of it being soothing. When we touch fire, we have an idea of being hurt. Our will tells us that we do no want to be hurt, so ideas are not part of free will. But since ideas make up your thought, your thought has no free will. Therefore you have no free will

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLO


Logically incomprehensible. Not only am I not singly my thoughts, but that you fail to distinguish between different ideas and the fact that ideas alone do not make up thoughts. For example, the abstract idea that so and so is good is different from the idea 'is so and so good?'. It is with the latter that will is affiliated, if I will myself to believe so and so is good, therefore I am freely and volunturily choosing to believe thus is good, and so on. The determinist may argue that my choosing is not free because it is based upon some foundation upon which I have no control, yet, it could also be argued that this foundation does not consititute the whole of why I am choosing for it to be good, and, indeed, even if it were so, that I base my choosing upon a foundation of which I no longer have any control, there is at least, at one time, a point where I do not have that foundation on which to rely, and thereby freely choosing to create that foundation. For example, I may conclude Abortion is bad based upon the premise that killing, and especially killing children, is bad- not only do I choose to believe that killing is bad- which, at some tender age I was taught, and so choose to believe (the choice here is to choose to disbelieve), but that I also choose to believe that it applies to Abortion. Therefore, while this does not prove that there is a free will, it does show that your reasoning is faulty- although I presume that you are not actually serious, at which case I should wonder why I am responding at all.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/8/12

DomFortress wrote:


BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

Libet's experiments really don't establish that there is or isn't free will.*


Your non-linguistic brain**, is still 'you.' It is not rational to assume that the part of your brain that talks all the time is somehow the end-all and be-all of 'you,' and any decision made outside of the boundaries of language is somehow 'not you.'


Anyone who has driven a car, or played a video game, has noticed that the talkative part of the brain is not smart enough to handle said tasks. By the time you can even forge the words, "turn left," it's often too late to actually turn left.


However, what sane person would say that just because a part of your brain that operates faster than language decided to move the car to avoid an object, that somehow it is not 'you' making the decision to swerve? It's not like it's someone else making the decision. And the manner in which you turn left is at least partially based on personal experience and learned behavior.


To me, what seems most apparent is that terms like, 'free will' and 'determinism' are extremely archaic, and so self-limiting that you almost have to adopt a pre-modern mindset to even have a discussion on the topic. To actually base a modern discussion on these terms is about as meaningful as us discussing which 'bodily humours' are influencing us today...or like discussing the Periodic Table of Elements in terms of the archaic notion of the elements, earth, air, fire, and water.


For that matter, to assume that the linguistic mind (whether or not it's based in the frontal lobe or any other one, small structure in the brain), is the 'self,' is also an archaic and borderline irrational viewpoint.


In brief, life, and human existence, is far too complex to start slapping on these kinds of binary distinctions and labels. We limit our very ability to discuss the topic when we lower ourselves to accept such terms as reality.





* -- not only do the experiments not establish the presence or absence of free will, to bring in the idea of free will inherently limits a thorough examination of the implications of the experiment. Simply put, the experiments establish that human decision making is much faster than some people had previously assumed, and involve more parts of the brain than just the frontal lobe (and other structures associated with linguistic thought). To bring free will into the discussion limits our understanding of what is being observed.

Again -- you aren't your Frontal lobe, your frontal lobe is simply one part of you.

And to be clear I'm using 'Frontal Lobe' to refer to all associated brain structures that are at present assumed to make up the conscious language-using part of the brain/mind. So it's as much as metaphor as a description of a neurological structure.

** -- Yes, I am intentionally avoiding the term 'unconscious mind/brain' because it is a term loaded with too many cultural and philosophical interpretations to be meaningful to a cosmopolitan audience.
Except I'm not a cosmopolitan, when I've actually established my argument straight from where you intended to neglect the most: our neural biological and evolutionary biological subconscious decision-making process.

And to further analyze your argument, you've made an error in cognition, when you used augmented reality experiences like car driving and video gaming to avoid linguistic altogether. Without yourself realizing that all you really managed to do was simply yourself adapting to the more recent forms of cultural deception. Whether or not it's "archaic" to your prejudgment is beside the point, when we humans as social animals weren't evolved as a species 40,000 years ago, from a cultural environment of car-driving and video-gaming.

Furthermore, your error in cognition also has its neural biological and evolutionary biological root. And it has to do with how our pre-frontal cortex acting as an "experience simulator" working badly in conjunction with our associative memory, or what's known as the "impact bias" on our expectation in modern psychology.

Dan Gilbert: Exploring the frontiers of happiness
Dan Gilbert presents research and data from his exploration of happiness -- sharing some surprising tests and experiments that you can also try on yourself. Watch through to the end for a sparkling Q&A with some familiar TED faces.

Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness.

Well, the question with which I'd like to end is this: If we're so damn stupid, how did we get to the moon? Because I could go on for about two hours with evidence of people's inability to estimate odds and inability to estimate value.

The answer to this question, I think, is an answer you've already heard in some of the talks, and I dare say you will hear again: namely, that our brains were evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are living. They were evolved for a world in which people lived in very small groups, rarely met anybody who was terribly different from themselves, had rather short lives in which there were few choices and the highest priority was to eat and mate today.

Bernoulli's gift, Bernoulli's little formula, allows us, it tells us how we should think in a world for which nature never designed us. That explains why we are so bad at using it, but it also explains why it is so terribly important that we become good, fast. We are the only species on this planet that has ever held its own fate in its hands. We have no significant predators, we're the masters of our physical environment; the things that normally cause species to become extinct are no longer any threat to us. The only thing -- the only thing -- that can destroy us and doom us are our own decisions. If we're not here in 10,000 years, it's going to be because we could not take advantage of the gift given to us by a young Dutch fellow in 1738, because we underestimated the odds of our future pains and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.
Let me put it frankly, your expectations on both car-driving and video gaming were already augmented by the advertisements and product placements, which were intentionally designed by marketing as an emotional but nonetheless irrational narrative/stereotype/scheme, to deceive your brain with sensationalized dramatizations. So while you're doped with an unrealistic expectation on an illusive future reward, made possible by carefully constructed cultural experience, your brain is further manipulated by its own socially perceived expectation of possible future pleasure experience, working in conjunction with our dopamine flooded brain circuitry.

Dopamine Jackpot! Sapolsky on the Science of Pleasure
Robert Sapolsky, professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, compares dopamine levels in monkeys and humans. Sapolsky argues that in both, "Dopamine is not about pleasure, it's about the anticipation of pleasure. It's about the pursuit of happiness." Unlike monkeys however, humans "keep those dopamine levels up for decades and decades waiting for the reward."


Everything for you is related to this group of evil, nefarious banker-Calvinists that manipulate us through their evil marketing and fiat money, isn't it? Politics- these nefarious bankers are secretly controlling us. Religion- opiate of the banker's brewing. Is there anything in your world not dominated by these bankers?
Posted 4/9/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Except I'm not a cosmopolitan, when I've actually established my argument straight from where you intended to neglect the most: our neural biological and evolutionary biological subconscious decision-making process.

And to further analyze your argument, you've made an error in cognition, when you used augmented reality experiences like car driving and video gaming to avoid linguistic altogether. Without yourself realizing that all you really managed to do was simply yourself adapting to the more recent forms of cultural deception. Whether or not it's "archaic" to your prejudgment is beside the point, when we humans as social animals weren't evolved as a species 40,000 years ago, from a cultural environment of car-driving and video-gaming.

Furthermore, your error in cognition also has its neural biological and evolutionary biological root. And it has to do with how our pre-frontal cortex acting as an "experience simulator" working badly in conjunction with our associative memory, or what's known as the "impact bias" on our expectation in modern psychology.

Dan Gilbert: Exploring the frontiers of happiness
Dan Gilbert presents research and data from his exploration of happiness -- sharing some surprising tests and experiments that you can also try on yourself. Watch through to the end for a sparkling Q&A with some familiar TED faces.

Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness.

Well, the question with which I'd like to end is this: If we're so damn stupid, how did we get to the moon? Because I could go on for about two hours with evidence of people's inability to estimate odds and inability to estimate value.

The answer to this question, I think, is an answer you've already heard in some of the talks, and I dare say you will hear again: namely, that our brains were evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are living. They were evolved for a world in which people lived in very small groups, rarely met anybody who was terribly different from themselves, had rather short lives in which there were few choices and the highest priority was to eat and mate today.

Bernoulli's gift, Bernoulli's little formula, allows us, it tells us how we should think in a world for which nature never designed us. That explains why we are so bad at using it, but it also explains why it is so terribly important that we become good, fast. We are the only species on this planet that has ever held its own fate in its hands. We have no significant predators, we're the masters of our physical environment; the things that normally cause species to become extinct are no longer any threat to us. The only thing -- the only thing -- that can destroy us and doom us are our own decisions. If we're not here in 10,000 years, it's going to be because we could not take advantage of the gift given to us by a young Dutch fellow in 1738, because we underestimated the odds of our future pains and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.
Let me put it frankly, your expectations on both car-driving and video gaming were already augmented by the advertisements and product placements, which were intentionally designed by marketing as an emotional but nonetheless irrational narrative/stereotype/scheme, to deceive your brain with sensationalized dramatizations. So while you're doped with an unrealistic expectation on an illusive future reward, made possible by carefully constructed cultural experience, your brain is further manipulated by its own socially perceived expectation of possible future pleasure experience, working in conjunction with our dopamine flooded brain circuitry.

Dopamine Jackpot! Sapolsky on the Science of Pleasure
Robert Sapolsky, professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, compares dopamine levels in monkeys and humans. Sapolsky argues that in both, "Dopamine is not about pleasure, it's about the anticipation of pleasure. It's about the pursuit of happiness." Unlike monkeys however, humans "keep those dopamine levels up for decades and decades waiting for the reward."


Everything for you is related to this group of evil, nefarious banker-Calvinists that manipulate us through their evil marketing and fiat money, isn't it? Politics- these nefarious bankers are secretly controlling us. Religion- opiate of the banker's brewing. Is there anything in your world not dominated by these bankers?
Except you're putting words I didn't even said into my mouth, you ought to keep your psychosis in check.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/9/12 , edited 4/9/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Except I'm not a cosmopolitan, when I've actually established my argument straight from where you intended to neglect the most: our neural biological and evolutionary biological subconscious decision-making process.

And to further analyze your argument, you've made an error in cognition, when you used augmented reality experiences like car driving and video gaming to avoid linguistic altogether. Without yourself realizing that all you really managed to do was simply yourself adapting to the more recent forms of cultural deception. Whether or not it's "archaic" to your prejudgment is beside the point, when we humans as social animals weren't evolved as a species 40,000 years ago, from a cultural environment of car-driving and video-gaming.

Furthermore, your error in cognition also has its neural biological and evolutionary biological root. And it has to do with how our pre-frontal cortex acting as an "experience simulator" working badly in conjunction with our associative memory, or what's known as the "impact bias" on our expectation in modern psychology.

Dan Gilbert: Exploring the frontiers of happiness
Dan Gilbert presents research and data from his exploration of happiness -- sharing some surprising tests and experiments that you can also try on yourself. Watch through to the end for a sparkling Q&A with some familiar TED faces.

Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness.

Well, the question with which I'd like to end is this: If we're so damn stupid, how did we get to the moon? Because I could go on for about two hours with evidence of people's inability to estimate odds and inability to estimate value.

The answer to this question, I think, is an answer you've already heard in some of the talks, and I dare say you will hear again: namely, that our brains were evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are living. They were evolved for a world in which people lived in very small groups, rarely met anybody who was terribly different from themselves, had rather short lives in which there were few choices and the highest priority was to eat and mate today.

Bernoulli's gift, Bernoulli's little formula, allows us, it tells us how we should think in a world for which nature never designed us. That explains why we are so bad at using it, but it also explains why it is so terribly important that we become good, fast. We are the only species on this planet that has ever held its own fate in its hands. We have no significant predators, we're the masters of our physical environment; the things that normally cause species to become extinct are no longer any threat to us. The only thing -- the only thing -- that can destroy us and doom us are our own decisions. If we're not here in 10,000 years, it's going to be because we could not take advantage of the gift given to us by a young Dutch fellow in 1738, because we underestimated the odds of our future pains and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.
Let me put it frankly, your expectations on both car-driving and video gaming were already augmented by the advertisements and product placements, which were intentionally designed by marketing as an emotional but nonetheless irrational narrative/stereotype/scheme, to deceive your brain with sensationalized dramatizations. So while you're doped with an unrealistic expectation on an illusive future reward, made possible by carefully constructed cultural experience, your brain is further manipulated by its own socially perceived expectation of possible future pleasure experience, working in conjunction with our dopamine flooded brain circuitry.

Dopamine Jackpot! Sapolsky on the Science of Pleasure
Robert Sapolsky, professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, compares dopamine levels in monkeys and humans. Sapolsky argues that in both, "Dopamine is not about pleasure, it's about the anticipation of pleasure. It's about the pursuit of happiness." Unlike monkeys however, humans "keep those dopamine levels up for decades and decades waiting for the reward."


Everything for you is related to this group of evil, nefarious banker-Calvinists that manipulate us through their evil marketing and fiat money, isn't it? Politics- these nefarious bankers are secretly controlling us. Religion- opiate of the banker's brewing. Is there anything in your world not dominated by these bankers?
Except you're putting words I didn't even said into my mouth, you ought to keep your psychosis in check.


Everything to you is Manichean, isn't it? There is your folks, the good guys, and then there is the evil bankers, marketers, merchants, whatever. I doubt there is anything in the world not related to this grand conspiracy of Banking-Calvinist-Marketers-Government people. Between them are us, the deluded people, who are in the camp of evil, because these evil people (banqiers, marketers, fanaciers, etc.) manipulate us through controlling our information. Your last post, all I could make of it was 'Oh my god, evil marketers are manipulating us with Capitalism', your post on Religion, 'Oh heavens, bankers are evil and manipulating us with capitalism', everything leads full circle back to this issue, and everyone is divided between your folks and the evil folks.
Posted 4/10/12 , edited 4/10/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Except you're putting words I didn't even said into my mouth, you ought to keep your psychosis in check.


Everything to you is Manichean, isn't it? There is your folks, the good guys, and then there is the evil bankers, marketers, merchants, whatever. I doubt there is anything in the world not related to this grand conspiracy of Banking-Calvinist-Marketers-Government people. Between them are us, the deluded people, who are in the camp of evil, because these evil people (banqiers, marketers, fanaciers, etc.) manipulate us through controlling our information. Your last post, all I could make of it was 'Oh my god, evil marketers are manipulating us with Capitalism', your post on Religion, 'Oh heavens, bankers are evil and manipulating us with capitalism', everything leads full circle back to this issue, and everyone is divided between your folks and the evil folks.
No, it's a interdisciplinary study of neural&evolutionary biology, cultural&social&behavioral psychology, mathematics, ecology, social epicgenetics, and culture anthropology. It's you who is obsessed with the stereotypical view of good vs evil, and you're doing just that by yourself unjustly belittling and reducing my argument based on "memory priming", "choice architecture", and "perception management", down to this shallow and arbitrary human concept of "Manichean", according to "terror management theory".

Furthermore, when social animals other than humans are also behaving the moral pillars of empathy/compassion, fairness/reciprocity, and collaboration. Goodness can come naturally through biology, and not an abstract concept based organized human civilization, pride, prejudice, superstitions, aggression, violence, and languages.

Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals
Empathy, cooperation, fairness and reciprocity -- caring about the well-being of others seems like a very human trait. But Frans de Waal shares some surprising videos of behavioral tests, on primates and other mammals, that show how many of these moral traits all of us share.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/10/12 , edited 4/10/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Except you're putting words I didn't even said into my mouth, you ought to keep your psychosis in check.


Everything to you is Manichean, isn't it? There is your folks, the good guys, and then there is the evil bankers, marketers, merchants, whatever. I doubt there is anything in the world not related to this grand conspiracy of Banking-Calvinist-Marketers-Government people. Between them are us, the deluded people, who are in the camp of evil, because these evil people (banqiers, marketers, fanaciers, etc.) manipulate us through controlling our information. Your last post, all I could make of it was 'Oh my god, evil marketers are manipulating us with Capitalism', your post on Religion, 'Oh heavens, bankers are evil and manipulating us with capitalism', everything leads full circle back to this issue, and everyone is divided between your folks and the evil folks.
No, it's a interdisciplinary study of neural&evolutionary biology, cultural&social&behavioral psychology, mathematics, ecology, social epicgenetics, and culture anthropology. It's you who is obsessed with the stereotypical view of good vs evil, and you're doing just that by yourself unjustly belittling and reducing my argument based on "memory priming", "choice architecture", and "perception management", down to this shallow and arbitrary human concept of "Manichean", according to "terror management theory".

Furthermore, when social animals other than humans are also behaving the moral pillars of empathy/compassion, fairness/reciprocity, and collaboration. Goodness can come naturally through biology, and not an abstract concept based organized human civilization, pride, prejudice, superstitions, aggression, violence, and languages.

Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals
Empathy, cooperation, fairness and reciprocity -- caring about the well-being of others seems like a very human trait. But Frans de Waal shares some surprising videos of behavioral tests, on primates and other mammals, that show how many of these moral traits all of us share.


You are right in that I am simplifying your grand theory on how everything can be reduced to that whole, elaborate Capitalist-Exploitation thing of yours. Let's start with a point that I am sure you wouldn't dispute, being the thesis of your theory, that there is a group of wealthy individuals, let's call them Money-bags one, Money-bags two, Money-bags three, etc., and they are all in a confederation to control society and control everyone in it through various insidious means. Let's see whose in it:


And what Dan Ariely said had been around controlling our social, political, and even financial decisions for a long time. Marketing and advertising knew about this a long time ago, and they're only getting better at it as public relation/PR. I know at least three tools that they use to manipulate our subconscious even now: memory priming, choice architecture, and perception management.



Let me put it frankly, your expectations on both car-driving and video gaming were already augmented by the advertisements and product placements, which were intentionally designed by marketing as an emotional but nonetheless irrational narrative/stereotype/scheme, to deceive your brain with sensationalized dramatizations. So while you're doped with an unrealistic expectation on an illusive future reward, made possible by carefully constructed cultural experience, your brain is further manipulated by its own socially perceived expectation of possible future pleasure experience, working in conjunction with our dopamine flooded brain circuitry.


Oh my God, it is the Marketers! They are the ones! What's more, they are already in our head! Quick, a drill, I need to get them out!


The "people" as "voters" aren't the "greedy mortals who think they are gods", instead they're the Calvinist privatized central bankers. Who pay off the politicians with their legalized ponzi scheme known as the fiat currency...So long as they get to keep all the profits through capitalism and privatization, while us get the pain with government austerity and corporate bailouts.


Oh no, the Calvinists and Bankers are in this too. What should I do, I live between both a Presbyterian Church and a Bank?


Now that this arbitrary fiat money created out of debt, through the mathematical exponential growth function legally called fractional reserve, what we have here is basically a hyperinflation(a dramatic devaluation of money) of empty promises waiting to happen. And this impact is instantaneous due to the mathematical compounding characteristic of exponential growth function.


Further, there is only doom to come if we let these evil people continue.

And all this is supposed to relate to your last post, the possibility that animals may experience empathy and compassion. Forgive me for saying so, but there doesn't seem to be anything of value in it but Manichean paranoia and fearmongering. Manichean because there is a clearly defined good and evil, which naturally opposes each other, and which one falls into one camp or the other, and paranoia and fearmongering because it takes a great deal of contrivances and certain propaganda videos- such as that 'documentary' the Corporation- which is not so much a documentary but a polemic- and several more propaganda sites from people who rely on their own fiat to make their words true, to fit into your black/white these people are coming to get you world view.
Posted 4/10/12 , edited 4/11/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Except you're putting words I didn't even said into my mouth, you ought to keep your psychosis in check.


Everything to you is Manichean, isn't it? There is your folks, the good guys, and then there is the evil bankers, marketers, merchants, whatever. I doubt there is anything in the world not related to this grand conspiracy of Banking-Calvinist-Marketers-Government people. Between them are us, the deluded people, who are in the camp of evil, because these evil people (banqiers, marketers, fanaciers, etc.) manipulate us through controlling our information. Your last post, all I could make of it was 'Oh my god, evil marketers are manipulating us with Capitalism', your post on Religion, 'Oh heavens, bankers are evil and manipulating us with capitalism', everything leads full circle back to this issue, and everyone is divided between your folks and the evil folks.
No, it's a interdisciplinary study of neural&evolutionary biology, cultural&social&behavioral psychology, mathematics, ecology, social epicgenetics, and culture anthropology. It's you who is obsessed with the stereotypical view of good vs evil, and you're doing just that by yourself unjustly belittling and reducing my argument based on "memory priming", "choice architecture", and "perception management", down to this shallow and arbitrary human concept of "Manichean", according to "terror management theory".

Furthermore, when social animals other than humans are also behaving the moral pillars of empathy/compassion, fairness/reciprocity, and collaboration. Goodness can come naturally through biology, and not an abstract concept based organized human civilization, pride, prejudice, superstitions, aggression, violence, and languages.

Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals
Empathy, cooperation, fairness and reciprocity -- caring about the well-being of others seems like a very human trait. But Frans de Waal shares some surprising videos of behavioral tests, on primates and other mammals, that show how many of these moral traits all of us share.


You are right in that I am simplifying your grand theory on how everything can be reduced to that whole, elaborate Capitalist-Exploitation thing of yours. Let's start with a point that I am sure you wouldn't dispute, being the thesis of your theory, that there is a group of wealthy individuals, let's call them Money-bags one, Money-bags two, Money-bags three, etc., and they are all in a confederation to control society and control everyone in it through various insidious means. Let's see whose in it:


And what Dan Ariely said had been around controlling our social, political, and even financial decisions for a long time. Marketing and advertising knew about this a long time ago, and they're only getting better at it as public relation/PR. I know at least three tools that they use to manipulate our subconscious even now: memory priming, choice architecture, and perception management.



Let me put it frankly, your expectations on both car-driving and video gaming were already augmented by the advertisements and product placements, which were intentionally designed by marketing as an emotional but nonetheless irrational narrative/stereotype/scheme, to deceive your brain with sensationalized dramatizations. So while you're doped with an unrealistic expectation on an illusive future reward, made possible by carefully constructed cultural experience, your brain is further manipulated by its own socially perceived expectation of possible future pleasure experience, working in conjunction with our dopamine flooded brain circuitry.


Oh my God, it is the Marketers! They are the ones! What's more, they are already in our head! Quick, a drill, I need to get them out!


The "people" as "voters" aren't the "greedy mortals who think they are gods", instead they're the Calvinist privatized central bankers. Who pay off the politicians with their legalized ponzi scheme known as the fiat currency...So long as they get to keep all the profits through capitalism and privatization, while us get the pain with government austerity and corporate bailouts.


Oh no, the Calvinists and Bankers are in this too. What should I do, I live between both a Presbyterian Church and a Bank?


Now that this arbitrary fiat money created out of debt, through the mathematical exponential growth function legally called fractional reserve, what we have here is basically a hyperinflation(a dramatic devaluation of money) of empty promises waiting to happen. And this impact is instantaneous due to the mathematical compounding characteristic of exponential growth function.


Further, there is only doom to come if we let these evil people continue.

And all this is supposed to relate to your last post, the possibility that animals may experience empathy and compassion. Forgive me for saying so, but there doesn't seem to be anything of value in it but Manichean paranoia and fearmongering. Manichean because there is a clearly defined good and evil, which naturally opposes each other, and which one falls into one camp or the other, and paranoia and fearmongering because it takes a great deal of contrivances and certain propaganda videos- such as that 'documentary' the Corporation- which is not so much a documentary but a polemic- and several more propaganda sites from people who rely on their own fiat to make their words true, to fit into your black/white these people are coming to get you world view.
Don't bother yourself with your insincere apology, when you ought to be sorry for yourself omitting my argument regarding the human brain in bold. You're just here mocking and belittling what's not even a conspiracy, but a fact that's been intentionally ignored by the top heads of the US administration.

The Warning
Long before the economic meltdown, one woman tried to warn about the threat to the financial system...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/11/12 , edited 4/11/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Except you're putting words I didn't even said into my mouth, you ought to keep your psychosis in check.


Everything to you is Manichean, isn't it? There is your folks, the good guys, and then there is the evil bankers, marketers, merchants, whatever. I doubt there is anything in the world not related to this grand conspiracy of Banking-Calvinist-Marketers-Government people. Between them are us, the deluded people, who are in the camp of evil, because these evil people (banqiers, marketers, fanaciers, etc.) manipulate us through controlling our information. Your last post, all I could make of it was 'Oh my god, evil marketers are manipulating us with Capitalism', your post on Religion, 'Oh heavens, bankers are evil and manipulating us with capitalism', everything leads full circle back to this issue, and everyone is divided between your folks and the evil folks.
No, it's a interdisciplinary study of neural&evolutionary biology, cultural&social&behavioral psychology, mathematics, ecology, social epicgenetics, and culture anthropology. It's you who is obsessed with the stereotypical view of good vs evil, and you're doing just that by yourself unjustly belittling and reducing my argument based on "memory priming", "choice architecture", and "perception management", down to this shallow and arbitrary human concept of "Manichean", according to "terror management theory".

Furthermore, when social animals other than humans are also behaving the moral pillars of empathy/compassion, fairness/reciprocity, and collaboration. Goodness can come naturally through biology, and not an abstract concept based organized human civilization, pride, prejudice, superstitions, aggression, violence, and languages.

Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals
Empathy, cooperation, fairness and reciprocity -- caring about the well-being of others seems like a very human trait. But Frans de Waal shares some surprising videos of behavioral tests, on primates and other mammals, that show how many of these moral traits all of us share.


You are right in that I am simplifying your grand theory on how everything can be reduced to that whole, elaborate Capitalist-Exploitation thing of yours. Let's start with a point that I am sure you wouldn't dispute, being the thesis of your theory, that there is a group of wealthy individuals, let's call them Money-bags one, Money-bags two, Money-bags three, etc., and they are all in a confederation to control society and control everyone in it through various insidious means. Let's see whose in it:


And what Dan Ariely said had been around controlling our social, political, and even financial decisions for a long time. Marketing and advertising knew about this a long time ago, and they're only getting better at it as public relation/PR. I know at least three tools that they use to manipulate our subconscious even now: memory priming, choice architecture, and perception management.



Let me put it frankly, your expectations on both car-driving and video gaming were already augmented by the advertisements and product placements, which were intentionally designed by marketing as an emotional but nonetheless irrational narrative/stereotype/scheme, to deceive your brain with sensationalized dramatizations. So while you're doped with an unrealistic expectation on an illusive future reward, made possible by carefully constructed cultural experience, your brain is further manipulated by its own socially perceived expectation of possible future pleasure experience, working in conjunction with our dopamine flooded brain circuitry.


Oh my God, it is the Marketers! They are the ones! What's more, they are already in our head! Quick, a drill, I need to get them out!


The "people" as "voters" aren't the "greedy mortals who think they are gods", instead they're the Calvinist privatized central bankers. Who pay off the politicians with their legalized ponzi scheme known as the fiat currency...So long as they get to keep all the profits through capitalism and privatization, while us get the pain with government austerity and corporate bailouts.


Oh no, the Calvinists and Bankers are in this too. What should I do, I live between both a Presbyterian Church and a Bank?


Now that this arbitrary fiat money created out of debt, through the mathematical exponential growth function legally called fractional reserve, what we have here is basically a hyperinflation(a dramatic devaluation of money) of empty promises waiting to happen. And this impact is instantaneous due to the mathematical compounding characteristic of exponential growth function.


Further, there is only doom to come if we let these evil people continue.

And all this is supposed to relate to your last post, the possibility that animals may experience empathy and compassion. Forgive me for saying so, but there doesn't seem to be anything of value in it but Manichean paranoia and fearmongering. Manichean because there is a clearly defined good and evil, which naturally opposes each other, and which one falls into one camp or the other, and paranoia and fearmongering because it takes a great deal of contrivances and certain propaganda videos- such as that 'documentary' the Corporation- which is not so much a documentary but a polemic- and several more propaganda sites from people who rely on their own fiat to make their words true, to fit into your black/white these people are coming to get you world view.
Don't bother yourself with your insincere apology, when you ought to be sorry for yourself omitting my argument regarding the human brain in bold. You're just here mocking and belittling what's not even a conspiracy, but a fact that's been intentionally ignored by the top heads of the US administration.

The Warning
Long before the economic meltdown, one woman tried to warn about the threat to the financial system...


Well, I suppose that there is no need for any apology, rather, you should thank me for clarifying your position, something you would otherwise have chocked up in jargon. Now, you argument, when striped of its incoherent pharsing and all the technical bladerdash, basically reduces to what I have just said, that these marketers are manipulating us through various insidious means. Their manipulation is subtle, and, as with most form of manipulation, we are entirely unconscious of it. It is, I think, a fair assesment of your position, and yet you still accuse me of 'not getting it'- please explain then what you mean, or where I am wrong in my assesment of your position.

In addition, you claim that this thing is 'not a conspiracy, but a fact...'. I have to objections to that statement, the first being that somehow, being a conspiracy and being a reality is contridictory. There is nothing less true, for a conspiracy can be real, for example, the conspiracy to kill Ceasar, and what you are saying basically amount to a conspiracy, that there are these people who are secretly controlling the world through either fiat money or through manipulation. Next, you have shown nothing to show that it is a fact, therefore, if you want to apply scientific rigour, you should first give evidence enough to suppose that it is a fact, rather than supposition based upon propaganda and contrivances.

You say that I have unjustly mocked you- for what? Pointing out the absurdities of your claims? If it didn't deserve mockery, it would not have been mocked, and if you had presented something less foolish, you would, in turn, would not have been whipped for your foolery. You may argue that you do make sense it is just I who do not understand, then I ask you to articulate your point more lucidly, that other people may actually make sense of your argument.
Posted 4/13/12 , edited 4/13/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Well, I suppose that there is no need for any apology, rather, you should thank me for clarifying your position, something you would otherwise have chocked up in jargon. Now, you argument, when striped of its incoherent pharsing and all the technical bladerdash, basically reduces to what I have just said, that these marketers are manipulating us through various insidious means. Their manipulation is subtle, and, as with most form of manipulation, we are entirely unconscious of it. It is, I think, a fair assesment of your position, and yet you still accuse me of 'not getting it'- please explain then what you mean, or where I am wrong in my assesment of your position.

In addition, you claim that this thing is 'not a conspiracy, but a fact...'. I have to objections to that statement, the first being that somehow, being a conspiracy and being a reality is contridictory. There is nothing less true, for a conspiracy can be real, for example, the conspiracy to kill Ceasar, and what you are saying basically amount to a conspiracy, that there are these people who are secretly controlling the world through either fiat money or through manipulation. Next, you have shown nothing to show that it is a fact, therefore, if you want to apply scientific rigour, you should first give evidence enough to suppose that it is a fact, rather than supposition based upon propaganda and contrivances.

You say that I have unjustly mocked you- for what? Pointing out the absurdities of your claims? If it didn't deserve mockery, it would not have been mocked, and if you had presented something less foolish, you would, in turn, would not have been whipped for your foolery. You may argue that you do make sense it is just I who do not understand, then I ask you to articulate your point more lucidly, that other people may actually make sense of your argument.
You made no assessment on my position, when all you did was avoiding the fact of just how easy our brains can be subconsciously manipulated by the culture legacies that we created for ourselves.

Furthermore, when you only belittled the individual persons of my sources, but not their reasoning nor their scientific evidences supporting their claims. While you yourself have no evidence to launch a counterargument, other than your attitude. You only want to frame it into this oversimplified and stereotypical narrative of "good vs evil", this posture of "I'm righteous and you're wrongheaded" argument culture.

The Argument Culture
Ms. Tannen talked about her book, The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words, published by Ballantine Books. In the book, she posits that misunderstanding is endemic in American culture because Americans tend to believe that the best way to a common goal is by "thrashing out" differences as loudly as possible. She outlines what she considers the worst excesses of our argument culture and suggests other methods of communication.
You're so obsessed, so desperate to frame this discussion into a stupid argument towards your favor. You didn't even bother to apply moral oversight nor introspection on your own hubris and arrogance.

Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong
Most of us will do anything to avoid being wrong. But what if we're wrong about that? "Wrongologist" Kathryn Schulz makes a compelling case for not just admitting but embracing our fallibility.

So this is one reason, a structural reason, why we get stuck inside this feeling of rightness. I call this error blindness. Most of the time, we don't have any kind of internal cue to let us know that we're wrong about something, until it's too late. But there's a second reason that we get stuck inside this feeling as well -- and this one is cultural. Think back for a moment to elementary school. You're sitting there in class, and your teacher is handing back quiz papers, and one of them looks like this. This is not mine, by the way. So there you are in grade school, and you know exactly what to think about the kid who got this paper. It's the dumb kid, the troublemaker, the one who never does his homework. So by the time you are nine years old, you've already learned, first of all, that people who get stuff wrong are lazy, irresponsible dimwits -- and second of all, that the way to succeed in life is to never make any mistakes.

We learn these really bad lessons really well. And a lot of us -- and I suspect, especially a lot of us in this room -- deal with them by just becoming perfect little A students, perfectionists, over-achievers. Right, Mr. CFO, astrophysicist, ultra-marathoner? You're all CFO, astrophysicists, ultra-marathoners, it turns out. Okay, so fine. Except that then we freak out at the possibility that we've gotten something wrong. Because according to this, getting something wrong means there's something wrong with us. So we just insist that we're right, because it makes us feel smart and responsible and virtuous and safe.
This is your attitude, your very own personality. But ultimately that's not what you choose for yourself to be, when the fact is it's a result of your own argument culture legacy. Even now you're still dismissing every piece of my sources' scientific evidences as mere "incoherent phrasing and all the technical bladerdash", without yourself even bother to demonstrate how that's the case to be. And still, you can't deny how the corporate marketers had been manipulating the next generation from cradle to grave.

Consuming Kids - The Commercialization of Childhood (Full Film Documentary)
Consuming Kids throws desperately needed light on the practices of a relentless multi-billion dollar marketing machine that now sells kids and their parents everything from junk food and violent video games to bogus educational products and the family car. Drawing on the insights of health care professionals, children's advocates, and industry insiders, the film focuses on the explosive growth of child marketing in the wake of deregulation, showing how youth marketers have used the latest advances in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to transform American children into one of the most powerful and profitable consumer demographics in the world. Consuming Kids pushes back against the wholesale commercialization of childhood, raising urgent questions about the ethics of children's marketing and its impact on the health and well-being of kids.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/16/12 , edited 4/16/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Well, I suppose that there is no need for any apology, rather, you should thank me for clarifying your position, something you would otherwise have chocked up in jargon. Now, you argument, when striped of its incoherent pharsing and all the technical bladerdash, basically reduces to what I have just said, that these marketers are manipulating us through various insidious means. Their manipulation is subtle, and, as with most form of manipulation, we are entirely unconscious of it. It is, I think, a fair assesment of your position, and yet you still accuse me of 'not getting it'- please explain then what you mean, or where I am wrong in my assesment of your position.

In addition, you claim that this thing is 'not a conspiracy, but a fact...'. I have to objections to that statement, the first being that somehow, being a conspiracy and being a reality is contridictory. There is nothing less true, for a conspiracy can be real, for example, the conspiracy to kill Ceasar, and what you are saying basically amount to a conspiracy, that there are these people who are secretly controlling the world through either fiat money or through manipulation. Next, you have shown nothing to show that it is a fact, therefore, if you want to apply scientific rigour, you should first give evidence enough to suppose that it is a fact, rather than supposition based upon propaganda and contrivances.

You say that I have unjustly mocked you- for what? Pointing out the absurdities of your claims? If it didn't deserve mockery, it would not have been mocked, and if you had presented something less foolish, you would, in turn, would not have been whipped for your foolery. You may argue that you do make sense it is just I who do not understand, then I ask you to articulate your point more lucidly, that other people may actually make sense of your argument.
You made no assessment on my position, when all you did was avoiding the fact of just how easy our brains can be subconsciously manipulated by the culture legacies that we created for ourselves.

Furthermore, when you only belittled the individual persons of my sources, but not their reasoning nor their scientific evidences supporting their claims. While you yourself have no evidence to launch a counterargument, other than your attitude. You only want to frame it into this oversimplified and stereotypical narrative of "good vs evil", this posture of "I'm righteous and you're wrongheaded" argument culture.

The Argument Culture
Ms. Tannen talked about her book, The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words, published by Ballantine Books. In the book, she posits that misunderstanding is endemic in American culture because Americans tend to believe that the best way to a common goal is by "thrashing out" differences as loudly as possible. She outlines what she considers the worst excesses of our argument culture and suggests other methods of communication.
You're so obsessed, so desperate to frame this discussion into a stupid argument towards your favor. You didn't even bother to apply moral oversight nor introspection on your own hubris and arrogance.

Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong
Most of us will do anything to avoid being wrong. But what if we're wrong about that? "Wrongologist" Kathryn Schulz makes a compelling case for not just admitting but embracing our fallibility.

So this is one reason, a structural reason, why we get stuck inside this feeling of rightness. I call this error blindness. Most of the time, we don't have any kind of internal cue to let us know that we're wrong about something, until it's too late. But there's a second reason that we get stuck inside this feeling as well -- and this one is cultural. Think back for a moment to elementary school. You're sitting there in class, and your teacher is handing back quiz papers, and one of them looks like this. This is not mine, by the way. So there you are in grade school, and you know exactly what to think about the kid who got this paper. It's the dumb kid, the troublemaker, the one who never does his homework. So by the time you are nine years old, you've already learned, first of all, that people who get stuff wrong are lazy, irresponsible dimwits -- and second of all, that the way to succeed in life is to never make any mistakes.

We learn these really bad lessons really well. And a lot of us -- and I suspect, especially a lot of us in this room -- deal with them by just becoming perfect little A students, perfectionists, over-achievers. Right, Mr. CFO, astrophysicist, ultra-marathoner? You're all CFO, astrophysicists, ultra-marathoners, it turns out. Okay, so fine. Except that then we freak out at the possibility that we've gotten something wrong. Because according to this, getting something wrong means there's something wrong with us. So we just insist that we're right, because it makes us feel smart and responsible and virtuous and safe.
This is your attitude, your very own personality. But ultimately that's not what you choose for yourself to be, when the fact is it's a result of your own argument culture legacy. Even now you're still dismissing every piece of my sources' scientific evidences as mere "incoherent phrasing and all the technical bladerdash", without yourself even bother to demonstrate how that's the case to be. And still, you can't deny how the corporate marketers had been manipulating the next generation from cradle to grave.

Consuming Kids - The Commercialization of Childhood (Full Film Documentary)
Consuming Kids throws desperately needed light on the practices of a relentless multi-billion dollar marketing machine that now sells kids and their parents everything from junk food and violent video games to bogus educational products and the family car. Drawing on the insights of health care professionals, children's advocates, and industry insiders, the film focuses on the explosive growth of child marketing in the wake of deregulation, showing how youth marketers have used the latest advances in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to transform American children into one of the most powerful and profitable consumer demographics in the world. Consuming Kids pushes back against the wholesale commercialization of childhood, raising urgent questions about the ethics of children's marketing and its impact on the health and well-being of kids.


I De Stilo

It has been centuries since the learned critic Martin Scribblerus written his justly famous treatise Περί Βάθους, whereby he frist taught our poets how to descend into the depths of βαθοσ, or the profound. However, it is very lamentable that no such institution or manual exist for our prose writers, though prosaists do exceed the number poets. Poetry is a gift of the limited while prose, being a gratuitous gift, is more liberally distributed and more abundant. So, as all writing is meant to either instruct or divert, the best writings should be those that instruct or divert the most, and it therefore behooves us to show how prose, as well as poetry, and by similar methods, sink into βαθοσ. Our prosaists, guideless as they are, may sometime stumble into the light of ὕψος, the sublime, and, by mere chance, write sensibly, lucidly, and attain other manners of style so contrary to βάθοσ, and, so, are needful of a guide to gently lead them back into βαθοσ's dark and murky slough. In addition, although ever judicious, Martin Scrillberus' judgment suffer, though to a much lesser degree, the same outdatedness of all founders, just as we cannot recommend Hippocrates or Freud but for a few points and historical curiosity, so too has Martin Scribblerus suffered from the innovations of the ages after him. Furthermore, Sribblerus' study limits itself to βάθοσ in style, while he readily acknowledge that


...[he] doubt not but an active catcher of butterflies, a careful and
fanciful pattern-drawer, an industrious collector of shells, a laborious
and tuneful bagpiper, or a diligent breeder of tame rabbits, might
severally excel in their respective parts of the βάθοσ.


Therefore, we have two aims, one is to study βάθοσ pertaining to prose, and, relatedly, βαθοσ in thoughts.


Of the Undoubted Beauty of Βαθοσ

Βαθοσ, Martin Scribblerus correctly observes, is the natural taste of man. There is no better proof than to be observed in children, who, uncorrupted by the malignant influences of the world which so pervesely taught them to love simplicity in style, and to admire clarity and weighty ideas, delight and admire such prose that only our true βαθύς writer could produce.


This is your attitude, your very own personality. But ultimately that's not what you choose for yourself to be, when the fact is it's a result of your own argument culture legacy. Even now you're still dismissing every piece of my sources' scientific evidences as mere "incoherent phrasing and all the technical bladerdash", without yourself even bother to demonstrate how that's the case to be. And still, you can't deny how the corporate marketers had been manipulating the next generation from cradle to grave.

(Translation: You are wrong, and you are just being argumentative. You have nothing to back up your claim and all you do is insult my evidence, therefore, I am right.)


This is βάθοσ in its purest beauty, for who could not help admire the lack of coherence, and confusion and the lack of sense in this paragraph. What delights does it bring to a man to decipher this and realize that there it is pleasantly vacuous! Behold how every stylistic values that we have been falsely taught to admire is inverted, instead of simplicity and lucidity imparting weighty ideas, we have incoherence and needless complexity imparting simple ideas. This is the every essence of βάθοσ in prose.

Of Stretching

A true lover of βάθοσ, however simple his sentence, should be able to stretch it. He should let his minds be like a rack, that even when the sentence cry out in pain and begs him stop, he should stretch it further, until its limbs are out of place, its lifeless eyes rolled back, and his mouth eternally open in unnatural agony. Thus, should a lover of βάθοσ wish to say something like: 'You only disparage my sources without questioning its reasoning or its data', he should say:


Furthermore, when you only belittled the individual persons of my sources, but not their reasoning nor their scientific evidences supporting their claims.


This lesson is equally applicable to individual words. Take for example 'me', a common pronoun, and too clear in its meaning, a true genius of βάθοσ would say 'my person'- how profoundly redundant and artificial! To think that these two words contain the exact same meaning as those two letters.

From these examples, we can infer that application of meaningless words and Jargons to stretch a sentence also produce another, equally pleasant effect, that of confusing the reader, making the great portion of the text inaccesible to him, which, by natural association with the mysterious and profound with the wise, will agreeably lead him to believe there is more in it than there really is.

Of Irony.

Irony, however much satrists and our enemies use it, cannot be perfect for their effort is entirely conscious, whereas our geniuses, so infused with βάθοσ, will been entirely unconscious of it, it being entirely natural to him. Indeed, as we admire what is natural and unconscious over what is learned and done with effort, so too, do we prefer the Irony that is entirely unconscious over that which is conscious. Take for example the same beatifully βαθύς lines:


This is your attitude, your very own personality. But ultimately that's not what you choose for yourself to be, when the fact is it's a result of your own argument culture legacy. Even now you're still dismissing every piece of my sources' scientific evidences as mere "incoherent phrasing and all the technical bladerdash", without yourself even bother to demonstrate how that's the case to be. And still, you can't deny how the corporate marketers had been manipulating the next generation from cradle to grave.

and the following:

You're so obsessed, so desperate to frame this discussion into a stupid argument towards your favor. You didn't even bother to apply moral oversight nor introspection on your own hubris and arrogance.


Even in his accusation of obession and of the adressee's desperation to 'frame this discussion into a stupid argument in [his] favour', of arrogance and overmuch pride, of being too argumentative, of obstinance, one can feel the obession, desperation, arrogance, pridefulness, and argumentaiveness in his own lines. This is true βαθύς irony, to attack the character of another person by unconsciously invoking a description of their own character. No consciously ironic writer can match it in its perfection, for they cannot match that delightful unawareness. This is the same delight that affords us when, watching or reading a mystery, the criminal unconsciously confess his deed to the detective, we share his smile, but, more so, for what is fictional can never perfectly match the real.

(Note: We shall discuss the beauties of its argument latter)
Posted 4/16/12 , edited 4/16/12

longfenglim wrote:



I De Stilo

It has been centuries since the learned critic Martin Scribblerus written his justly famous treatise Περί Βάθους, whereby he frist taught our poets how to descend into the depths of βαθοσ, or the profound. However, it is very lamentable that no such institution or manual exist for our prose writers, though prosaists do exceed the number poets. Poetry is a gift of the limited while prose, being a gratuitous gift, is more liberally distributed and more abundant. So, as all writing is meant to either instruct or divert, the best writings should be those that instruct or divert the most, and it therefore behooves us to show how prose, as well as poetry, and by similar methods, sink into βαθοσ. Our prosaists, guideless as they are, may sometime stumble into the light of ὕψος, the sublime, and, by mere chance, write sensibly, lucidly, and attain other manners of style so contrary to βάθοσ, and, so, are needful of a guide to gently lead them back into βαθοσ's dark and murky slough. In addition, although ever judicious, Martin Scrillberus' judgment suffer, though to a much lesser degree, the same outdatedness of all founders, just as we cannot recommend Hippocrates or Freud but for a few points and historical curiosity, so too has Martin Scribblerus suffered from the innovations of the ages after him. Furthermore, Sribblerus' study limits itself to βάθοσ in style, while he readily acknowledge that


...[he] doubt not but an active catcher of butterflies, a careful and
fanciful pattern-drawer, an industrious collector of shells, a laborious
and tuneful bagpiper, or a diligent breeder of tame rabbits, might
severally excel in their respective parts of the βάθοσ.


Therefore, we have two aims, one is to study βάθοσ pertaining to prose, and, relatedly, βαθοσ in thoughts.


Of the Undoubted Beauty of Βαθοσ

Βαθοσ, Martin Scribblerus correctly observes, is the natural taste of man. There is no better proof than to be observed in children, who, uncorrupted by the malignant influences of the world which so pervesely taught them to love simplicity in style, and to admire clarity and weighty ideas, delight and admire such prose that only our true βαθύς writer could produce.


This is your attitude, your very own personality. But ultimately that's not what you choose for yourself to be, when the fact is it's a result of your own argument culture legacy. Even now you're still dismissing every piece of my sources' scientific evidences as mere "incoherent phrasing and all the technical bladerdash", without yourself even bother to demonstrate how that's the case to be. And still, you can't deny how the corporate marketers had been manipulating the next generation from cradle to grave.

(Translation: You are wrong, and you are just being argumentative. You have nothing to back up your claim and all you do is insult my evidence, therefore, I am right.)


This is βάθοσ in its purest beauty, for who could not help admire the lack of coherence, and confusion and the lack of sense in this paragraph. What delights does it bring to a man to decipher this and realize that there it is pleasantly vacuous! Behold how every stylistic values that we have been falsely taught to admire is inverted, instead of simplicity and lucidity imparting weighty ideas, we have incoherence and needless complexity imparting simple ideas. This is the every essence of βάθοσ in prose.

Of Stretching

A true lover of βάθοσ, however simple his sentence, should be able to stretch it. He should let his minds be like a rack, that even when the sentence cry out in pain and begs him stop, he should stretch it further, until its limbs are out of place, its lifeless eyes rolled back, and his mouth eternally open in unnatural agony. Thus, should a lover of βάθοσ wish to say something like: 'You only disparage my sources without questioning its reasoning or its data', he should say:


Furthermore, when you only belittled the individual persons of my sources, but not their reasoning nor their scientific evidences supporting their claims.


This lesson is equally applicable to individual words. Take for example 'me', a common pronoun, and too clear in its meaning, a true genius of βάθοσ would say 'my person'- how profoundly redundant and artificial! To think that these two words contain the exact same meaning as those two letters.

From these examples, we can infer that application of meaningless words and Jargons to stretch a sentence also produce another, equally pleasant effect, that of confusing the reader, making the great portion of the text inaccesible to him, which, by natural association with the mysterious and profound with the wise, will agreeably lead him to believe there is more in it than there really is.

Of Irony.

Irony, however much satrists and our enemies use it, cannot be perfect for their effort is entirely conscious, whereas our geniuses, so infused with βάθοσ, will been entirely unconscious of it, it being entirely natural to him. Indeed, as we admire what is natural and unconscious over what is learned and done with effort, so too, do we prefer the Irony that is entirely unconscious over that which is conscious. Take for example the same beatifully βαθύς lines:


This is your attitude, your very own personality. But ultimately that's not what you choose for yourself to be, when the fact is it's a result of your own argument culture legacy. Even now you're still dismissing every piece of my sources' scientific evidences as mere "incoherent phrasing and all the technical bladerdash", without yourself even bother to demonstrate how that's the case to be. And still, you can't deny how the corporate marketers had been manipulating the next generation from cradle to grave.

and the following:

You're so obsessed, so desperate to frame this discussion into a stupid argument towards your favor. You didn't even bother to apply moral oversight nor introspection on your own hubris and arrogance.


Even in his accusation of obession and of the adressee's desperation to 'frame this discussion into a stupid argument in [his] favour', of arrogance and overmuch pride, of being too argumentative, of obstinance, one can feel the obession, desperation, arrogance, pridefulness, and argumentaiveness in his own lines. This is true βαθύς irony, to attack the character of another person by unconsciously invoking a description of their own character. No consciously ironic writer can match it in its perfection, for they cannot match that delightful unawareness. This is the same delight that affords us when, watching or reading a mystery, the criminal unconsciously confess his deed to the detective, we share his smile, but, more so, for what is fictional can never perfectly match the real.

(Note: We shall discuss the beauties of its argument latter)
Don't bother, when you're just avoiding my evidences and belittling me instead, while you're just pretending to seek a higher moral ground.

So tell me the truth, did you felt the doping delight at your attempt to troll with more obsession in your pretend posture?

Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar
On any given day we're lied to from 10 to 200 times, and the clues to detect those lie can be subtle and counter-intuitive. Pamela Meyer, author of Liespotting, shows the manners and "hotspots" used by those trained to recognize deception -- and she argues honesty is a value worth preserving.

We rehearse our words, but we rarely rehearse our gestures. We say "yes," we shake our heads "no." We tell very convincing stories, we slightly shrug our shoulders. We commit terrible crimes, and we smile at the delight in getting away with it. Now that smile is known in the trade as "duping delight."

And we're going to see that in several videos moving forward, but we're going to start -- for those of you who don't know him, this is presidential candidate John Edwards who shocked America by fathering a child out of wedlock. We're going to see him talk about getting a paternity test. See now if you can spot him saying, "yes" while shaking his head "no," slightly shrugging his shoulders.

(Video) John Edwards: I'd be happy to participate in one. I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine, because of the timing of events. So I know it's not possible. Happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen. Interviewer: Are you going to do that soon? Is there somebody -- JE: Well, I'm only one side. I'm only one side of the test. But I'm happy to participate in one.

PM: Okay, those head shakes are much easier to spot once you know to look for them. There're going to be times when someone makes one expression while masking another that just kind of leaks through in a flash. Murderers are known to leak sadness. Your new joint venture partner might shake your hand, celebrate, go out to dinner with you and then leak an expression of anger. And we're not all going to become facial expression experts overnight here, but there's one I can teach you that's very dangerous, and it's easy to learn, and that's the expression of contempt. Now with anger, you've got two people on an even playing field. It's still somewhat of a healthy relationship. But when anger turns to contempt, you've been dismissed. It's associated with moral superiority. And for that reason, it's very, very hard to recover from. Here's what it looks like. It's marked by one lip corner pulled up and in. It's the only asymmetrical expression. And in the presence of contempt, whether or not deception follows -- and it doesn't always follow -- look the other way, go the other direction, reconsider the deal, say, "No thank you. I'm not coming up for just one more nightcap. Thank you."
And again, don't bother. When you can just sit there and lie in front of your computer screen, while we would know none the wiser because we can't see your emotional and nonverbal gestures. I'll do the ethical and moral thing and not to trust you being honest again, ever.

So don't bother to reply this post, unless you're addressing the evidences and reasoning made on the culture legacy of child marketing can do on our personality, our preference, and our emotional and mental wellbeing which is a great deal of our will. Otherwise I'll request the CR mods to remove your off-topic and trolling comment as a whole
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/16/12 , edited 4/17/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



I De Stilo

It has been centuries since the learned critic Martin Scribblerus written his justly famous treatise Περί Βάθους, whereby he frist taught our poets how to descend into the depths of βαθοσ, or the profound. However, it is very lamentable that no such institution or manual exist for our prose writers, though prosaists do exceed the number poets. Poetry is a gift of the limited while prose, being a gratuitous gift, is more liberally distributed and more abundant. So, as all writing is meant to either instruct or divert, the best writings should be those that instruct or divert the most, and it therefore behooves us to show how prose, as well as poetry, and by similar methods, sink into βαθοσ. Our prosaists, guideless as they are, may sometime stumble into the light of ὕψος, the sublime, and, by mere chance, write sensibly, lucidly, and attain other manners of style so contrary to βάθοσ, and, so, are needful of a guide to gently lead them back into βαθοσ's dark and murky slough. In addition, although ever judicious, Martin Scrillberus' judgment suffer, though to a much lesser degree, the same outdatedness of all founders, just as we cannot recommend Hippocrates or Freud but for a few points and historical curiosity, so too has Martin Scribblerus suffered from the innovations of the ages after him. Furthermore, Sribblerus' study limits itself to βάθοσ in style, while he readily acknowledge that


...[he] doubt not but an active catcher of butterflies, a careful and
fanciful pattern-drawer, an industrious collector of shells, a laborious
and tuneful bagpiper, or a diligent breeder of tame rabbits, might
severally excel in their respective parts of the βάθοσ.


Therefore, we have two aims, one is to study βάθοσ pertaining to prose, and, relatedly, βαθοσ in thoughts.


Of the Undoubted Beauty of Βαθοσ

Βαθοσ, Martin Scribblerus correctly observes, is the natural taste of man. There is no better proof than to be observed in children, who, uncorrupted by the malignant influences of the world which so pervesely taught them to love simplicity in style, and to admire clarity and weighty ideas, delight and admire such prose that only our true βαθύς writer could produce.


This is your attitude, your very own personality. But ultimately that's not what you choose for yourself to be, when the fact is it's a result of your own argument culture legacy. Even now you're still dismissing every piece of my sources' scientific evidences as mere "incoherent phrasing and all the technical bladerdash", without yourself even bother to demonstrate how that's the case to be. And still, you can't deny how the corporate marketers had been manipulating the next generation from cradle to grave.

(Translation: You are wrong, and you are just being argumentative. You have nothing to back up your claim and all you do is insult my evidence, therefore, I am right.)


This is βάθοσ in its purest beauty, for who could not help admire the lack of coherence, and confusion and the lack of sense in this paragraph. What delights does it bring to a man to decipher this and realize that there it is pleasantly vacuous! Behold how every stylistic values that we have been falsely taught to admire is inverted, instead of simplicity and lucidity imparting weighty ideas, we have incoherence and needless complexity imparting simple ideas. This is the every essence of βάθοσ in prose.

Of Stretching

A true lover of βάθοσ, however simple his sentence, should be able to stretch it. He should let his minds be like a rack, that even when the sentence cry out in pain and begs him stop, he should stretch it further, until its limbs are out of place, its lifeless eyes rolled back, and his mouth eternally open in unnatural agony. Thus, should a lover of βάθοσ wish to say something like: 'You only disparage my sources without questioning its reasoning or its data', he should say:


Furthermore, when you only belittled the individual persons of my sources, but not their reasoning nor their scientific evidences supporting their claims.


This lesson is equally applicable to individual words. Take for example 'me', a common pronoun, and too clear in its meaning, a true genius of βάθοσ would say 'my person'- how profoundly redundant and artificial! To think that these two words contain the exact same meaning as those two letters.

From these examples, we can infer that application of meaningless words and Jargons to stretch a sentence also produce another, equally pleasant effect, that of confusing the reader, making the great portion of the text inaccesible to him, which, by natural association with the mysterious and profound with the wise, will agreeably lead him to believe there is more in it than there really is.

Of Irony.

Irony, however much satrists and our enemies use it, cannot be perfect for their effort is entirely conscious, whereas our geniuses, so infused with βάθοσ, will been entirely unconscious of it, it being entirely natural to him. Indeed, as we admire what is natural and unconscious over what is learned and done with effort, so too, do we prefer the Irony that is entirely unconscious over that which is conscious. Take for example the same beatifully βαθύς lines:


This is your attitude, your very own personality. But ultimately that's not what you choose for yourself to be, when the fact is it's a result of your own argument culture legacy. Even now you're still dismissing every piece of my sources' scientific evidences as mere "incoherent phrasing and all the technical bladerdash", without yourself even bother to demonstrate how that's the case to be. And still, you can't deny how the corporate marketers had been manipulating the next generation from cradle to grave.

and the following:

You're so obsessed, so desperate to frame this discussion into a stupid argument towards your favor. You didn't even bother to apply moral oversight nor introspection on your own hubris and arrogance.


Even in his accusation of obession and of the adressee's desperation to 'frame this discussion into a stupid argument in [his] favour', of arrogance and overmuch pride, of being too argumentative, of obstinance, one can feel the obession, desperation, arrogance, pridefulness, and argumentaiveness in his own lines. This is true βαθύς irony, to attack the character of another person by unconsciously invoking a description of their own character. No consciously ironic writer can match it in its perfection, for they cannot match that delightful unawareness. This is the same delight that affords us when, watching or reading a mystery, the criminal unconsciously confess his deed to the detective, we share his smile, but, more so, for what is fictional can never perfectly match the real.

(Note: We shall discuss the beauties of its argument latter)
Don't bother, when you're just avoiding my evidences and belittling me instead, while you're just pretending to seek a higher moral ground.

So tell me the truth, did you felt the doping delight at your attempt to troll with more obsession in your pretend posture?

Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar
On any given day we're lied to from 10 to 200 times, and the clues to detect those lie can be subtle and counter-intuitive. Pamela Meyer, author of Liespotting, shows the manners and "hotspots" used by those trained to recognize deception -- and she argues honesty is a value worth preserving.

We rehearse our words, but we rarely rehearse our gestures. We say "yes," we shake our heads "no." We tell very convincing stories, we slightly shrug our shoulders. We commit terrible crimes, and we smile at the delight in getting away with it. Now that smile is known in the trade as "duping delight."

And we're going to see that in several videos moving forward, but we're going to start -- for those of you who don't know him, this is presidential candidate John Edwards who shocked America by fathering a child out of wedlock. We're going to see him talk about getting a paternity test. See now if you can spot him saying, "yes" while shaking his head "no," slightly shrugging his shoulders.

(Video) John Edwards: I'd be happy to participate in one. I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine, because of the timing of events. So I know it's not possible. Happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen. Interviewer: Are you going to do that soon? Is there somebody -- JE: Well, I'm only one side. I'm only one side of the test. But I'm happy to participate in one.

PM: Okay, those head shakes are much easier to spot once you know to look for them. There're going to be times when someone makes one expression while masking another that just kind of leaks through in a flash. Murderers are known to leak sadness. Your new joint venture partner might shake your hand, celebrate, go out to dinner with you and then leak an expression of anger. And we're not all going to become facial expression experts overnight here, but there's one I can teach you that's very dangerous, and it's easy to learn, and that's the expression of contempt. Now with anger, you've got two people on an even playing field. It's still somewhat of a healthy relationship. But when anger turns to contempt, you've been dismissed. It's associated with moral superiority. And for that reason, it's very, very hard to recover from. Here's what it looks like. It's marked by one lip corner pulled up and in. It's the only asymmetrical expression. And in the presence of contempt, whether or not deception follows -- and it doesn't always follow -- look the other way, go the other direction, reconsider the deal, say, "No thank you. I'm not coming up for just one more nightcap. Thank you."
And again, don't bother. When you can just sit there and lie in front of your computer screen, while we would know none the wiser because we can't see your emotional and nonverbal gestures. I'll do the ethical and moral thing and not to trust you being honest again, ever.

So don't bother to reply this post, unless you're addressing the evidences and reasoning made on the culture legacy of child marketing can do on our personality, our preference, and our emotional and mental wellbeing which is a great deal of our will. Otherwise I'll request the CR mods to remove your off-topic and trolling comment as a whole


As all passions should consume a man entirely, so too must βάθοσ consume him entirely, that he forgets to eat, to sup, to even think. When a man has βάθοσ, what needs he with sense? Take for example our same genius, from whom all the previous examples has been extracted:


Don't bother, when you're just avoiding my evidences and belittling me instead, while you're just pretending to seek a higher moral ground.


Reading this, and reading the quoted passages, a man would look in vain for any morality- anything more than stylistic criticism, and yet, where no moral sentiments exist, he creates them, and promptly continues to criticise the adressee for the crime of dishonesty and cowardice:


And again, don't bother. When you can just sit there and lie in front of your computer screen, while we would know none the wiser because we can't see your emotional and nonverbal gestures. I'll do the ethical and moral thing and not to trust you being honest again, ever.


How now, and here the man goes again, beautifully entering into the realm of βαθύς irony, where, prior, he criticize the adressee for trying to flee to the moral high ground, he explicitly states that he shall 'do the ethical and moral thing'! One can almost feel the self-righteous sneer, beholding a trembling sinner and liar. And, to think, this evil fellow simply told him that his prose is so incomprehensible, that very few could make heads or tails of it, and, when they do, only to discover that it could have been just as easily exprest in fewer words. Oh, damn him.


So don't bother to reply this post, unless you're addressing the evidences and reasoning made on the culture legacy of child marketing can do on our personality, our preference, and our emotional and mental wellbeing which is a great deal of our will. Otherwise I'll request the CR mods to remove your off-topic and trolling comment as a whole


Indeed, how splendid, to think, this topic started out as a question of freewill! He moved the discussion to the almost entirely unrelated topic of behavioral economics, and then weep that this evil person has switched topics entirely.


On βάθοσ in the art of debating.

The above sample shows how βάθοσ can be applied to an art so vulgarly sensible as debating, thereby sinking it. Relation or Credence is of no concern to our geniuses, but quotes justify themselves by being quotes, and therefore worthy of insertion. An argument on behavioral economics? Behold, a quote on the abilities of animals to experience empathy. On the notion that marketers are in a conspiracy to manipulate everyone, justifying trepanning? Here an amusing video of a magician playing tricks on people. Here is a polemic under the guise of documentary, and here another. To prove that marketers are relentlessly marketing products to children with those evil commercials and billboards, trying to convince them to convince their parents to buy these product, and they are doing this from cradle to grave (which, incedentally, is a misapplication of an actual ecological term to describe the enviormental impact of a product), an aged British ranter from God knows where. The shallowness of his argument is so carefully hidden under a fog of words that no one can percieve how very shallow his argument or his 'proofs' really are.
1056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/27/12
Can anyone sum up the against free will argument for me? Too many walls of text most are not even relevant

No? Okay.jpg
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/28/12

Traiano wrote:

Can anyone sum up the against free will argument for me? Too many walls of text most are not even relevant

No? Okay.jpg


From a religious standpoint, it is impossible for man to be free, for, as Saint Paul says, because if we are to accept Paul's doctrine of election, and accept predestination, then we must accept that God choses all men, and who he chooses, he justifies, ergo, we cannot have will but what God makes us. Therefore, because to say otherwise would be amounting to illogicality, and as God is never illogical (as determined by various theologians) we do not have any free will.

If you deny the God of Christianity, and prefer, instead, the mechanism of science, it is still impossible for us to defend this position, as the natural world, science tells us, is govern by a set of all from which all phenomenon arises. If we accept that to be true, than, as all things are from these natural laws, what we think to be free, our will, our action, etc., cannot be so, for they spring only from the natural laws, and cannot be otherwise. Our brains, as well as the movement of stars and orbs, must likewise follow Nature's laws, and produce, from those laws, only one course, just as when one has a fix condition, a ball shall invariably fall in the same way, according to natural law as applied locally, so too must our brain follow these natural law. As Laplace says:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.