Poll: Forced Thought

[ThreeWords]

If you what I think, then yes.

Namely, that people should be treated in such a way that they must acknowledge information and logic and treat it in a fair fashion, regardless of it's effect on their opinions

I can see no wrong in that, though, as ever in such threads, I am fully open to debate

 

[geldonyetich]

While I'm all for the alleviation of ignorance, I'd have to say "no" on the grounds that truth is subjective, and forcing someone to believe something is very much enforcing falsehood due to the value of truth being subjective. By that I mean if your truth is different than my truth, it may be a very good thing, as I doubt that either of us are so very omniescent to have a whole understanding of the real truth, and consequently we can get closer to the real truth by acknowledging the value of eachother's. That said, there does not exist a truth which you could force them to believe that would be beneficial, as it would simply destroy a valuable perspective: if your truth is equal to my truth, we have nothing to learn from eachother.

That said, this technology already exists, and is employed by many organized religions. The mechanic is very simple. Once you determine the "truths" that people should believe, kill or severely oppress anyone who won't be swayed to believe this truth (at least on the surface) and the resulting fear should help to bring about change in the rest of them. Crude, but effective.

A machine that literally forces people to think this or that would save a bit of bloodshed, which is good, but is only a more efficient means to the same, wrong-minded, end which only ends up fostering ignorance instead of obliterating it.

A better path is to do the opposite: teach people to be a whole lot better at thinking for themselves instead of relying on others to tell them what to think. (E.g. Promote critical thinking.) This does not impede their own capability to determine their truths subjectively while enabling them to be able to determine if what they believe is delusion through having fostered the skill set to do so. This is the means applied by modern science, the knowledge of the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method] is only this, a core tenant being that there is no truth discovered that may not be disproved in the future, and the wonders science has produced is evidence enough that it is a much more beneficial path.

 

[Mray3460]

While I'm all for the alleviation of ignorance, I'd have to say "no" on the grounds that truth is subjective, and forcing someone to believe something is very much enforcing falsehood due to the value of truth being subjective.

Please read my other posts where I clarified that the devise does not force people to believe individual things, but rather changes the thought process by which the person analyzes (or rather, doesn't analyze) information contradictory to their currently held beliefs or ideas.

A better path is to do the opposite: teach people to be a whole lot better at thinking for themselves instead of relying on others to tell them what to think.

THIS is what the machine forces people to do: To examine their own beliefs and the beliefs of others without allowing their own reservations or paradigms to get in the way, and to prevent them from being able to blindly accept what they are told without being presented with evidence or a logical argument to back said thing up. It does not force people think/not think a certain thing. It forces them to think, period.

Ok, I might be opposed to extreme individualism but even I'm not THAT bad.
I should have read all of it first.
I machine that just makes people more mentally active.....I'm unsure about it.

Well, even if you're still unsure about it, thank you for reading the rest of the thread and gaining an understanding of what I was proposing.

If you what I think, then yes.

Namely, that people should be treated in such a way that they must acknowledge information and logic and treat it in a fair fashion, regardless of it's effect on their opinions

I can see no wrong in that, though, as ever in such threads, I am fully open to debate

Wow, someone actually got what I was talking about right off the bat. You sir, have made my day. Seriously, I was getting depressed that I hadn't been able to convey my message clearly enough for other people to understand what I was talking about. Thank you.

 

[geldonyetich]

THIS is what the machine forces people to do: To examine their own beliefs and the beliefs of others without allowing their own reservations or paradigms to get in the way, and to prevent them from being able to blindly accept what they are told without being presented with evidence or a logical argument to back said thing up. It does not force people think/not think a certain thing. It forces them to think, period.

Good in theory, but in practice there can be no action without a direction. Force a person to think, period? People think already. You want them to think in a specific way. Ergo, a machine that forces them to think in a specific way is, in fact, exactly what you are hoping it wouldn't be.

 

[ThreeWords]

If you what I think, then yes.

Namely, that people should be treated in such a way that they must acknowledge information and logic and treat it in a fair fashion, regardless of it's effect on their opinions

I can see no wrong in that, though, as ever in such threads, I am fully open to debate

Wow, someone actually got what I was talking about right off the bat. You sir, have made my day. Seriously, I was getting depressed that I hadn't been able to convey my message clearly enough for other people to understand what I was talking about. Thank you.

Glad to be of service =D

 

[ThreeWords]

While I'm all for the alleviation of ignorance, I'd have to say "no" on the grounds that truth is subjective, and forcing someone to believe something is very much enforcing falsehood due to the value of truth being subjective. By that I mean if your truth is different than my truth, it may be a very good thing, as I doubt that either of us are so very omniescent to have a whole understanding of the real truth, and consequently we can get closer to the real truth by acknowledging the value of eachother's. That said, there does not exist a truth which you could force them to believe that would be beneficial, as it would simply destroy a valuable perspective: if your truth is equal to my truth, we have nothing to learn from eachother.

That said, this technology already exists, and is employed by many organized religions. The mechanic is very simple. Once you determine the "truths" that people should believe, kill or severely oppress anyone who won't be swayed to believe this truth (at least on the surface) and the resulting fear should help to bring about change in the rest of them. Crude, but effective.

A machine that literally forces people to think this or that would save a bit of bloodshed, which is good, but is only a more efficient means to the same, wrong-minded, end which only ends up fostering ignorance instead of obliterating it.

A better path is to do the opposite: teach people to be a whole lot better at thinking for themselves instead of relying on others to tell them what to think. (E.g. Promote critical thinking.) This does not impede their own capability to determine their truths subjectively while enabling them to be able to determine if what they believe is delusion through having fostered the skill set to do so. This is the means applied by modern science, the knowledge of the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method] is only this, a core tenant being that there is no truth discovered that may not be disproved in the future, and the wonders science has produced is evidence enough that it is a much more beneficial path.

Methinks the machine is meant to force you to accept truth without bias, and disable the capacity for wilful stupidity (ie ignoring inconvenient facts)

 

[Lord George]

No everyone needs to remain ignorant of many facts and ideas, if this was applied humanity would go insane when people realised such truths as "that girls never going to love you", "your not special" (everyone likes to believe that deep down their special and different to everyone around them), "You are a speck upon a blip of infinity and whatever you do with your life it will not matter in the slightest" (also know as the You'll never be as successful as the cookie monster fact.

 

[teisjm]

It's theoretically doable.
Most peopel think of sex quite often.
Make enough adds, that links your message with sex, and at some point, people will be unable to not link your message and sex. And they can't stop thinking about sex it's an instictual drive.

 

[GrinningManiac]

I'd like to say "no, it's against their human rights/freedom of speech/nature"

I really, really would

But deep down, I'm all for it. And White Noise as an interregation technique, and stuff like this.

I really need help. But it's my gut feeling

 

[zehydra]

Well, here's the ultimate problem: Nobody knows what the truth is, one cannot know that he knows the truth.

(in case anybody's wondering I do have support for this argument)

So, I would be totally against forcing people to think in a way that would make them believe in what somebody else THINKS the truth is. Because that is all anybody does. We all THINK we know the truth.

 

[rokkolpo]

i'd most likely commit genocide on all over-populated places,HEY someone's gotta do it.

 

[Mray3460]

I'll go ahead and number my responses so that they are easier to address.

THIS is what the machine forces people to do: To examine their own beliefs and the beliefs of others without allowing their own reservations or paradigms to get in the way, and to prevent them from being able to blindly accept what they are told without being presented with evidence or a logical argument to back said thing up. It does not force people think/not think a certain thing. It forces them to think, period.

Good in theory, but in practice there can be no action without a direction.

1.I'm sorry, this part confused me. Could you elaborate a little bit more? I don't understand what you mean by action and direction.

Force a person to think, period? People think already. You want them to think in a specific way.

2. By "Thinking" I mean responding to input after analyzing said input. What I want people to stop doing is responding to input without fully analyzing the subject at hand.

Ergo, a machine that forces them to think in a specific way is, in fact, exactly what you are hoping it wouldn't be.

3. Again, I was just confused by this part. Could you specify what you think it is that I don't want the machine to be? Or some other explanation?

 

[Queen Michael]

Yes, because an opportunity like that is too good to miss.

 

[Audun]

it would never work.

besides, i reserve my right to be an ignorant antisocial idiot. if someone took that away from me i would lose 90% of my personality. im sick and tired of everyone telling me how to live my life.

 

[Valiance]

Yeah, that'd be fucking awesome.

 

[Mray3460]

No everyone needs to remain ignorant of many facts and ideas.

I'm afraid that I fail to understand your reasoning. Would you please elaborate/explain?

If this was applied humanity would go insane when people realised such truths as "that girls never going to love you", "your not special" (everyone likes to believe that deep down their special and different to everyone around them), "You are a speck upon a blip of infinity and whatever you do with your life it will not matter in the slightest" (also know as the You'll never be as successful as the cookie monster fact.

I fail to see any problems with these realizations. Admitably, it would cause some initial problems, but I'm confident that eventually people would get over it and, possibly, begin to work constructively to change the real world rather than living in their own delusions.

i'd most likely commit genocide on all over-populated places.

Two words: "Why?" and...

HEY someone's gotta do it.

..."Why?"

 

[Arrogancy]

It's an interesting thought. However, I am inclined to go against it. Human rights violations aside I feel that this would be a classic domino effect. First it's all good "We're helping save these people from themselves, it's a service to society." and all that other crap, but then it'll only go down hill from there. The people who control this tech would begin dictating what people think. They would erase all thought that they don't accept. Let's face it, humans can't be trusted with that kind of technology, no matter who you are. Everyone deserves free choice to be who they are, whether that be a bigot, a moron, or simply a pompus jerk.

 

[geldonyetich]

I'll go ahead and number my responses so that they are easier to address.

THIS is what the machine forces people to do: To examine their own beliefs and the beliefs of others without allowing their own reservations or paradigms to get in the way, and to prevent them from being able to blindly accept what they are told without being presented with evidence or a logical argument to back said thing up. It does not force people think/not think a certain thing. It forces them to think, period.

Good in theory, but in practice there can be no action without a direction.

1.I'm sorry, this part confused me. Could you elaborate a little bit more? I don't understand what you mean by action and direction.

Force a person to think, period? People think already. You want them to think in a specific way.

2. By "Thinking" I mean responding to input after analyzing said input. What I want people to stop doing is responding to input without fully analyzing the subject at hand.

Ergo, a machine that forces them to think in a specific way is, in fact, exactly what you are hoping it wouldn't be.

3. Again, I was just confused by this part. Could you specify what you think it is that I don't want the machine to be? Or some other explanation?

You might find it easier were you to interpret my sentences a collective whole that attempts to explain a subtle idea rather than breaking them up into separate ideas, which they were not. For me to answer each one of these questions you have posed wouldn't bring you any closer than you started because these questions only serve to isolate separation of the aspects of something which intended to act as a whole.

To reiterate the problem, while it might seem ideal to have a machine that makes people think, it's a concept that fractures into mere fantasy when you examine what you're trying to do in the individual details:

You think to yourself here are people who are acting, in your opinion, rather ignorant. Therefore, they must not be thinking themselves, and perhaps if there was a machine to simply energize their thinking then the problem, as you perceive it, would be solved.

However, the reality may very much be that they are thinking, perhaps as much or more than you are, but have arrived at conclusions which are contrary to your perception of what a rational person would believe.

If you had a machine that would cause them to behave in a manner that suits your perception of rationality, you do not have a machine that causes them to think more, you have a machine that causes them instead to think in a way specific to your idea of what thinking is. It is completely inseparable from forcing your doctrines on others.

To reiterate the reiteration, thinking is not so very simple you can find it in a jar, or cause a machine to generate more of it. Thinking comes in many flavors and modes of operation. No sentient creature is capable of not thinking. Consequently, if you're trying to push for a specific kind of thinking upon a sentient creature, you've tricked yourself into doing something other than you thought you were.

 

[rokkolpo]

No everyone needs to remain ignorant of many facts and ideas.

I'm afraid that I fail to understand your reasoning. Would you please elaborate/explain?

If this was applied humanity would go insane when people realised such truths as "that girls never going to love you", "your not special" (everyone likes to believe that deep down their special and different to everyone around them), "You are a speck upon a blip of infinity and whatever you do with your life it will not matter in the slightest" (also know as the You'll never be as successful as the cookie monster fact.

I fail to see any problems with these realizations. Admitably, it would cause some initial problems, but I'm confident that eventually people would get over it and, possibly, begin to work constructively to change the real world rather than living in their own delusions.

i'd most likely commit genocide on all over-populated places.

Two words: "Why?" and...

HEY someone's gotta do it.

..."Why?"

because there in a cycle of inevitable death(most of them at least).
it would improve world economy & ease their pain,but i'm being a dick now...so never mind.

 

[Mray3460]

snip

You might find it easier were you to interpret my sentences a collective whole that attempts to explain a subtle idea rather than breaking them up into separate ideas, which they were not. For me to answer each one of these questions you have posed wouldn't bring you any closer than you started because these questions only serve to isolate separation of the aspects of something which intended to act as a whole.

For the record, I am examining your argument as a whole, but I am fragmenting my response to it so that it is easier for others to understand exactly which parts of your argument I am referring to at any given moment where a statement could be applied to multiple areas of the argument that completely change its meaning. Furthermore, breaking up both your post and my response within my new post allows me to partially agree with a specific part of your argument without giving the undue signal that I agree with you in entirety and to address specific concerns within your argument with my own specific concerns.

(In short, It makes the final post easier to read, easier to wright, and easier to comprehend)

You think to yourself here are people who are acting, in your opinion, rather ignorant. Therefore, they must not be thinking themselves, and perhaps if there was a machine to simply energize their thinking then the problem, as you perceive it, would be solved.

I suppose I need to get my definitions strait. What I defined as "not thinking" (I.E. responding without any serious, in depth analysis, either through ignoring the input, becoming defensive, or outright attacking either the input or the source of it) is, technically, a form of thinking in a looser sense of the word than I generally use, a kind of "mental shortcut" used either to skip over what is initially seen as worthless or useless information, or as a coping mechanism to deal with new information that is seen as contradictory to a person's previously held views.

This shortcut served an evolutionary need in early animals (including humans) that allowed them to disregard information that related to something that they already "knew" all about, so that they wouldn't waste time and spend their days focusing on surviving rather than exchanging ideas (This is why it took so long to develop a complex, expansive, and technologically advanced civilization). However, this shortcut now, in a time when we no longer require most or even the majority of our brain functions to be focused on survival, allows people to disregard other people's opinions and beliefs and maintain willful ignorance of varying realities and facts of life ("The world doesn't revolve around you," "That woman will never fall in love with you; you're a stalker and she thinks you're creepy," "Jesus was not white and English speaking; He was not a vegan, gun-rights activist, or a Bush-Cheney/McCain-Palin supporter," "The Communist economic model is not valid while another, free-market society still exists," "The Holocaust happened," etc.).

What the proposed machine would do is not enhance other forms of thinking, but rather block off or eliminate this shortcut, forcing everyone to analyze their own and other people's beliefs when either presented with contradictory or supportive information, rather than simply ignoring the analysis stage altogether by using the shortcut.

If you had a machine that would cause them to behave in a manner that suits your perception of rationality, you do not have a machine that causes them to think more, you have a machine that causes them instead to think in a way specific to your idea of what thinking is. It is completely inseparable from forcing your doctrines on others.

Now, this is a valid point, and I must concede that I would be imposing a constraint on other people, and that even if I am willing to accept the constraint for myself, the idea of forcing it on others is well does raise some moral and free-will related concerns (hence why I posted it here for debate).

To reiterate the reiteration, thinking is not so very simple you can find it in a jar, or cause a machine to generate more of it. Thinking comes in many flavors and modes of operation. No sentient creature is capable of not thinking.

Under the definition of "thinking" that I think that you're thinking of, I think that I must concede this part of the argument as well.

You've tricked yourself into doing something other than you thought you were.

And that something is...? (Read: I don't understand this part of your argument, please clarify)