Potential developments in human society

Split from 'Development of psychosis...' thread

Discussions about society in general and social activity.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#1  Postby SafeAsMilk » May 02, 2018 6:56 pm

Dynalon wrote:Plus I exhibit much less bizarre behavior which I know normal people will take advantage of.

Take advantage how?
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#2  Postby Dynalon » May 02, 2018 8:06 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Dynalon wrote:Plus I exhibit much less bizarre behavior which I know normal people will take advantage of.

Take advantage how?


Deride me, ostracize me etc. Just shit all over me if they think they can get away with it. People are chimps.

A recent episode turned out rather favorably for me though. I made a prediction—based on the available evidence—about the outcome of a politically charged event (not the 2016 election of Trump; I honestly didn't see that coming). But people I had known for years were existing in an utter echo chamber and just would not listen to me. One told me that I was "lying", "delusional" and "retarded" for failing to accept the echo chamber judgment. Then when the thing happened that I said would happen I had a heyday with it and these people were—I think—legitimately frightened by this and the failure of their Very Smart™ peers to come up with a correct assessment. Months after the incident I was at a bar browsing the Facebook of the "lying" and "delusional" individual on my phone on an alt account—as I had been blocked on my main—and I found gloating about how it appeared that the "fascist nerd" was wrong, with favorable reactions from about twenty people. Comments were open so I started gloating back. You wouldn't believe how fast I got blocked.

The incident impressed upon me the power of logic and reason to quash and suffocate chimp shit. I think this power will only expand as we head further into the 21st century and I am looking forward to it.

Image
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Potential developments in human society

#3  Postby SafeAsMilk » May 02, 2018 10:00 pm

Dynalon wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Dynalon wrote:Plus I exhibit much less bizarre behavior which I know normal people will take advantage of.

Take advantage how?


Deride me, ostracize me etc. Just shit all over me if they think they can get away with it. People are chimps.

A recent episode turned out rather favorably for me though. I made a prediction—based on the available evidence—about the outcome of a politically charged event (not the 2016 election of Trump; I honestly didn't see that coming). But people I had known for years were existing in an utter echo chamber and just would not listen to me. One told me that I was "lying", "delusional" and "retarded" for failing to accept the echo chamber judgment. Then when the thing happened that I said would happen I had a heyday with it and these people were—I think—legitimately frightened by this and the failure of their Very Smart™ peers to come up with a correct assessment. Months after the incident I was at a bar browsing the Facebook of the "lying" and "delusional" individual on my phone on an alt account—as I had been blocked on my main—and I found gloating about how it appeared that the "fascist nerd" was wrong, with favorable reactions from about twenty people. Comments were open so I started gloating back. You wouldn't believe how fast I got blocked.

The incident impressed upon me the power of logic and reason to quash and suffocate chimp shit. I think this power will only expand as we head further into the 21st century and I am looking forward to it.

I get the feeling that you've left some important details out this story. You talk about people reacting to your bizarre behavior, yet in your story you aren't acting bizarre at all (making a prediction based on evidence) and it's everyone else who's acting bizarre (treating you like complete shit just because you don't agree with them).
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#4  Postby Dynalon » May 02, 2018 11:25 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:I get the feeling that you've left some important details out this story. You talk about people reacting to your bizarre behavior, yet in your story you aren't acting bizarre at all (making a prediction based on evidence)


But that is very bizarre. Some things I've said and done would certainly seem more prototypically "crazy"—like marching through about a mile of deep, freshly fallen snow and then back (up a steep incline) just so that I could go to Burger King to get a little something to eat and then go home (and really from there it gets much darker and crazier)—but there is nothing remotely normal or typically human about repeatedly insisting on what is supported by evidence against intense demands that I should believe what "the tribe" believes instead, something I was more or less explicitly told to do. What I did is really deeply at odds with what is typically human. When friction started to become really apparent between me and these people I said that, if they shared my preference for a rational world, then there wouldn't be an issue. One of the individuals involved said, we do share that preference, but ultimately they failed to live up to that claim after they reacted to me dealing in facts with nothing but inarticulate, bug-eyed rage. And I will freely admit that there was a degree of trolling involved but that has to be balanced against the fact that my mental health was being used for cheap talking points while I, on the other hand, never resorted to name-calling to get my point across.

I referred earlier to how I think humanism is dumb and here is another major part of that. Humanists and other secular leftists vocally claim to be committed to reason. That is rarely, if ever, genuinely the case. And the shtick about how "every child is a born scientist" really nauseates me because it is also maybe only seldom true. And also the "pale blue dot" stuff, that really bugs me too. Because these people don't actually want to embrace a genuinely cosmic perspective. On the contrary, they positively cling to the idea of having a small, petty existence and outlook, which is more or less exactly what could be expected given the evolutionary history of the human species. These people will claim that they embrace reason, will claim that they want a rational world, will claim that they want global unity, but the only solutions they are willing to entertain are mouthing empty platitudes and treating education as a panacea and the developing human mind as a tabula rasa when neither of those two things is the case at all. Actually achieving the goals these people allege to have means not being satisfied with human nature as it is; it means shedding many human traits and it means doing very Gigeresque things to people's heads. It is rather ironic that nationalistic military research projects will somehow very likely do more to achieve the goals stated above than these people ever will:

Towards a High-Resolution, Implantable Neural Interface (really making good on our national motto: e pluribus unum—out of many, one)

And I suppose that's another thing people think is crazy about how I think. Since early childhood, I have tended to identify with artificially intelligent or cyborg characters to some greater or lesser degree. I've already talked about a fictional society that achieves the secular leftist goals of rationality and unity far, far better than they could with what they propose:

Image

And Jesus Christ—if they're going to mouth off endlessly about how they cherish those ideals, while in fact punishing the real thing, I'm not really concerned with whether they consent to getting what it is they claim to have wanted for decades.
Last edited by Dynalon on May 02, 2018 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#5  Postby Thommo » May 02, 2018 11:34 pm

It might be more informative to provide a link to the original source or fill in the missing details.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#6  Postby Dynalon » May 02, 2018 11:41 pm

The original source is on Facebook and I'm long since blocked from that. I'm not sure you'd be able to see it given the privacy settings anyway. In any case, I hope I've already done my part to fill in some of the missing details. If not, ask away!

(With that said, I think the hypocrisy of humanists and other secular leftists can be appreciated without the details of one particular set of conservations.)
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#7  Postby SafeAsMilk » May 02, 2018 11:56 pm

Don't have much experience with the sort of humanists/secular leftists you describe, so I'll have to take your word for it.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#8  Postby Dynalon » May 03, 2018 12:06 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:Don't have much experience with the sort of humanists/secular leftists you describe, so I'll have to take your word for it.


Well you can easily get said experience:

"You want a rational world?"
"Yes!"
"You want a unified world?"
"Yes!"
"How about we use neurotechnology to achieve said outcome?"
"[any number of deflecting responses including 'it would be boring if we were all the same!' and 'uhhh, education!']"
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#9  Postby Thommo » May 03, 2018 12:09 am

Can you elaborate on what you think these rationalists who want a "unified world" mean by that and how we could "use neurotechnology" to accomplish it?

Because that does sound at least faintly eugenic. Also well beyond current technology.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#10  Postby Dynalon » May 03, 2018 12:29 am

Thommo wrote:Can you elaborate on what you think these rationalists who want a "unified world" mean by that and how we could "use neurotechnology" to accomplish it?


Well, for example, back when DARPA were just ARPA they developed in great detail the notion that computers work more effectively when they are directly connected to each other—technology you are now using to read what I have written—and now in the 21st century DARPA and other military research projects are working with the notion that human brains will be more effective when they are directly connected to each other and to various artificial machines:

DARPA Wants to Install Transcranial Ultrasonic Mind Control Devices in Soldiers' Helmets
The Army's Totally Serious Mind-Control Project

If you think that letting human beings be who they are and were thousands of years ago is more conducive to global unity than deliberate technological intervention to achieve global eusociality, let's hear it.

Thommo wrote:Because that does sound at least faintly eugenic.


It's not, because installing things in people's heads doesn't directly deal with genetics as such.

But eugenics is inherently wrong because: ?

Thommo wrote:Also well beyond current technology.


It's not currently possible but humanist tripe along the lines of "every child is a born scientist" is already outright self-satisfied fantasy so I don't see why you want to pick on the former rather than the latter. Can you explain?
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#11  Postby Thommo » May 03, 2018 12:36 am

Dynalon wrote:If you think that letting human beings be who they are and were thousands of years ago is more conducive to global unity than deliberate technological intervention to achieve global eusociality, let's hear it.


I don't think that having zero alive humans would mean there was more human suffering in the world than there being 7 billion alive humans either. But if you think that means I think reducing the human population to zero as a way of reducing human suffering is a good idea, that's rather missing the point.

Something similar is happening here. I don't believe I've either expressed the goal of "global eusociality", nor seen it defined, nor described what I (or these hypothetical rationalists that want it) also have as values that might present a competing tension.

Dynalon wrote:
Thommo wrote:Because that does sound at least faintly eugenic.


It's not, because installing things in people's heads doesn't directly deal with genetics as such.


I don't think two things need to be exactly identical to have a faint resemblance, do they?

Dynalon wrote:But eugenics is inherently wrong because: ?


I don't believe I said it was.

But I do expect that most people are familiar with the ways in which eugenic ideas led to fascist and nazi ideologies that did tremendous harm, and that one of the things you said the Facebook group banned you for was harboring fascist ideas.

Dynalon wrote:
Thommo wrote:Also well beyond current technology.


It is not currently possible but humanist tripe along the lines of "every child is a born scientist" is outright self-satisfied fantasy so I don't see why you want to pick on the former rather than the latter. Can you explain?


Because I've literally never heard a humanist say that, and there are no humanists here saying it. There's no basis for me to identify that as an identifying characteristic of humanism. I am not talking to these people, I cannot find out more about what they actually believe.

Conversely, you are here, and you are saying the things you're saying and there's no need to infer or attribute. The things that you say are necessarily representative of the things that you believe in a way that the things that you say some humanists said are not necessarily representative of what humanism says. I am talking to you, I can find out more about what you believe.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#12  Postby Dynalon » May 03, 2018 12:53 am

Thommo wrote:But I do expect that most people are familiar with the ways in which eugenic ideas led to fascist and nazi ideologies that did tremendous harm, and that one of the things you said the Facebook group banned you for was harboring fascist ideas.


Well, no Facebook group banned me but a whole bunch of people blocked me. I think part of this is because the fictional society I've alluded to all this time—the Borg—only lose all the time because of artistic license, because the Federation has to win. When I invite people to think about these sorts of issues developing here on Earth without artistic license, they become very uncomfortable indeed. They realize that democracy ultimately can't hold a candle to the aggressive recruitment of everything and everyone in sight when it comes to the production, maintenance and transmission of knowledge. After all, democracy allows people to believe in garbage like astrology. My approach doesn't. When they realize how much more efficient the alternative that is already unfolding on our planet is, they just can't cope with it. And so they resort to denial.

Thommo wrote:Because I've literally never heard a humanist say that


Then I regret to inform you that you are out of the loop:

Image

You people are so eager to believe that all children are born scientists but when it comes to what "born scientist" would actually look like? You shrink away in disgust and horror.
Last edited by Dynalon on May 03, 2018 1:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#13  Postby Thommo » May 03, 2018 12:56 am

Again, you're asking me why I'm not talking to Carl Sagan and not you.

This is not an error on my part. Carl Sagan isn't here and you are. That is why I'm talking to you and not Carl Sagan (who is dead, for a start).

What is this "you people" shtick by the way? Have I introduced myself to you as a humanist, or someone who avidly believes every metaphor Carl Sagan ever used? I don't believe I have.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#14  Postby Dynalon » May 03, 2018 12:59 am

Thommo wrote:Again, you're asking me why I'm not talking to Carl Sagan and not you.

This is not an error on my part. Carl Sagan isn't here and you are. That is why I'm talking to you and not Carl Sagan (who is dead, for a start).


Are you seriously trying to tell me that the fact that Sagan is deceased means he is a lesser impact on humanist thought than I am? Why don't we extend that to Robert G. Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell?

Thommo wrote:What is this "you people" shtick by the way? Have I introduced myself to you as a humanist, or someone who avidly believes every metaphor Carl Sagan ever used? I don't believe I have.


You haven't implied the latter, but you have implied the former. So, to be clear, what are you exactly?
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#15  Postby Thommo » May 03, 2018 1:16 am

Dynalon wrote:
Thommo wrote:Again, you're asking me why I'm not talking to Carl Sagan and not you.

This is not an error on my part. Carl Sagan isn't here and you are. That is why I'm talking to you and not Carl Sagan (who is dead, for a start).


Are you seriously trying to tell me that the fact that Sagan is deceased means he is a lesser impact on humanist thought than I am? Why don't we extend that to Robert G. Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell?


No. You asked me why I was responding to things you were saying and not to things that (apparently) Carl Sagan was saying a few decades ago.

The answer is still the same. Because I'm talking to you and not to Carl Sagan. It is not normal or helpful to talk to people who are not in the conversation. Doubly so at the expense of talking to people who are.

Dynalon wrote:
Thommo wrote:What is this "you people" shtick by the way? Have I introduced myself to you as a humanist, or someone who avidly believes every metaphor Carl Sagan ever used? I don't believe I have.


You haven't implied the latter, but you have implied the former. So, to be clear, what are you exactly?


A person. I don't think I've ever described myself as either being a humanist or not being a humanist. I certainly don't feel my world view is prescribed by a misunderstanding of a metaphor from a bloke who has been dead for quite some time. I dare say that most humanists wouldn't either. There is no pope of humanism, there's no central orthodoxy or dogma.

But this isn't a conversation about my beliefs. This is a wild tangent from you explaining a story about how non-mentally ill people take advantage of you via your psychosis. Specifically it's a response to you asking me why I'm talking about the things that you said, right here in this conversation, rather than about things that I'd never heard of and that have zero bearing on anything.

I really think you should let other people describe their own views, rather than telling them what they think.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#16  Postby Dynalon » May 03, 2018 1:37 am

Thommo wrote:No. You asked me why I was responding to things you were saying and not to things that (apparently) Carl Sagan was saying a few decades ago.

The answer is still the same. Because I'm talking to you and not to Carl Sagan. It is not normal or helpful to talk to people who are not in the conversation. Doubly so at the expense of talking to people who are.


I'm not sure how good your memory is but this is what I was responding to:

Thommo wrote:Because I've literally never heard a humanist say that


You can go back and check if you're not sure. Can we agree that I came up with a prominent, influential example of a humanist saying what you weren't aware of any humanist saying before? Yes/no? (For what it's worth, Neil DeGrasse Tyson followed right in Sagan's footsteps and Sagan in turn, I suspect, was following in Russell's footsteps.)

Thommo wrote:
Dynalon wrote:
Thommo wrote:What is this "you people" shtick by the way? Have I introduced myself to you as a humanist, or someone who avidly believes every metaphor Carl Sagan ever used? I don't believe I have.


You haven't implied the latter, but you have implied the former. So, to be clear, what are you exactly?


A person. I don't think I've ever described myself as either being a humanist or not being a humanist. I certainly don't feel my world view is prescribed by a misunderstanding of a metaphor from a bloke who has been dead for quite some time. I dare say that most humanists wouldn't either. There is no pope of humanism, there's no central orthodoxy or dogma.


Is there no ideology that you are most closely affiliated with? That seems hard to believe.

Thommo wrote:But this isn't a conversation about my beliefs. This is a wild tangent from you explaining a story about how non-mentally ill people take advantage of you via your psychosis.


Of course there was a tangent. Most thoroughly normal human conservations are full of tangents. Once psychosis comes into the mix, there are even more. I think that coming to terms with tangents is a good thing.

Thommo wrote:Specifically it's a response to you asking me why I'm talking about the things that you said, right here in this conversation, rather than about things that I'd never heard of and that have zero bearing on anything.


I think that looking into what historically important humanists have said would help to alleviate some of this confusion.

Thommo wrote:I really think you should let other people describe their own views, rather than telling them what they think.


I agree. That's why I asked the following question:

"So, to be clear, what are you exactly?"

That you are "a person" is not especially informative at all. After all, I am "a person" and yet, from the look of it, I hold views vastly different from your own. So you ought to go into more detail. I'm perfectly willing to hear it.
Last edited by Dynalon on May 03, 2018 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#17  Postby Thommo » May 03, 2018 1:41 am

This is stupid, you're quoting parts of sentences of reply and asking me if I remember them.

Yes of course I remember that I said I'd never heard of a humanist saying it. This was (part of) an answer to your question of why I was talking about things said in this conversation rather than some other random junk. If you can't understand that after the third time of retelling it's pretty apparent that there's no point in repeating it again. It's an incredibly simple concept.

It seems that you're trying to suggest that I am more bothered by the thought of mind controlling every human who will ever live than I am by a slightly flowery bit of language deployed decades ago. But my interest in this conversation was in the thread topic and the things you said that related to that topic, not in your pet hobby horse or having to recontextualise sentence fragments multiple times in a row - that's just a chore.

If you want to explain how non psychotic people use your psychosis to take advantage of you, then I'm still interested. I'm not interested in trying to explain very simple sentences on unrelated matters many times over. This thread isn't about my views on Carl Sagan quotes. Not even I'm interested in that.
Last edited by Thommo on May 03, 2018 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#18  Postby Dynalon » May 03, 2018 1:49 am

Thommo wrote:Yes of course I remember that I said I'd never heard of a humanist saying it.


OK. This is what I want to focus on. Whether you have heard of it or not, a very prominent humanist (not even just that, really, many have said this) said that all children are "born scientists". I don't agree. Most children are not born scientists. Furthermore, juvenile human curiosity towards the outside world, which tends to fade away altogether in puberty, is not enough at all. So, the real question here is whether you object to creating "born scientists" and whether you object to inducing such qualities in those who are already well beyond the womb with neurotechnology and the like. Here I am asking you and not just assuming what you think. So?
User avatar
Dynalon
 
Posts: 151

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#19  Postby Cito di Pense » May 03, 2018 1:52 am

Dynalon wrote:I think that looking into what historically important humanists have said would help to alleviate some of this confusion.


Only insofar as you want to discuss the influence their utterances have had on persons you can identify. Sadly for the purposes of that objective, the only humanists you can identify are the ones you can quote. It's neither here nor there whether or not most children are 'born scientists', nor even that you can quote somebody having said so. You're presenting what I think looks like a logos you conflict with. That's a windmill at which to tilt, for sure.

Dynalon wrote:When I invite people to think about these sorts of issues developing here on Earth without artistic license, they become very uncomfortable indeed. They realize that democracy ultimately can't hold a candle to the aggressive recruitment of everything and everyone in sight when it comes to the production, maintenance and transmission of knowledge. After all, democracy allows people to believe in garbage like astrology. My approach doesn't. When they realize how much more efficient the alternative that is already unfolding on our planet is, they just can't cope with it. And so they resort to denial.


One can treat humanism as an ideology that fairly turns it into a substitute religion. Some of the people I encountered from Center For Inquiry were like that, but this was years ago, and I didn't end up wanting to spend very much time with them. If you want to pick fights with secular humanists in person, you should go to one of their meetings. Their response to your diatribe purporting to show them how wrong they are will bolster your convictions about their denial of these key 'facts' you wish to point out to them. Let me make clear that what I found not to my liking was its similarity to religion and not its purported differences. I find differences between the practice of pointing out that astrology is bunkum and wanting to eradicate if from human culture.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29549
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The development of psychosis in a schizophrenic

#20  Postby SafeAsMilk » May 03, 2018 1:54 am

Dynalon wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:Don't have much experience with the sort of humanists/secular leftists you describe, so I'll have to take your word for it.


Well you can easily get said experience:

"You want a rational world?"
"Yes!"
"You want a unified world?"
"Yes!"
"How about we use neurotechnology to achieve said outcome?"
"[any number of deflecting responses including 'it would be boring if we were all the same!' and 'uhhh, education!']"

Looks like straw to me. "Be totally divided" and "be borg" aren't your only two options.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14600
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Sociology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest