Neuroscience, mind control, and nihilism

Article 1

This describes the basic experimental set-up and the results. The Cliff Notes version is that the brain becomes stimulated before the subjects are aware of the decision to actually move their arm, but not before other types of decisions, such as agreeing to participate in the experiment, or planning to move one's arm at some point in the future. So free will as a metaphysical concept is not really threatened by this research, it just forces us to define more carefully what we mean by "free will".

edited 30th Sep '10 8:48:39 AM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I feel strange about advocating doublethink as a solution to a problem, but here I am.

Kill all math nerds

Does anyone really follow Nihilism? Seriously? I thought it was just a fallback for hormone-wracked teenagers.

I'm fairly sure everyone I meet on a regular basis believes in something. Are they defining nihilism differently from, well, nihilism?

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

I think Tongpu does, but he's an example of an ineffective (or just lazy) Sociopath.

Wait, so if we get practical mind control through applied neuroscience, then "our brains are no longer our own" and we have to all dissolve in a puddle of Wangst? Oooookay.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Goggle Fox This guy and his followers.

^The theory is that people won't be able to cope with having everything they know about their minds be a lie. Assuming that this is what science discovers, which might be doubtful.

Kill all math nerds

I'm sorry, but the concept of someone being told "Your mind is the product of millions upon millions of little cells stuck together, firing chemical signals at one another every moment of your life" and responding with "No. NO! EVERYTHING I KNOW IS A LIIIIIIIEEEEEE" and jumping off a cliff is just ludicrous.

Also highly amusing.

Re: that guy: I have no idea what he's trying to say. Can someone please explain what the hell "correlationism" is and why I should care? The one guy I attempted to read an article from seemed to claim that it showed Science to be useless or some such nonsense.

edited 28th Sep '10 12:27:08 PM by GoggleFox

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

Besides, I think the idea that the mind isn't as simple as it subjectively appears to be is a long-established one. I don't see it coming as a huge surprise.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Yeah, really - we've been examining the mind in progressively greater detail and thus far failed to discover a Brown Note, Things Man Was Not Meant to Know, or throw society across the Despair Event Horizon. Predicting something like this is scaremongering, no more or less.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

^^^Well basically, since Kant, philosophy has mainly focused on the the human relationship with the world, or with other humans. Speculative Realism is a philosophical movement trying to break that tradition.

That guy want to do it by going all Nietzsche Wannabe and stuff.

^It really is.

edited 28th Sep '10 12:37:10 PM by Myrmidon

Kill all math nerds

Oh, yeah, this guy is also an admitted nihilist

Kill all math nerds

Well basically the idea that the feelings and emotions we have about the universe are not supported by science or reason and therefore should be abandoned. I suspect these guys of really trying to undermine the rationalist movement by taking it to it's logical conclusion. But the truth is we've known that free will is incompatible with materialist determinism for a long time now.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Some philosophers really are trying to science up their talk nowadays, although I have to admit "centripetal notion of consciousness" actually sounds rather cool. I don't know why he just didn't stick with "mind" or "soul" instead. (And I meant the Aristotelian conception of "soul" there, not the religious one.)

Frankly, the perfected neuroscience would just establish a really firm foundation for marketing principles, not really refine them into a science. What I'd find interesting is if a perfected neuroscience still had gaps in its workings only explainable by other fields e.g. psychology. As much as "the march of science" continues to reduce us to component parts, we're finding in other fields how important environmental factors are as well. I don't think (and please get that I'm not thinking too hard here) a perfected neuroscience will deliver these sorts of results.

Nihilists really don't have a great reputation nowadays, do they? "Are these the Nazis, Walter?"
"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

I wrote about a fish turning into the moon.

Well, for another thing, as soon as neuroscience gets us close to delivering something approximating actual Mind Control, governments would step in and regulate/restrict/ban it.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Or use it.

Fight smart, not fair.

"Follow nihilism" does not even mean anything. Nihilism is descriptive. It neither prescribes nor proscribes any particular behavior. There is nothing to follow.

Incorrect. I merely envy sociopaths. My behavior "follows" various drives and preferences that I have, the same as anyone else. As far as nihilism goes, I am a believer in:

• Existential nihilism: existence has no objective/intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value. "following" existential nihilism entails nothing more than believing the preceding statement.
• Moral nihilism: Nothing is inherently right or wrong. Again, there's nothing to "follow". It's just a metaethical belief.

As long as people still experience illusions like selfhood and free will, I don't think knowing on a merely intellectual level that these are illusions will make a significant difference to people who don't already have issues.

We all experience delusions of selfhood and free will because that's how our brains work, and no matter how much you logically persuade me that it's not the case, I will continue to have that experience. Anyway, treating people as automatons is demonstrably inadequate at accomplishing any social goal. You can certainly utilize an understanding of neuroscience, psychology, what have you, to push people's buttons, but if they think you think they're robots, they'll stop listening to you.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I don't feel that ascribing meaning to the universe is necessary, but I hardly need to deny the possibility. Just because we don't see a meaning doesn't mean it's not there — but trying to discover that meaning doesn't really seem to have much of a point.

I figure the meaning of your own existence is what you make of it. As the song goes, if you choose not to decide, that's still a choice.

Morals are a hard thing to talk about. I'll just save that for another day.

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

That isnt the problem. The problem is the possibility that people who continue to subscribe to feelings of meaningfulness in their personal experiences will be at a disadvantage with respect to those who have abandoned them, and who are then free to discover and use all the implications of a complete neuroscience. Those who think themselves robots will be able to manipulate those who do not, and those who do not wont even know they are being manipulated, or be allowed to care if they did. Because Good Cannot Comprehend Evil.

edited 29th Sep '10 6:33:33 AM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

You can't "abandon meaningfulness". Human psychology doesn't work that way, at least not now. On the other hand, the ability to reprogram our own brains is one of the starting points for transhumanism, which could lead to such a situation. However, ethical controls would be paramount.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

There will be those who cant accept the implications of the article I linked to above because it contradicts their illusions of free will and inherent meaning (including moral differences) in the universe. Others will be better able to ignore this aspect of themselves. The danger is that the former will become slaves of the latter.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I'd say that it's not so much a danger as an inevitability. Such people may not fall under the control of those who give up the illusions, but they'll become increasingly irrelevant and therefore obsolete.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

"Slaves" is ridiculous hyperbole. There will always be an underclass and an overclass. For the division to reflect different levels of psychological resilience is no danger. It's merely a change in flavor.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

edited 29th Sep '10 1:28:21 PM by Tongpu

POST REMOVED FOR SAFETY'S SAKE, THOUGH I STILL HOPE TONGPU STUBS ALL HIS TOES

edited 29th Sep '10 2:07:57 PM by Charlatan

Until you can think of something more on-topic to say, maybe you should stay out of On-Topic Conversations and stick to some thread that's more your speed, like Fetishes.