50

Do you want to venture from this topic to the question of what truths liberals have historically been blind to? — frank

Yes, if you don't mind.

It is not a real condition, so I am not sure why it should be treated as such. — Jeremiah

To try giving some semblance of credibility to the narrative, I suppose.

So you didn't mean truth, you meant non-PC.
— praxis

I meant truths. — frank

Okay, what truths?

I perceive a harshness to the Republican party that repels the liberal-minded, but is actually sought out by part of the population. — frank

So you didn't mean truth, you meant non-PC.

I wouldn't say Adams is worth listening to. He's a lot like Rubin in, for whatever reason, wanting to appear rational and centrist. I guess they think that's more persuasive.

On the policy issue, it's much more about branding and personality than policy in the US. There is plenty of evidence out there (and plenty of depressing videos) to show that Americans in general know little or nothing about the policy differences between candidates of their own party in the primaries and have only a very basic idea about policy differences among the candidates of different parties in the general (it's not just America either, policy ignorance and focus on personality is a global problem). The fact that Trump had great name recognition and had been on TV, was a businessman, and came across as much more relatable and non-political than most politicians was why he was voted in. His policy platfrom (apart from immigration where he was a bit more specific "Ban Muslims/Build a wall") was always a mess and contradictory. I mean, his policy on healthcare was "we'll get everyone great healthcare" and on the military was "we'll have a great military" and wasn't any clearer than that, and didn't need to be. — Baden

Weird thing is that most of this is pretty much covered in the Rubin's interview, and yet Adams tries to substantiate TDS with cognitive dissonance theory.

Unless you're claiming that "it's a mistake for the government to help people in inner cities" is telling the truth, you haven't mentioned what these truths are. I assumed that you meant uncomfortable truths such as all the dirty deeds that are done around the world by the USA (by both parties). If that is the case, then maybe you can point out a case where a Republican confesses to one of these dirty deeds.

Republicans are the pragmatic, less PC folks who are capable of "handling the truth," as Jack Nicholson's character screams in that movie. — frank

What kind of truths are you talking about? What are some examples?

Trump aggressively confronted Putin about election interference. Just kidding! :lol:

And besides, other than sales and marketing people, who cares about persuading those who don't seek truth anyways? :wink: — Samuel Lacrampe

Everyone, because persuasion is effective in politics. Are Trump and his supporters interested in truth? Doesn't appear so. In fact, accepting and supporting the lies has become a sign of solidarity. Only winning matters.

Just start explaining it to those around you and, trust me, they’ll soon learn the meaning of suffering.

Values.

when you start paying me for services to your satisfaction, then I'll worry about such things as grammar to your satisfaction. — Hanover

I’ve never heard of a grammar whore.

As you likely know, the inner voice can't actually be shut off. But we can learn to just keep on ignoring it every time it catches our attention. — apokrisis

When aggitated it can feel particularly loud, but as I mentioned, I've had recent success in quieting the inner voice in meditation somewhat reliably, seeming to be practically silent for brief periods.

Anyway, I appreciate what you've shared.

First they train us to narratise to the point it is an unstoppable habit. Then they tell us off when we let our minds narratise in automatic fashion. — apokrisis

Yeah that's pretty messed up. :grin:

So attention can't be literally shut off. Even if what we are doing can be handled entirely automatically - like driving your car on a familiar journey - your narratising mind is going to want to wander. It will latch on to anything random and ruminate about that.

Even in deepest slow wave sleep your inner voice will be trying to say something meaningful out of blind habit.

So the DMN is rather a neurocognitive artifact. — apokrisis

For whatever reason I have a rather overactive DMN, I believe, so my interest is in methods of reducing it's activity. You mentioned your belief that the DMN story is overplayed but haven't said much in critique of it.

A major theme of the DMN story is that it's 'task negative', meaning that when our attention isn't absorbed in a task the DMN becomes more active, just as you've illustrated. When we are absorbed in a task that's sufficiently challenging the DMN is said to deactivate and we may enter a so called 'flow' state. So this is one method to deactivate the DMN. I know none of this is news but please bear with me.

Another method of reducing DMN activity that I've had success with of late is in meditation. It takes me at least 20 minutes to quiet down my mind, and the basic method of doing this is focusing attention combined with abdominal breathing. The effect is short lived however.

The question I want to ask is if you believe the DMN, or rather the ingrained habit of self-conscious, can be unlearned to a significant degree, say with the methods I've mentioned and perhaps a sustained mindful attention?

neurology celebrates the efficient brain that learns to get by as inattentively as possible, — apokrisis

I don’t quite follow your meaning when you say that neurology celebrates the efficient brain. Do you essentially mean that this is optimal for health and function?

The neurological level need is to be efficient and think as little as possible about life. If you know the right kinds of things to do, just do them without stopping to think and debate. Focusing attention on any skilled action - even climbing the stairs - and you can set up the kind of wrestle between two processes with different basic rates (a fifth of a second vs half a second) that causes you to stumble and misfire. When it comes to action or output, one or other level of processing has to be in charge for the moment. — apokrisis

When working to improve our skills in some activity, such as stair climbing, we necessarily focus our attention on the activity and often to good effect, so it seems there must be more to the story.

Humans have narrative consciousness, or language-structured self-consciousness. A good way to direct attention is to speak to ourselves in our heads as if we are addressing a person - our self.

So this is another habit(!) we learn. We construct an integrated tale about who we are, what we are about. There is this whole life story about the reasons we would do this or that which is all part of the learnt apparatus of being a self-regulating member of a human society. — apokrisis

I understand this learned habit of self is neurologically located in the DMN (default mode network). So I’m wondering if perhaps it’s an overactive DMN that’s to blame for the stair stumbling previously mentioned rather than ‘focused attention’. If so, it would seem that neurology celebrates the efficient brain that learns to live as attentively as possible, without the burden of an overactive DMN.

I should say that I've never seen an instance where I thought a mod should be flagged on this forum.

A simple question - what is the neurological basis for the subconscious or unconscious mind? — EnPassant

That's not a simple question. It's kind of like asking someone like me who's not a chip designer what the semiconductor basis is for the math my computer is performing. To even begin to answer the question I think we'd need to know the exact function of all 100 billion neurons in a human mind.

How do physical neurons divide the psyche in this way? — EnPassant

It sounds like your real interest is consciousness.

(It is questions like this that convince me that neurology is not going to explain what the mind is.) — EnPassant

Consciousness is not completely understood in any field.

Unfortunately however, diversity often dies in a slow painful death and groupthink takes its place.
— praxis

Why does that happen? — frank

A natural attraction to order, I suppose.

Implants can really speed up the process, my geeky side imagines.

I tried it on a different forum once. If moderators on a forum are of a similar mindset they can pretty much do whatever because no one will check them and they can ignore the membership. That’s one reason diversity is good. Unfortunately however, diversity often dies in a slow painful death and groupthink takes its place.

I’ve noticed the mod team here lose some diversity of late, incidentally.

By considering how much time I have to waste.

I think we need to get our definitions straight otherwise this will go nowhere. Like I said I'm no expert but I would go with the definition that consciousness is the ability to be aware of the external environment. That ability appears to be produced by parts of the brain. The tree is in the external environment. — Blake Kelson

This suggests that everything a tree is exists in the external environment, including the concept of a tree and everything that a tree means to a human being. Is that what you believe?

So the Capital Gazette is said to have a left-center bias.

Religion is a natural part of human experience, since it exercises parts of the brain. It works the frontal lobe; imagination, as well as various spatial or 3-D aspects of the brain. The concept of God merges opposites; left versus right is 2-D, into a neutral third, which is 3-D. Jesus on the cross in the center between two thieves is a 3-D concept. One attempts to merge opposites into a new center that is different from the two. — wellwisher

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

If you practice a religion, but are not aware you are doing so, due to denial it is a religion, the exercise still has the same unconscious affects. If you practice a religion, with open eyes, without denial, there is less unconsciousness. — wellwisher

The subconscious effect you're talking about essentially amounts to bonding. Indeed some etymological interpretations of the word 'religion' connect it with religare "to bind fast." Many sociological phenomenon function in this way, such as ideologies, political affiliations, sports enthusiasm, or in a very deliberate fashion, commercial branding.

Either we're aware of the binding or we're not, the particular type of meaning system is irrelevant. If anything, someone adhering to a religious system of meaning would tend to be less conscious of its effects on them, as evidenced by the way a religious believer will often irrationally deny obvious facts.

The definition of religion that is now in use; religion defined by deities, allows plausible denial, by the left, based on a human tradition. — wellwisher

I can't make much sense of this as stated. Only someone who doesn't know much about religion would define it by deities. What human tradition are you referring to?

Manmade global warming is a religion. It is not coincidence that the right is less impacted, since they already have a core religion. They don't need another one. The left is still looking for a core replacement, that is not called a religion, based on the current definition, but which gives the same brain buzz. — wellwisher

Unfortunately, global warming became politically associated with the left, most notably because of Al Gore's championing the issue. He may have unintentionally done more harm than good in this respect.

The left was left scrambling for a new religion. It found it in Trump mythology, where Trump is the archetypical bad guy. — wellwisher

Archetypally, Trump is a trickster. The tricksters' function is basically to restore meaning in a stagnant system. In the bigger picture, Trump could end up being a good thing.

The atheist religion; based on the broader definition, is similar to a mirror image of Buddhism; opposites. Buddhism is introspective that denies the illusions of the world; cultural and materialism, in favor of developing the inner man and higher human potential. There is science in this; meditation, without the need of deities. The atheists seek a similar goal; human progress, but do so in an extroverted way, connected to materialism, technology, and cultural norms. — wellwisher

Buddhism has no interest in "developing the inner man and higher human potential." It's interested in transcending samsara (everything). And there are deities in Buddhism.

Western enlightenment values, which the left predominantly subscribes to, puts its faith in reason, science, humanism, and progress. This could be seen as a religion, as you seem to define it. But when it gets too religious it starts to become anti-enlightenment.

The anti-Trump movement would be form of religion, by the broader definition, since it is a type of mythology where the archetypical evil leader takes on the traits of all things bad. It is a type of fairy tale. This is not reality but is a religion without deities. — wellwisher

I’m “anti-Trump” and I know with certainty that he’s not the embodiment of all things bad. That is indeed a silly fairy tale. Do you actually believe this narrative?

Hidden versus open religion is why the left is more besides itself, and the right is able to maintain; conserve. — wellwisher

What does this mean?

Is there a sense in which society itself is "insane"? — Baden

Most definitely, just look around.

At base level, you express it to be in with the crowd you want to be in with. So, you only put it into practice then to the extent it appears credible to your peers, and believe it to the extent necessary that your actions become credible to yourself. — Baden

The blue lie, where believing or supporting a lie is an expression of solidarity, is scary because it could lead to another four years of Trump, and of course because it's irrational.

I believe we can know our somatic sphere of reality.
— praxis

Yes, in as much as our perceptual capacity can not immerse itself in the direct nature of the world beyond our skulls, this has to be conceded. Even if we are plunged into cold water, our brain only has proprioception, pressure, and temperature receptors to go on. However, this second hand representation of reality seems fairly consistent and reliable. — Bitter Crank

Maybe it's a simulation and only appears to be consistent and reliable.

I don’t believe there’s objective meaning or morality.
— praxis

I wouldn't go that far (I'm not a nihilist, I guess). However, we do find it difficult to be objective: — Bitter Crank

Is it about our capacity for objectivity or is it more like assuming that reality is imbued with inherent values, in a God or something, and we merely discover these values?

One way I know that I'm not a nihilist is that I value and stand for things like truth. Oddly, now that I think about it, many people, like those with religious or 'traditional values', value meaning over truth. Some call it faith.

Varieties of nihilism argue...

--the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life
--life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value
--there is no inherent morality; accepted moral values are abstractly contrived
--knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist — Bitter Crank

Some of the list is a little ambiguous but it seems to indicate that I’m a nihilist. I’m not a nihilist.

For the first item on the list, it’s a popular belief that things like religion offer meaning, or perhaps the pursuit of the American dream, or having children. I haven’t chosen to adopt or pursue these reputedly meaningful things. But I don’t think this should be on the list because I simply value less popular things and nihilism isn’t about popular vs unpopular values.

I don’t believe there’s objective meaning or morality.

I don’t believe we can know reality. I believe we can know our somatic sphere of reality.

Its not like i can "feel" meaninglessness... — marcolobo8

Imagine being trapped in a repetitive and unfulfilling life with no possibility of escaping it.

Does life feel meaningless to you? Like endlessly repetitive and therefore without any real purpose.

My six month old Australian Shepard isn’t always prone to comprise. I think we have months more of extensive training to go. He’s a good companion though.

However your approach makes it clear that you understand people like me, people who feel and are fundamentally rooted in emotion. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What a unique identity to adopt.

Having said that, my son who is in college is in such a high level math class that when he comes home and interacts with the family, he has a hard time converting back to basic math. I realize it sounds absurd but you can see him having to work at turning down his knowledge to entertain such simple math problems. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So for instance you’re serving tea and ask, “one lump or two?” And he’s doing mathmatical simulations to determine the optimal quantity of sucrose to consume for the next hour?

Who's unfamiliar with that expression? ...

Your thread, "When You Sold Your Soul To The Devil" -- your OP, Hanover's response, and 1 paragraph of 0-9's quoted text from Oscar Wilde -- reads at the 8th grade level according to the Fry/Ragor readability formula. — Bitter Crank

Must be dumbing it down for us.

If you take a materialists point of view there are no values apart from the ones you create. If you don't then this generalization is not about you since the stereotypical leftist is an atheist. — Jacykow

I think you'll agree that we don't create all of our values. We may contrive and develop some, but many are ingrained into us from birth and the culture in which we are raised.

Some believe that a major benefit that the enlightenment brought is the capacity to categorize our values, like 'religious' and 'secular', for example.

Can you give an example of a belief system that introduces the soul as something without an unquestionable value given to every person? — Jacykow

In a sense, Buddhism holds that the 'concept' of a soul has negative value, in that there are no essences, and ignorance, or a lack of realization of this, leads to suffering.

The whole point of the soul is to elevate people above any materialistic hierarchy.

Interesting theory.

A curious phenomenon with conservatives is that they're predominantly pro-life AND pro-death penalty. How does that make any sense at all? Because they hold to 'traditional' values. Who determines those values? Not the individual.

Yes.

Religion is there, it's just not recognized as religion. — darthbarracuda

And yes.

But I don’t think you addressed why organized religion is more perverse post-enlightenment. What’s the fundamental difference?

Organized religion existed before but developed into something truly perverse during and after the Enlightenment. — darthbarracuda

How so?

You cannot value what you cannot choose - the right values rising in hierarchies and not needlessly resisting the inevitable collapse of any group to a hierarchy. — Jacykow

People can live cooperatively for mutual benefit. I’m not sure if a hierarchical structure is nessisary for this to take place. In any case, we can freely choose which groups to join, unless prevented by the prevailing hierarchy.

I may have overdone it a bit but since materialism doesnt really elevate the individual to a god but that is exactly what the individual becomes: the only source of value. — Jacykow

This doesn’t make sense to me, to think of myself as the only source of meaning.

I’m liberal but not materialist, incidentally.