Poll: Forced Thought

[The_ModeRazor]

Oh god no.
Everyone would be as miserable and full of doubts as I and som other people are.
Forced on the entire world, it would lead humans to realize their absolute futility. We would die out very very soon.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Belief is never just about evidence and hard, empirical data - nor should it be. Having belief only after the fact hampers human endeavour, because while belief can often be damaging to humans (look at the way religion is used as a rallying tool for war, for example), belief without evidence can also inspire people to great and masterful acts (look at all the great works of art and music inspired by religion).

You have a point here, but, personally, art and music aren't good enough excuses for destruction and war.

As a side note, I have no problems with religion in and of itself, it's just that so many people know next to nothing about their own religion (as they don't question what they are told about it when they are initially indoctrinated in the first place [when they are young]) that it is easy to use religion for alternative agenda (Jesus was white, Jesus was a vegetarian, Jesus hated gays, Jesus wouldn't want you to play this video game, etc.). In essence, if people, when confronted by contradictory information, examined their own beliefs, they might find out more about their argument and have their resolve strengthened rather than weakened (The entire purpose of Advocatus Diaboli)

Destruction and war? What does that have to do with anything?

That aside, your entire argument seems to suggest that the reasons people differ in their belief systems is that they are not thinking hard enough, and if they did think hard enough then they would all.... fall into line... This way of thinking is basically the same as anyone else with a fundamentalist mindset, and has been tried before several times. Look at what took place at the Solovki camp of special purpose.

 

[Mray3460]

Your entire argument seems to suggest that the reasons people differ in their belief systems is that they are not thinking hard enough, and if they did think hard enough then they would all.... fall into line... This way of thinking is basically the same as anyone else with a fundamentalist mindset, and has been tried before several times. Look at what took place at the Solovki camp of special purpose.

I'm not suggesting that the technology would change people's belief systems, nor that, if everyone thought in the same basic way, everyone would "fall into line." There would still be a wide variety of opinions and beliefs. What I'm saying is that if the technology was applied, everyone would learn more about their own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, this would reduce misunderstanding and conflict between groups of varying ideology (although, it would never be able to eliminate it) by taking away everyone's ability to demonize the opposing side by simply saying "they're just wrong" without actually examining/completely and totally ignoring the other argument (They'd still be able to, and probably would, disagree with the other side, but they would at least be able to understand each-other and the nature of the conflict).

 

[Eldarion]

I believe in silly things like love and close relationships based on an emotional connection. No amount of "evidence" will make me change that.

We all have the right to believe any stupid thing we want.

 

[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.