Poll: Forced Thought

[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)

 

[Scylla6]

This sounds interesting and (while hypothetical) would be hideously biased. The government would say "This is great for the public but we need our beliefs" etc. This would go on down the chain until the point where no-one gets it done, leading to an interesting, but ultimately useless device, that would be used as an example of our stupidity when the revolution comes and we kill off the Sirius corp. cybernetics division. Even if you did get someone to do it there would be massive bloodshed due to those who hadn't attacking the more analytical ones.
tl;dr, Yeah sure but it would never work in society.

Wow, what a first post.
Edit: ninja'd by so many people it's untrue.