Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:
I'm not buying it. Hobbes and I are on the same page here. Go argue with him if you like. Inculcating false notions is a part of socialization, and is negative, thus brainwashing, though society doesn't see it that way, because its the defacto world view.

I'm not sure what the term "it" refers to in the first sentence above. Aside from that, you have shown that my earlier charge is indeed true. You're not drawing and maintaining a meaningful distinction between brainwashing and initial language acquisition(which includes adopting one's original world-view). In order for your argument to convince a reader/listener who has strong critical thinking skills, you must be able to discriminate between brainwashing and initial language acquisition. Otherwise, you end up talking about brainwashing the way you have here. Brainwashing is not a part of all socialization. If it were, then you would be using it in order to argue against it. Language use is socialization.

It is also quite problematic to claim that inculcating false belief is equal to brainwashing. Since it is the case that all thought/belief systems inevitable include some false belief somewhere along the line, none would be immune from containing falsehood. We teach thought/belief systems(worldviews). So, if that alone counts as inculcating, and that counts as brainwashing, then everything ever taught any any given time which happened to be false counts as brainwashing. Teaching false belief is not the same thing as teaching another how to look at the world in such a way that little to no future life experience and/or evidence can or will change their minds about their own false thought/belief. The former is teaching false belief, and it doesn't always amount to the latter... which IS something that makes perfect sense to call "brainwashing".

Don't get me wrong here. As I said earlier, I'm no theist. In fact, I just argued that teaching young children certain kinds of thought/belief promotes and/or inevitably develops certain habits of mind that can and quite often does stop one from ever being able to accept anything that contradicts the initial worldview. It is imperative to understand that those kinds of thought/belief and habits of mind are not just a part of spiritual teachings. They are taught within many other thought/belief systems, including but not limited to some strong atheists. Another point I'm making is that not all spiritual teachings include and/or require those kinds of thought/belief. So, with all that in mind...

The underlying problem(brainwashing) isn't properly taken into account if the focus is upon spiritual teachings alone. Arguing against a specific kind of teaching(like teaching spirituality) misses many an appropriate brainwashing target. Those rightly include the teaching(particularly to those incapable of critical thinking) of any and all secular world-views that are chock full of falsehood, as well as the religious ones which aspire towards and reward having unshakable absolute certainty that something or other is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Do you really believe everything you were taught was the truth?

Do you really believe that everything you(or I for that matter) were taught was false?

Education would be completely different if it was. It's a machine to fit people in to the society they are in. Real education comes later, separating all the fictions you were brought up in.

This sounds a little too much like conspiracy theorist talk for my taste... despite the fact that it may be based upon some truth, here and there.

Look Sonny Jim. Spirit, not existing, spirituality is a fabrication. Produce a spirit for me, or stop teaching spirituality of any kind. Hope that's a little clearer.

Dalek Prime wrote:Look Sonny Jim...

Irrelevant. Etiquette found wanting.

...Spirit, not existing, spirituality is a fabrication. Produce a spirit for me, or stop teaching spirituality of any kind...

You are not the boss of me!

You are moving the goalposts. Red herring. The claim quoted directly above rests it's meaningfulness upon the rather dubious presupposition that existential conditions include our producing that which exists. They don't. If that leaves the reader a bit empty, perhaps it be better put a bit differently. What difference does it make whether or not I can produce a spirit for you? None! Here's why...

Produce a personality for me, or freedom, or kindness, or inner beauty, or wisdom, or knowledge, or justice, or dishonesty, or truth, or reality, or dark matter, or dark energy, or an electron, or your best memory, or the last legitimate concern you had, or the feelings you currently have within you. Surely the point is now becoming clearer? There are many things that cannot be readily produced on our whim. It most certainly doesn't follow from that that we ought not teach others about them. It also most certainly doesn't follow from that that any of those things do not exist.

The argument is found sorely wanting.

Hope that's a little clearer.

It was suspect from the beginning whether or not you had any idea about what sensibly counts as brainwashing. I openly stated as much. I have since adequately justified that statement of thought/belief. So... I'm curious:Are you conceding or granting the counterarguments, for ignoring them is also an unacceptable move?

To quickly summarize... I argued against your notion of brainwashing by showing that it includes all initial language acquisition. That's a reductio ad absurdum, and it's both formal and formidable. You've neglected that much, although it most certainly garners your attention. Instead, you've changed the argument from what counts as brainwashing to what counts as "existing".

When we say someone exists, we are effectively saying that a form of food is animated by spirit, and until science can make a lump of meat stand up and dance with personality, spirit is a very good description of the life within, for that’s the accustomed usage.

The implications of this are many. One implication is that spirit must have form. When spirit is in meat food, we see the food and call it personality, and most cultures have taboos about eating food with personality.

However our physical senses detect only a spectrum of reality, and logic says that spirit which requires form likely moves into a form undetected by meat senses, when it leaves the food.

creativesoul wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Look Sonny Jim...

Irrelevant. Etiquette found wanting.

...Spirit, not existing, spirituality is a fabrication. Produce a spirit for me, or stop teaching spirituality of any kind...

You are not the boss of me!

You are moving the goalposts. Red herring. The claim quoted directly above rests it's meaningfulness upon the rather dubious presupposition that existential conditions include our producing that which exists. They don't. If that leaves the reader a bit empty, perhaps it be better put a bit differently. What difference does it make whether or not I can produce a spirit for you? None! Here's why...

Produce a personality for me, or freedom, or kindness, or inner beauty, or wisdom, or knowledge, or justice, or dishonesty, or truth, or reality, or dark matter, or dark energy, or an electron, or your best memory, or the last legitimate concern you had, or the feelings you currently have within you. Surely the point is now becoming clearer? There are many things that cannot be readily produced on our whim. It most certainly doesn't follow from that that we ought not teach others about them. It also most certainly doesn't follow from that that any of those things do not exist.

The argument is found sorely wanting.

Hope that's a little clearer.

It was suspect from the beginning whether or not you had any idea about what sensibly counts as brainwashing. I openly stated as much. I have since adequately justified that statement of thought/belief. So... I'm curious:Are you conceding or granting the counterarguments, for ignoring them is also an unacceptable move?

To quickly summarize... I argued against your notion of brainwashing by showing that it includes all initial language acquisition. That's a reductio ad absurdum, and it's both formal and formidable. You've neglected that much, although it most certainly garners your attention. Instead, you've changed the argument from what counts as brainwashing to what counts as "existing".

And you haven't proven language acquisition proves truth of that being taught. It's the cart before the horse. I've already stated that false teachings occur societally, and you did not accept that, tossing the charge of conspiracy theorist at me, instead of acknowledging occurrence. Not my problem that you don't accept when I say that truth does not have to be spoken to acquire language. Language can just as easily be aquired through false teachings. You merely have a different opinion which you can't prove. So quit barking at me like a little frazzled doggy who thinks its territory has been crossed, when in a public park.

Boo hoo on goalposts. To paraphrase you, you're not the boss of me either, and I'll take this discussion in other directions if I'm dissatisfied with your arguments. To remind you, you barged in on my conversation with another, and you do not get to decide where this goes, or even if it does. Which I will state right now, it doesn't. So go ahead and have the last say, little one. I'm done with you.

Walker wrote:When we say someone exists, we are effectively saying that a form of food is animated by spirit, and until science can make a lump of meat stand up and dance with personality, spirit is a very good description of the life within, for that’s the accustomed usage.

The implications of this are many. One implication is that spirit must have form. When spirit is in meat food, we see the food and call it personality, and most cultures have taboos about eating food with personality.

However our physical senses detect only a spectrum of reality, and logic says that spirit which requires form likely moves into a form undetected by meat senses, when it leaves the food.

Bullshit. Meat creates the consciousness, and dies with the meat. Some unseen 'wisp of air' does not hop from meat to meat. But please do measure it doing your hop, if you can. No, you can't? Well, you're talking speculative shit then, and should save it for some occult forum instead.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:When we say someone exists, we are effectively saying that a form of food is animated by spirit, and until science can make a lump of meat stand up and dance with personality, spirit is a very good description of the life within, for that’s the accustomed usage.

The implications of this are many. One implication is that spirit must have form. When spirit is in meat food, we see the food and call it personality, and most cultures have taboos about eating food with personality.

However our physical senses detect only a spectrum of reality, and logic says that spirit which requires form likely moves into a form undetected by meat senses, when it leaves the food.

Bullshit. Meat creates the consciousness, and dies with the meat. Some unseen 'wisp of air' does not hop from meat to meat. But please do measure it doing your hop, if you can. No, you can't? Well, you're talking speculative shit then, and should save it for some occult forum instead.

Read more carefully. Spirit may indeed hop from meat to meat, but that that was not written.

Logical inference indicates that spirit does “hop” from form-to-form.

Due to your meat limitations, you do not have the capacity to perceive reality that lies beyond the spectrum of your sensory limitations. Thus, forms likely exist beyond your range of perception.

So you see, your lack of attention to what you read, your lack of comprehension to what you pay attention to, and the obvious repetitive thinking applied to a multitude of topics, indicates that the bullshit you seek is in fact lodged between your two ears.



(Daleks are notoriously gauche, so no need to apologize for your crude lack of manners, dalek.)

Then again, you may in fact be perceiving forms but are inattentive, and so they do not register upon awareness.

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:When we say someone exists, we are effectively saying that a form of food is animated by spirit, and until science can make a lump of meat stand up and dance with personality, spirit is a very good description of the life within, for that’s the accustomed usage.

The implications of this are many. One implication is that spirit must have form. When spirit is in meat food, we see the food and call it personality, and most cultures have taboos about eating food with personality.

However our physical senses detect only a spectrum of reality, and logic says that spirit which requires form likely moves into a form undetected by meat senses, when it leaves the food.

Bullshit. Meat creates the consciousness, and dies with the meat. Some unseen 'wisp of air' does not hop from meat to meat. But please do measure it doing your hop, if you can. No, you can't? Well, you're talking speculative shit then, and should save it for some occult forum instead.

Read more carefully. Spirit may indeed hop from meat to meat, but that that was not written.

Logical inference indicates that spirit does “hop” from form-to-form.

Due to your meat limitations, you do not have the capacity to perceive reality that lies beyond the spectrum of your sensory limitations. Thus, forms likely exist beyond your range of perception.

So you see, your lack of attention to what you read, your lack of comprehension to what you pay attention to, and the obvious repetitive thinking applied to a multitude of topics, indicates that the bullshit you seek is in fact is lodged between your two ears.

(Daleks are notoriously gauche, so no need to apologize for your crude lack of manners, dalek.)

You say you didn't say it, then you repeat it again as though you think you're saying something else.

I repeat. There is no duality in mind/body. It is one. Meat dies, mind dies.

PS. Fuck your manners.

Try to go beyond the dalek default of "exterminate" when dealing with humans and time lords, dalek.

Then again, you may in fact be perceiving forms but are inattentive, and so they do not register upon your awareness, since awareness is fogged (or blocked) by ignorance like ohm impedance, or resistance.

Walker wrote:

Try to go beyond the dalek default of "exterminate" when dealing with humans and time lords, dalek.

Then again, you may in fact be perceiving forms but are inattentive, and so they do not register upon your awareness, since awareness is fogged (or blocked) by ignorance like ohm impedance, or resistance.

Or your just full of speculative shit, as I suggested. No one can logically infers that something which cannot be proven (spirit) hops between bits of meat. Its shockingly ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Its also shockingly ludicrous that you would say I'm limited by my five senses in a meat suit, when you have the same limitations, yet suggest otherwise.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:

Try to go beyond the dalek default of "exterminate" when dealing with humans and time lords, dalek.

Then again, you may in fact be perceiving forms but are inattentive, and so they do not register upon your awareness, since awareness is fogged (or blocked) by ignorance like ohm impedance, or resistance.

Or your just full of speculative shit, as I suggested.

Actually, my presentation is logical, reasonable, and makes perfect sense.

Your transmissions are nothing but weak assertions, puffed up with arrogance. And that in a nutshell is your bad argument, which makes me smarter.



Fractured Fairy Tales always slips in a parallel plot (or joke) for adults that goes unseen by children.

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:

Try to go beyond the dalek default of "exterminate" when dealing with humans and time lords, dalek.

Then again, you may in fact be perceiving forms but are inattentive, and so they do not register upon your awareness, since awareness is fogged (or blocked) by ignorance like ohm impedance, or resistance.

Or your just full of speculative shit, as I suggested.

Actually, my presentation is logical, reasonable, and makes perfect sense.

Your transmissions are nothing but weak assertions, puffed up with arrogance. And that in a nutshell is your bad argument, which makes me smarter.



Fractured Fairy Tales always slips in a parallel plot (or joke) for adults that goes unseen by children.

Actually, it just proves you have a bigger ego. And to be completely unaware of how stunningly stupid you really are.

Move along little dog. You're done pooping in my front yard.

Aww, to heck with it Walker. I've changed my mind, and do indeed want to hear how you logically infer both the existence of spirit, and its separation from the body. I'm all ears and eyes.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Or your just full of speculative shit, as I suggested.

Actually, my presentation is logical, reasonable, and makes perfect sense.

Your transmissions are nothing but weak assertions, puffed up with arrogance. And that in a nutshell is your bad argument, which makes me smarter.



Fractured Fairy Tales always slips in a parallel plot (or joke) for adults that goes unseen by children.

Actually, it just proves you have a bigger ego. And to be completely unaware of how stunningly stupid you really are.

Move along little dog. You're done pooping in my front yard.

Aww, to heck with it Walker. I've changed my mind, and do indeed want to hear how you logically infer both the existence of spirit, and its separation from the body. I'm all ears and eyes.

Walker does not even know the meaning of logic.
I'd not hold my breath if I were you.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Or your just full of speculative shit, as I suggested.

Actually, my presentation is logical, reasonable, and makes perfect sense.

Your transmissions are nothing but weak assertions, puffed up with arrogance. And that in a nutshell is your bad argument, which makes me smarter.



Fractured Fairy Tales always slips in a parallel plot (or joke) for adults that goes unseen by children.

Actually, it just proves you have a bigger ego. And to be completely unaware of how stunningly stupid you really are.

Move along little dog. You're done pooping in my front yard.

Aww, to heck with it Walker. I've changed my mind, and do indeed want to hear how you logically infer both the existence of spirit, and its separation from the body. I'm all ears and eyes.

Fie upon you dalek troll.

When an angry dwarf tells you that he’s not happy, ask him which one he is.
Perhaps dopey or grumpy?

The presentation is already complete, irrefuted, and indeed irrefutable. However, you seem to think that your inability to fit reality into the small world (box) of your creation constitutes some kind of rational proof, presentation, rebuttal or contradiction. Thus a dalek limitation is revealed.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Walker wrote: Actually, my presentation is logical, reasonable, and makes perfect sense.

Your transmissions are nothing but weak assertions, puffed up with arrogance. And that in a nutshell is your bad argument, which makes me smarter.



Fractured Fairy Tales always slips in a parallel plot (or joke) for adults that goes unseen by children.

Actually, it just proves you have a bigger ego. And to be completely unaware of how stunningly stupid you really are.

Move along little dog. You're done pooping in my front yard.

Aww, to heck with it Walker. I've changed my mind, and do indeed want to hear how you logically infer both the existence of spirit, and its separation from the body. I'm all ears and eyes.

Walker does not even know the meaning of logic.
I'd not hold my breath if I were you.

"I fart in your general direction."

Monty Python - French Taunting HD - The Full Version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9DCAFUerzs