Conditioning and the conditions of freedom

[CommieBastard]

Conditioning is defined as the way in which a response to particular stimuli or situations is learnt. When we act in response to something it is either because of our own highly complex set of learnt conditions, or because of genetic or physiological predisposition. Conditioning acts in this function whether it's results are intentional and planned, or incidental and caused by events over which no person has causal control. It could be said that who we are can be defined (in detail) by the combination of our conditioning and our physiological predispositions, as it is these that are responsible for our every action and thought.

By freedom it is meant the functional state wherein we have control over our actions. With the consideration of that which was said in the first bullet we might conclude that this is something not normally possessed of us. Our actions, seemingly our own, are causally derived from events not under our control, via that thing we term the 'self'. That is to say, though we do have control of our actions, we have no choice in or control over who we are when we take those actions, as this is externally determined. Being who we are then, there is no choice in the action, as we, as we are defined, can only take the action that we are disposed to in the situation.

It might be said, therefore, that where conditioning has in the past served to hamper our progress to freedom, it could be used as the mightiest tool in forging it. In order to further our freedom beyond control of our own actions, we must take control of who we are when we commit them. While we might forge our personality anew by corrective self-contemplation, this is slow and inneffective, as it is hard for this self-imposition to compete with our conditioning and physiology. It might then be said that if conditioning were to be used for the individual's purpose of redefining themselves along what they consider a more desirable model, this tool of oppression becomes a tool of freedom.
1.This is not to say it affords us total freedom, as we would still not be responsible for our conception of a desirable mental state to occupy. For example, present-day society tells women (in thousands of ways, subtle and brazen) that they "are too fat". Women are conditioned to be chronically unsatisfied about their weight. So some would volunteer for a program that conditioned them to regard large meals with revulsion and disgust; eating less would cause their weight to decline. But there's no "right weight"! She would still think that "just another five pounds less" and "I'll look really good". Where would it end? Conditioning by its very nature has no rational limits.
a.We can make distinguishment between those goals which may be reasonable and those which are not. Those which impair our health (mental or physical) are goals which can not be rationally pursued, anything else can be said to be within the bounds of reason.
2.It may be considered that the use of conditioning, requiring as it normally does the involvement of others, leaves us open to possible abuses, or damage through their incompetence or inconsideration, which has occured in the past. This would make it seem then a dangerous 'cure' to the human condition.
a.However, this does not make it entirely useless. There are degrees to which it may be used safely, with no apparent possibility for abuse. In certain areas of our lives, such as if a person were to have problems rising upon waking (inertia, hypersomnia), the conditioning involved would be specific enough for it not to be open to abuse or error.
3. It could be asked why this pursuit of an ideal of freedom is important, as what matters most is the sense of autonomy that one might feel in a society, given that we can never have a truly free or autonomous society anyway. The provision of a sense of freedom is then the only thing left which we can quantify our freedom with, and so provides the closest approximation.
a. We might then ask whether it would be desirable to have a society that creates a sense of freedom through outright brainwashing. It is apparent that this society is even less free than the current one, as your actions would not only be causally determined, but determined in detail by some other person.
Other possible applications include helping in rehabilitation in a rehabilitation orientated penal system. Consentual conditioning may be considered ideal as a solution for prisoners despite it's dangers (footnote 1). If, for example, a paedophile could be conditioned to lose his sexual obsession, he may be safely released back into society, and as long as he desired not to have that obsession it does not impinge on his freedom either. In conclusion, as a social tool for benefitting mankind conditioning has been abandoned due to it's negative associations, a seeming error. It would be impossible to rid ourselves of the element of conditioning without either making our actions entirely random, or entirely determined by instinct or rationality (footnote 3), none of which are states of freedom. I would normally consider it a good idea to use a thing beneficially where it can be, where we cannot exctricate ourselves from it. Therefore development of the process of conditioning oneself would seem an important, if not essential, part of humanity's overall development into a free and equal society, whilst conditioning of prisoners could provide a vital bastion against the sicknesses of the human mind (footnote 2). What i am proposing is that we change our personalities in order to change our circumstances via our actions. In this way, 'freeing' ourself individually, as the overall social situation is ultimately derivitive of the way people collectively live their lives, if people change themselves to become more free, then it changes society. i.e peaceful revolution, change through change instead of change through political forums.

footnote 1. Where prisoners dangerous to society and/or themselves are treated well and fairly, so as not to provide an over-riding incentive to accept any route of any nature out of the penal system. Where they are repentant, to the degree of desiring the part of them motivating them to harmful and dangerous acts to be supressed/removed.

footnote 2. New Scientist, 12 June 2004, no2451, 'Mutants, one and all', p35:
"...we also have to cope with those we inherited from their parents, and they from theirs, and so on. What, then, is the total mutational burden of the average human being? The length of time that given mutation will be passed down from one generation to the next depends on the severity of it's effects. if we suppose that an average mutation has only a mildly negative effect upon reproductive success, an estimate of three new mutations per generation leads to the depressing conclusion that the average newly conceived human bears 300 mutations that impair its health in some fashion"
This is important, though it is only a very rough estimate. The reason is that since for an ever expanding set of these genetic problems we are removing the hindrances to the possibility of breeding for people suffering from them, we are not removing the suffering, and so as time goes on the human mind and body will slowly spiral into a more and more genetically defective state. What is more, due to the way our population breeds combined with medicinal advances some detrimental genetic changes will have the potential to become so prevalent as to be universal within our species, an example might be the way the standard of our eyesight (footnote 4)(something we have had a cure for for some time, and therefore i feel indicates what lays ahead as the consequence of other newer medicines) is declining. It will eventually be the case that we cannot correct our flaws in their entirety. Man will then either have to 'return to nature', in which case we will be back to square one and lose everything we have so far achieved in our struggle for freedom and a better life, or adopt eugenics, which would maintain our existence at the cost of many elements of our freedom.

footnote 3. Rationality does not provide motivation for action, it is a tool of analysis. It could be said, however, that with rational analysis we could determine the action we SHOULD take (however, in reality this still requires irrationally determined axioms from which to work) if this were the case we would still not be free though, as we would have no choice but to act in the way which is determined by our rationality.

footnote 4. People wear glasses and carry on surviving (whereas in the past they would have died). In other words, the fact there are so many people wearing glasses proves that eyesight is declining, go back to before such medication and people with poor eyesight did not live long

Thanks to redstar2000 for his contributions.

[redstar2000]

First of all, I don't see any connection with anarchism in your hypothesis.


It might then be said that if conditioning were to be used for the individual's purpose of redefining themselves along what they consider a more desirable model, this tool of oppression becomes a tool of freedom.

Perhaps, but that just pushes the problem back a step. What conditioning -- accidental or purposeful -- has contributed to this "more desirable model"?

For example, present-day society tells women (in thousands of ways, subtle and brazen) that they "are too fat". Women are conditioned to be chronically unsatisfied about their weight.

So some would volunteer for a program that conditioned them to regard large meals with revulsion and disgust; eating less would cause their weight to decline.

But there's no "right weight"! She would still think that "just another five pounds less" and "I'll look really good".

Where would it end?

Conditioning by its very nature has no rational limits.


It may be considered that the use of conditioning, requiring as it normally does the involvement of others, leaves us open to possible abuses, or damage through their incompetence or inconsideration. This would make it seem then a dangerous 'cure' to the human condition. However, this does not make it entirely useless. There are degrees to which it may be used safely, with no apparent possibility for abuse.

Yes, and there have been, historically, plenty of such abuses.

On the other hand, it's been used successfully to "cure" "fear of flying" and other phobias.

But when you get into the realm of re-shaping personalities, I think you've gone a wee bit too far. See this thread...

HELL IN JAMAICA! The Stepford Teen Factory (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25645)


In conclusion, as a social tool for benefiting mankind conditioning has been abandoned due to its negative associations, a seeming error.

No it hasn't been abandoned...but it should be.


Given that the normal process of natural selection in humans is for the large part non-existent due to modern medicinal practices, it can be assumed that over time our detrimental mutations will accrue.

This is not relevant to your main thesis.

In any event, detrimental mutations that are "curable" are not, by the laws of natural selection, "really detrimental"...unless technological civilization collapses.

From the standpoint of natural selection, inclusive reproductive fitness is "all that counts". If you mate, have at least two kids who survive to reproduce themselves, you've "made the grade" as far as natural selection is concerned.

The only mutations that are truly "detrimental" are those that kill you before you can reproduce, kill your kids before they can reproduce, or make you or your kids sterile.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

First of all, I don't see any connection with anarchism in your hypothesis.

I never said that there was, i stated that this was the philosophy of an "anarchist" in the sub-title. Me being an "anarchist", and this being a philosophy of mine, this seemed a statement that wasn't too controversial.


Perhaps, but that just pushes the problem back a step. What conditioning -- accidental or purposeful -- has contributed to this "more desirable model"?

For example, present-day society tells women (in thousands of ways, subtle and brazen) that they "are too fat". Women are conditioned to be chronically unsatisfied about their weight.

So some would volunteer for a program that conditioned them to regard large meals with revulsion and disgust; eating less would cause their weight to decline.

But there's no "right weight"! She would still think that "just another five pounds less" and "I'll look really good".

Where would it end?

Conditioning by its very nature has no rational limits.

for which i would point you to where i said:


This is not to say it affords us total freedom, as we would still not be responsible for our conception of a desirable mental state to occupy


Yes, and there have been, historically, plenty of such abuses

which i do not and did not deny. It was my intention that what i said which you quoted implied this, though i may have failed in this regard.


But when you get into the realm of re-shaping personalities, I think you've gone a wee bit too far. See this thread...

HELL IN JAMAICA! The Stepford Teen Factory

This is not something i advocate, i made an effort to make it clear that i only consider consentual conditioning an acceptable social practice.


QUOTE
In conclusion, as a social tool for benefiting mankind conditioning has been abandoned due to its negative associations, a seeming error.



No it hasn't been abandoned...but it should be.

conditioning has not been abandoned, but i used a very specific wording. 'as a social tool for benefiting mankind'. For this purpose, it has barely even been explored. As for 'it should be' it would be impossible to rid ourselves of the element of conditioning without either making our actions entirely random, or entirely determined by instinct. I would normally consider it a good idea to use a thing beneficially where it can be, where we cannot exctricate ourselves from it.


This is not relevant to your main thesis.

which is why it is a footnote, and not in my main thesis.


In any event, detrimental mutations that are "curable" are not, by the laws of natural selection, "really detrimental"...unless technological civilization collapses.

From the standpoint of natural selection, inclusive reproductive fitness is "all that counts". If you mate, have at least two kids who survive to reproduce themselves, you've "made the grade" as far as natural selection is concerned.

The only mutations that are truly "detrimental" are those that kill you before you can reproduce, kill your kids before they can reproduce, or make you or your kids sterile.

This is a very basic, and incorrect, understanding of natural selection. Natural selection is the process whereby any detrimental genetic feature is removed from the genome, where a detrimental genetic feature is one which can impinge on the efficiency of your breeding (not just directly stop you doing so, or your kids from doing so), this includes almost all health concerns. I should maybe have gone into more detail about this. When i say that


the normal process of natural selection in humans is for the large part non-existant due to modern medicinal practices

I mean to say that the human genome is accruing features which are indeed detrimental to our normal functioning and breeding. You see, because we can physically, without genetically, correct the normal consequences of these mutations a person can carry on functioning, despite passing on detrimental genes further to their children. The problem with a system like this is that eventually humans will have to be treated for an extensive number of genetic disorders from birth to death in order to keep them functional. The only sensible hypothesis we can draw is that eventually the accruing genetic flaws will be too many for us to cure in the physical way. Therefore, unless we come up with a way to comprehensively and completely engineer the human genome then we will be driven to our extinction. In the meantime, due to our lack of this kind of cure, I am making the suggestion of a stop gap measure, namely conditioning, to keep the human mind as sane as possible before our genetic shackles weigh us too far down.

Annoyingly i seem to have written the most about what i consider the least important point... ah well, i suppose the science just needed more background.

[redstar2000]

Conditioning has not been abandoned, but I used a very specific wording. 'as a social tool for benefiting mankind'. For this purpose, it has barely even been explored. As for 'it should be' it would be impossible to rid ourselves of the element of conditioning without either making our actions entirely random, or entirely determined by instinct.

You left out: or determined by entirely rational considerations.

In the real world, of course, all three elements are involved in shaping our decisions.

But it seems to me that communists and anarchists should be the most vigorous advocates of reason as the dominant factor and do all in our power to "condition" people to prefer that method above all others.

Why? It works better.

Why else? It enhances the sense of autonomy rather than reducing or negating it.

Indeed, I find it very odd that a self-designated "anarchist" would embrace the idea of deliberate conditioning, even if it were "consensual".

It's almost as if such a person were saying "relieve me of the burden of freedom...it's too heavy for me to bear".


I mean to say that the human genome is accruing features which are indeed detrimental to our normal functioning and breeding. You see, because we can physically, without genetically, correct the normal consequences of these mutations a person can carry on functioning, despite passing on detrimental genes further to their children. The problem with a system like this is that eventually humans will have to be treated for an extensive number of genetic disorders from birth to death in order to keep them functional. The only sensible hypothesis we can draw is that eventually the accruing genetic flaws will be too many for us to cure in the physical way.

I don't see why this should be the only possible outcome...or even a possible outcome.

If someone is born with a genetic flaw (or group of flaws) that cannot be physically repaired or compensated for, then they die without reproducing...thus removing the flaw from the gene pool. The ones who don't have that flaw live on to reproduce.

It also overlooks the fact that a certain (very small) number of mutations are positive...those who are so lucky will, in the long run, out-reproduce those with detrimental mutations -- though it may take many generations for that advantage to make itself felt.

Within the paradigm of natural selection, the hypothesis that species go extinct because of the accumulation of genetic flaws is a plausible one...and almost certainly happens on occasion.

But the fossil record as well as modern experience suggest that species usually go extinct because of catastrophe of one kind or another...dramatic climate changes, meteor impact, an overwhelmingly superior competing species, etc.

But as you noted, the point is probably moot. Genetic engineering is still far from the ability to make "better humans"...but that's clearly what's going to happen within the next few hundred years at most.

The steady accumulation of genetic flaws will be halted...and then reversed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

You left out: or determined by entirely rational considerations

rationality does not provide motivation for action, it is a tool of analysis. It could be said, however, that with rational analysis we could determine the action we SHOULD take (however, in reality this still requires irrationally determined axioms from which to work) if this were the case we would still not be free though, as we would have no choice but to act in the way which is determined by our rationality.


But it seems to me that communists and anarchists should be the most vigorous advocates of reason as the dominant factor and do all in our power to "condition" people to prefer that method above all others.

i agree we should use reason, though i disagree on why.


Why? It works better.

to an arbitrary definition of what it is for society to be 'better'.


Why else? It enhances the sense of autonomy rather than reducing or negating it.

the word sense is important here i think, as it does not actually increase our autonomy, as our actions are still derived from (depending on your opinion of what rationality is) either our brain's physiology, or the structure of the nature of existence.


Indeed, I find it very odd that a self-designated "anarchist" would embrace the idea of deliberate conditioning, even if it were "consensual".

It's almost as if such a person were saying "relieve me of the burden of freedom...it's too heavy for me to bear".

I feel more that i am saying "i have no freedom, how might i achieve it?" With the consideration that though i can determine my actions, i cannot determine who i am when i commit them, the next rational step seems to be to attempt to wield control over this, the most powerful tool i can see for this purpose being conditioning. I find it hard to see how attempting to determine my nature is in any way a relief, it is in fact one of the more burdensome projects i have committed myself to.


It also overlooks the fact that a certain (very small) number of mutations are positive...those who are so lucky will, in the long run, out-reproduce those with detrimental mutations -- though it may take many generations for that advantage to make itself felt.

I will quote the article i mentioned earlier in more detail (footnote 1):

New Scientist, 12 June 2004, no2451, 'Mutants, one and all', p35:

"...we also have to cope with those we inherited from their parents, and they from theirs, and so on. What, then, is the total mutational burden of the average human being? The length of time that given mutation will be passed down from one generation to the next depends on the severity of it's effects. if we suppose that an average mutation has only a mildly negative effect upon reproductive success, an estimate of three new mutations per generation leads to the depressing conclusion that the average newly conceived human bears 300 mutations that impair its health in some fashion"

This is important, though it is only a very rough estimate. The reason is that since for an ever expanding set of these genetic problems we are removing the hindrances to the possibility of breeding for people suffering from them, we are not removing the suffering, and so as time goes on the human mind will slowly spiral into a truly demented and delusional state that leaves us in conflict with ourselves (already happening?). What is more, due to the way our population breeds combined with medicinal advances some detrimental genetic changes will have the potential to become so prevalent as to be universal within our species, an example might be the way the standard of our eyesight (something we have had a cure for for some time, and therefore i feel indicates what lays ahead as the consequence of other newer medicines) is declining. It will eventually be the case that we cannot correct our flaws in their entirety. Man will then either have to 'return to nature', in which case we will be back to square one and lose everything we have so far achieved in our struggle for freedom and a better life, or adopt eugenics, which would maintain our existence at the cost of many elements of our freedom.


But the fossil record as well as modern experience suggest that species usually go extinct because of catastrophe of one kind or another...dramatic climate changes, meteor impact, an overwhelmingly superior competing species, etc

Agreed. However, the fossil record contains nothing to do with species which have developed civilisation, and significantly within this a rapidly developing field of medicine. My point was, in fact, that we are in a situation unique and new.


But as you noted, the point is probably moot. Genetic engineering is still far from the ability to make "better humans"...but that's clearly what's going to happen within the next few hundred years at most.

I do not consider it a concern that humanity may become extinct, as it is not beneficial to our condition that more people be in existence. However, it is a concern when people are in existence and suffering from their mental condition. After all, our brain states are produced by a complex cocktail of drugs, making our lives effectively a long relatively consistent (footnote 2) trip(in the drug sense), with this as a consideration i think it best that we seek to make our trip as pleasant as possible, and the best way to do this is bring it in line with our conception of what a pleasant trip (i.e in this case personality) would be. And yes, i know this isn't freedom in the sense it is normally defined, especially considering that even by seeking to do this i am merely manifesting the nature of causality, however it is the closest thing to that definition of freedom that exists in reality.

in conclusion, "He who considers more deeply knows that whatever his acts and judgements may be, he is always wrong".

Footnote 1: this article is also available from www.newscientist.com within the archive, which you can get a trial membership for for a seven day period.

Footnote 2: consistent simply because it is derived from a consistent reality. Which is not to say i beleive we have reason to beleive how we view reality is how it is, as it is in the process of derivation that we lose all reliability.

[CommieBastard]

a minor correction to a previous post


QUOTE
First of all, I don't see any connection with anarchism in your hypothesis.



I never said that there was, i stated that this was the philosophy of an "anarchist" in the sub-title. Me being an "anarchist", and this being a philosophy of mine, this seemed a statement that wasn't too controversial.

I maybe should also say that this is a central tenet of the philosophy i hold to be true, which though not all of the individual tenets i hold are out of necessity anarchist, the philosophy i have as a whole is one which is usually pigeon-holed as such.

[redstar2000]

to an arbitrary definition of what it is for society to be 'better'.

Yes, I suppose the definition of "better" would be, in a sense, "arbitrary".

Is that a valid criticism? We "arbitrarily" value pleasure and avoid pain...does that affect the validity of our choice(s)?


The word sense is important here I think, as it does not actually increase our autonomy, as our actions are still derived from (depending on your opinion of what rationality is) either our brain's physiology, or the structure of the nature of existence.

A "sense of autonomy" is pleasurable...whether it is "real" or not.

Indeed, one of the great ideological appeals of modern capitalism is the skillful creation of a very false "sense of autonomy".

Even if "absolute autonomy" is not a realistic possibility, communism should and, indeed, must offer a better approximation.


I feel more that I am saying "I have no freedom, how might I achieve it?" With the consideration that though I can determine my actions, I cannot determine who I am when I commit them, the next rational step seems to be to attempt to wield control over this; the most powerful tool I can see for this purpose being conditioning.

Why is "who you are" important? And why must it be distinguished from the actual actions that you take?

I think in a fundamental sense that we are what we do. Someone who dislikes himself/herself to the point of volunteering to be "conditioned" into another personality (who will presumably do different things) strikes me as distinctly odd if not bizarre.

If you wish to do something different, why not just do it?


...and so as time goes on the human mind will slowly spiral into a truly demented and delusional state that leaves us in conflict with ourselves (already happening?).

I don't see anything in the cited article to justify this conclusion. Surely the people who had the misfortune to live in the "Age of Faith" were far more demented and delusional...and yet would have had many fewer detrimental mutations. (A seriously detrimental mutation in 1200CE meant an early death, period.)


...an example might be the way the standard of our eyesight...is declining.

Is that true? How would we know that?

How large would your sample have to be to accurately represent six or seven billion people and how would you construct it to insure it was representative?


It will eventually be the case that we cannot correct our flaws in their entirety.

I don't think this really follows from the evidence. Accrued flaws eventually become an obstacle to reproduction...and are accordingly removed from the gene pool -- though perhaps not entirely. That is, a certain portion of the population will retain a portion of the flaws and continue to reproduce...though possibly at a slower rate than those with even fewer flaws. But when the burden of flaws grows too great ("can no longer be repaired/compensated for"), reproduction ceases and so does the transmission of the flaws.

I would also add that the role of foetal diagnosis and testing is increasingly important; when serious genetic flaws are discovered, it is becoming customary to terminate the pregnancy. Random mutations that are seriously detrimental will continue to occur...but it will be more difficult for them to spread into the gene pool as those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from them will never be born and thus never live to reproduce.


However, it is a concern when people are in existence and suffering from their mental condition.

This would suggest that the detrimental mutations that most concern you relate to those affecting the brain.

But surely those are among the easiest to treat; we already have many drugs that "get people high" -- substitute pleasurable sensations for suffering -- and more are being developed (in "underground labs") even as we speak.

Surely a communist society would generously distribute such drugs to those who were in "mental pain"...we are not Christians who see "virtue" in suffering.


...I think it best that we seek to make our trip as pleasant as possible, and the best way to do this is bring it in line with our conception of what a pleasant trip (i.e in this case personality) would be.

If I understand this correctly, it appears to completely contradict your initial thesis.

Put it this way...

1. We could change our personalities (through conditioning) to perceive our present circumstances as pleasurable and desirable.

2. We could change our circumstances (through revolution) to new circumstances that we would perceive as more pleasurable and desirable than our present circumstances.

I like door number two.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

Yes, I suppose the definition of "better" would be, in a sense, "arbitrary".

Is that a valid criticism? We "arbitrarily" value pleasure and avoid pain...does that affect the validity of our choice(s)?

my point was that being arbitrary it is impossible to come to an agreement on whether it is actually better. You will think it better, and so it's good for you, but another person will arbitrarily assign it as something which is worse. Whereas we arbitrarily value pleasure and avoid pain, we have a lot more common ground as to what we find pleasurable or painful than on what society we find better.


A "sense of autonomy" is pleasurable...whether it is "real" or not.

Indeed, one of the great ideological appeals of modern capitalism is the skillful creation of a very false "sense of autonomy".

Even if "absolute autonomy" is not a realistic possibility, communism should and, indeed, must offer a better approximation.

The provision of a better sense of autonomy does not imply a better approximation of it. If the sense of autonomy is the only important thing, then would you advocate a society that completely brainwashes it's citizens into thinkking they are more free?


Why is "who you are" important? And why must it be distinguished from the actual actions that you take?

I think in a fundamental sense that we are what we do. Someone who dislikes himself/herself to the point of volunteering to be "conditioned" into another personality (who will presumably do different things) strikes me as distinctly odd if not bizarre.

I was not making any distinction between who we are and what we do. I was saying that though we have the ability to commit actions we wish to take, and so seem free, we are not really, because being who we are we we must do the action we personally find favourable. We occupy a functional brain state, like in a turing machine. We have inputs, which are interpreted by our brain state (which is by definition us) which then creates our outputs (actions). I would agree we are our actions, in so far as our actions manifest our functional brain state. As for agreeing to be conditioned into another personality and doing different things is not odd and bizarre, we all do it all the time. Who we are when we are twelve is distinctly different from who we are when we are eighty. We may seem to have a continuous stream of consciousness that keeps us as us, but in reality we occupy many different and distinct personalities (functional brain states) throughout our lives, and i cannot see how seeking to guide those states in lines with what we would prefer can be wrong.


QUOTE
...and so as time goes on the human mind will slowly spiral into a truly demented and delusional state that leaves us in conflict with ourselves (already happening?).

I don't see anything in the cited article to justify this conclusion. Surely the people who had the misfortune to live in the "Age of Faith" were far more demented and delusional...and yet would have had many fewer detrimental mutations. (A seriously detrimental mutation in 1200CE meant an early death, period.)

QUOTE
...an example might be the way the standard of our eyesight...is declining.

Is that true? How would we know that?

How large would your sample have to be to accurately represent six or seven billion people and how would you construct it to insure it was representative?

People wear glasses and carry on surviving (this not being 1200CE). In other words, the very fact that there are people wearing glasses proves that eyesight is declining, go back to before such medication and people with poor eyesight did not live long. I am drawing from the article by implication that with what it says, and what else is known together we can determine that the portfolio of genetic flaws which we keep with us as a minor pest in our lives will grow. As for sample size it is current dogma that a sample group doesnt become significantly more representative once it goes past 200 randomly selected people.


Accrued flaws eventually become an obstacle to reproduction...and are accordingly removed from the gene pool -- though perhaps not entirely. That is, a certain portion of the population will retain a portion of the flaws and continue to reproduce...though possibly at a slower rate than those with even fewer flaws. But when the burden of flaws grows too great ("can no longer be repaired/compensated for"), reproduction ceases and so does the transmission of the flaws.

but not if there is no 'untainted' genetic material available, and given time genetic flaws will spread to the entirety of the population. Only those which can survive and spread in the genepool continue to exist, and those we administer to, such as poor eyeisight, can do this.


it is becoming customary to terminate the pregnancy

customary? are you so sure? I would say it is certainly the case that some people choose to terminate children with VERY severe genetic flaws, ones which would in fact normally prevent them from breeding anyway. As for most genetic flaws, they are neither detectable, nor when or if they are do they lead to terminations.


This would suggest that the detrimental mutations that most concern you relate to those affecting the brain.

But surely those are among the easiest to treat; we already have many drugs that "get people high" -- substitute pleasurable sensations for suffering -- and more are being developed (in "underground labs") even as we speak.

Surely a communist society would generously distribute such drugs to those who were in "mental pain"...we are not Christians who see "virtue" in suffering.

a society like that in the film equilibrium, eh? Well, trust me when i say that for those purposes the drugs don't work. Almost all drugs which get you high will be pleasurable in the short term, but in the long term can be very detrimental to your mental condition and happiness, many of them being related to depression.


QUOTE
...I think it best that we seek to make our trip as pleasant as possible, and the best way to do this is bring it in line with our conception of what a pleasant trip (i.e in this case personality) would be.




If I understand this correctly, it appears to completely contradict your initial thesis.

Put it this way...

1. We could change our personalities (through conditioning) to perceive our present circumstances as pleasurable and desirable.

2. We could change our circumstances (through revolution) to new circumstances that we would perceive as more pleasurable and desirable than our present circumstances.

I like door number two.

And what i am proposing is that we change our personalities in order to change not our perceptions, but our circumstances via our actions. In this way, 'freeing' ourself individually, as the overall social situation is ultimately derivitive of the way people collectively live their lives, if people change themselves to become more free, then it changes society. i.e peaceful revolution, change through change instead of change through political forums.

(Have changed the first post to include points from throughout this discussion)

[redstar2000]

And what I am proposing is that we change our personalities in order to change not our perceptions, but our circumstances via our actions. In this way, 'freeing' ourself individually, as the overall social situation is ultimately derivative of the way people collectively live their lives, if people change themselves to become more free, then it changes society, i.e., peaceful revolution, change through change instead of change through political forums.

Yes, I sort of thought this was where you were going.

All I can say is "give it a try"...see if you can both develop the technology that will allow people to "change their personalities" and then see if you can find a significant number of people who are willing to go through that.

I like my personality (:P) and have no wish to alter it at all. I can't, as I said before, see why anyone would want to do that to themselves.

On the other hand, we do have people on this board who like to cut themselves or mutilate their bodies in one fashion or another...so perhaps your idea is the "wave of the future" and revolutionary politics is just an old-fashioned and obsolete paradigm.

You won't convince me...but who knows how many you will convince?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CommieBastard]

see if you can both develop the technology that will allow people to "change their personalities"

there is no technology required, it happens all the time, all around us, we are all in constant flux.


On the other hand, we do have people on this board who like to cut themselves or mutilate their bodies in one fashion or another...

to compare the concept to mutilation is incorrect. I am not advocating the rude and pointless stripping of our personalities. I am suggesting alterations, in order not to actually change our personalities in any great way, but simply to introduce one element: freedom. People who are not free cling to their world as it is given them, never questioning why they beleive what they beleive. If you do not question your beleifs, then you never have foundation for them. What i am suggesting is constantly questioning every part of your beleif system and personality, not for the purpose of some particular desirable beleif, because it wouldnt matter whether you were left with exactly the same beleifs, as long as one were to find them all completely justified, and not rooted entirely in bias, circumstance and emotion (as unquestioned beleifs will seemingly inevitably be).

My point is that the difference in human opinion is not because some people are wrong or right, but is instead rooted in our own individual experiences. Personally, i want opinions that have a more solid foundation than random chance.


so perhaps your idea is the "wave of the future" and revolutionary politics is just an old-fashioned and obsolete paradigm.

This is revolutionary politics, i advocate social revolution, and think a vanguard almost a necessity. I am simply a pacifist who thinks that violence is unnecesary(if not downright detrimental) to this process.

[praxis1966]

I hate to tell you this CB, but it sounds to me as if you have read entirely too much B.F. Skinner and not nearly enough Abraham Maslow or Karl Jung, to say nothing of Paolo Friere.


Consentual conditioning may be considered ideal as a solution for prisoners despite it's dangers (footnote 1). If, for example, a paedophile could be conditioned to lose his sexual obsession, he may be safely released back into society, and as long as he desired not to have that obsession it does not impinge on his freedom either.

Here you contradict yourself. Submission to conditioning by another, that is to say relinquishing control of one's own consciousness, whether consentual or not is the very definition of oppression no matter what the ends. This is the very definition of oppression, whether for good or bad. Contrary to this very Machiavellian attitude, the ends here most certainly do not justify the means. The ideal situation is for said pedophile to undergo some kind of self-analysis, an objectification of I to put it in Frierian terminology, is idyllic, regardless of the time necessary. This brings me to another point.


In order to further our freedom beyond control of our own actions, we must take control of who we are when we commit them. While we might forge our personality anew by corrective self-contemplation, this is slow and inneffective, as it is hard for this self-imposition to compete with our conditioning and physiology.

Here you claim in the same breath that self-contemplation is "slow and innefective" without offering up any quantification of this claim and say that we must submit ourselves to this so-called "conditioning." In terms of Frierian liberation psychology, this is objectification of self. One identifies his/her own mind as a harbor for "limit-situations." This, in and of itself, is self-contemplation of the highest order. As alcoholics in 12 step step programs will tell you, admission is the first step toward recovery. At some point critical self-analysis must enter the picture.

Your whole chain logic here smacks of circular reasoning. On the one hand, you have advocated a critical element of independent analysis for liberation, and on the other argue in favor of supression of individual will, the very essence of self-induced repression.

As far as I am concerned, the only path to true liberation of the mind, and by extension societal liberation, is through critical examination of one's own consciousness followed directly by engendering a revolutionary class consciousness via group dialogue. The latter, however, is an altogether different can of tuna which needs not belaboring here.

[CommieBastard]

I hate to tell you this CB, but it sounds to me as if you have read entirely too much B.F. Skinner and not nearly enough Abraham Maslow or Karl Jung, to say nothing of Paolo Friere.

wrong on almost all counts. I have read none of any of them.


Here you contradict yourself. Submission to conditioning by another, that is to say relinquishing control of one's own consciousness, whether consentual or not is the very definition of oppression no matter what the ends. This is the very definition of oppression, whether for good or bad. Contrary to this very Machiavellian attitude, the ends here most certainly do not justify the means. The ideal situation is for said pedophile to undergo some kind of self-analysis, an objectification of I to put it in Frierian terminology, is idyllic, regardless of the time necessary. This brings me to another point.

What i am talking about is a control of the nature of the means, whilst it is almost inevitable that another person must carry them out, it must always be entirely in a nature defined by us. Where we control the nature of the means, and the end, i cannot see any room for oppression.


At some point critical self-analysis must enter the picture.

here i agree, it allows us to identify those things about ourself with which we are not satisfied, but how can identification of a form of unpleasant conditioning be enough to break it? (here i will freely admit my ignorance, i do not know what is involved in the 12 step plan or anything similar)


and on the other argue in favor of supression of individual will, the very essence of self-induced repression.

i cannot see where i have done this, as far as i am aware i have only argued for the forced manifestation of individual will above prior conditioning.


As far as I am concerned, the only path to true liberation of the mind, and by extension societal liberation, is through critical examination of one's own consciousness followed directly by engendering a revolutionary class consciousness via group dialogue. The latter, however, is an altogether different can of tuna which needs not belaboring here.

i dont see why we shouldnt discuss it here. How can a person who is a member of a class consciousness be free? Is it not in the nature of such a consciousness that our ideas and concepts become defined and decided by forces external to us? Whether the force which manifests these concepts is internal or not, the design of the concepts of a free person must surely come from within? This to me seems much less free than what i have advocated, where the force used to manifest the concepts may be external, but they are internally derived and directed.