Quake3World

Grudge wrote:

seremtan wrote:

Grudge wrote:There is no "soul" btw.

there is however such a thing as a "metaphor" btw cocks

The term carries too much religous/cultural baggage to be useful as a metaphor IMO.

IYO

Scourge wrote:I have no doubt that it would probably be abused and misused. That's where the could comes in. I also agree that we probably shouldn't fuck with peoples brains in that sense. I'm just saying that it could be used to help people that have been severely traumatized and can't function. But I'm also not naive enough to believe that is all it would be used for.

aye. this will be a tool for crafting manchurian candidates long before it helps little kids disassociate having their pants pulled down from a bad day at the park.

my curiosity is on how do they distinguish from one memory to another, what is it that they manipulate, and if the process is so direct towards a specific memory could they douplicate that memory in an understandable way...meaning could they decode that memory and extract its information?

How about the ability to implant false memories for that matter?

it seems logical to me that in time a deep understanding on this technique yields all kinds of other possibilities

Boys who are molested as children could possibly benefit from this - those kind of scenarios where the memory doesn't serve any useful function, but rather has the effect of perverting the person's sense of self -- and also tends to propagate the same behavior to the next generation, instead of teaching a moral lesson.

If I were a child molester in prison, facing a long life there or even the death penalty, and was given the option to have my childhood memories of abuse erased, not only would I probably be willing to try it (to regain freedom and hope for a normal life), but the ethical dilemma of changing someone's memory seems far less tragic than the prospect of killing them, or forcing them to be secluded with hardened criminals for the rest of their lives. That assumes that a lot more research has been done on this kind of procedure of course.

It raises a whole host of other questions... If, say, someone's childhood memory has influenced nearly every aspect of their life for the past 30 years, then once that memory is erased, what is left to replace the conditioned behaviors that once existed?

I don't know much about neurology, but from what I understand, there are neural pathways in the decision-making parts of our brains that are linked to our memory centers, and draw from them to help evaluate different possible decisions. If the brain attempts to make a decision and finds a "blank slate" where it has found a certain memory every day for 30 years, what kind of effect would this have on a person's decision-making process or abilities?

Is the human brain dynamic enough to start over with that kind of clean slate? Sometimes the use of memories to make decisions is subconscious, and other times it is completely conscious. I know how I would consciously react if I looked for similar memories to help me make a decision in a familiar situation, and found none. But what would happen when this was done on a subconscious level?

seremtan wrote:

Scourge wrote:It could have some good uses removing traumatic memories and such. But it could also have some darker uses.

how is that a good use? experience - good and bad - is a how a person grows. it's not like physical pain, that you can do without

personally i don't like the idea of techniques that can make what currently are merely the fantasies of social engineers into reality, the idea that we can 'make people better' by tinkering with their brains/souls. if those fantasies became reality, we could probably kiss what's left of our already eroded freedom goodbye

This attitude really annoys me. I'm not sure I can articulate why though, I guess part of it is because it's so dominant.

I'm writing my dissertation abut the decline of utopianism, and a lot of it seems to be to do with the association with totalitarianism. It's like you can't be optimistic about progress or aim for an ideal, or just want to make things better these days without people crying "Nineteen Eighty-Four."

tnf wrote:Any human uses are obviously a long, long, long way off...but think of the potential.

I wonder if the process could be consciously blocked, like if there was a way to ignore the reminder, or avoid connecting it with your previous memories, say by convincing yourself that you hadn't heard the tone before, that it was subtly different.

How can you write about the decline of utopianism when our government bases decisions on it at every turn?

They are elected officials, and are supported by a huge number of people who strongly believe in the same utopian ideas. If anything, I would be more likely to say that utopianism has been on a recent upsurge - possibly based on a denial of harsh realistic revelations.

<snipped />

iambowelfish wrote:

seremtan wrote:

Scourge wrote:It could have some good uses removing traumatic memories and such. But it could also have some darker uses.

how is that a good use? experience - good and bad - is a how a person grows. it's not like physical pain, that you can do without

personally i don't like the idea of techniques that can make what currently are merely the fantasies of social engineers into reality, the idea that we can 'make people better' by tinkering with their brains/souls. if those fantasies became reality, we could probably kiss what's left of our already eroded freedom goodbye

This attitude really annoys me. I'm not sure I can articulate why though, I guess part of it is because it's so dominant.

I'm writing my dissertation abut the decline of utopianism, and a lot of it seems to be to do with the association with totalitarianism. It's like you can't be optimistic about progress or aim for an ideal, or just want to make things better these days without people crying "Nineteen Eighty-Four."

sounds to me like you need to sort out the distinction between optimism and utopianism before you start writing. utopianism leads inexorably to totalitarianism because it imposes greater-than-usual restrictions on individual liberty (i.e. much greater than needed just for people to live together) in order to achieve that so-called 'utopia', which is invariably a collective idea. a technique for altering people's memories or their behaviour through brain intervention can be used as a tool to achieve that 'utopia', but is completely unnecessary for 'optimism about progress', which only requires you to deal with what life throws at you, fight through it, learn and move on

still tho i think its quite the scientific feat to totally index that rats mind then compare the afterword index and see jus that one memory gone...


oh wait

If the government is best tasked to increase happiness, it's only a matter of time before it falls to them to do just that, acting in our ultimate interests.

see B.F. Skinner

people, this is only a process to keep memories from forming, it can't reach in and erase long-term memories

You disagree with the authors then...

The study adds to our understanding of how memories are made and altered in the brain, and could help to relieve sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) of the fearful memories that disrupt their lives.

could help are the operative words

read how their experiment worked

i just reread the article and i take it all back. somehow they are erasing a long term memory (using a drug which inhibits the process of solidifying a short term memory) weird

there are a group of proteins involved in the generation of memory - there was a very good article in Scientific American about it a year ago or so. I'll look for it, because I'm guessing that the drug they gave likely interacted with some of those proteins (but taht could be completely dead balls wrong too).

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:people, this is only a process to keep memories from forming, it can't reach in and erase long-term memories

a sort of chemical version of plained then

it's weird. it's as if they'll need to give you the drug then drudge up or reenact the memory all to erase said memory.

seremtan wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:people, this is only a process to keep memories from forming, it can't reach in and erase long-term memories

a sort of chemical version of plained then

lolz

seremtan wrote:

iambowelfish wrote:

seremtan wrote: how is that a good use? experience - good and bad - is a how a person grows. it's not like physical pain, that you can do without

personally i don't like the idea of techniques that can make what currently are merely the fantasies of social engineers into reality, the idea that we can 'make people better' by tinkering with their brains/souls. if those fantasies became reality, we could probably kiss what's left of our already eroded freedom goodbye

This attitude really annoys me. I'm not sure I can articulate why though, I guess part of it is because it's so dominant.

I'm writing my dissertation abut the decline of utopianism, and a lot of it seems to be to do with the association with totalitarianism. It's like you can't be optimistic about progress or aim for an ideal, or just want to make things better these days without people crying "Nineteen Eighty-Four."

sounds to me like you need to sort out the distinction between optimism and utopianism before you start writing. utopianism leads inexorably to totalitarianism because it imposes greater-than-usual restrictions on individual liberty (i.e. much greater than needed just for people to live together) in order to achieve that so-called 'utopia', which is invariably a collective idea. a technique for altering people's memories or their behaviour through brain intervention can be used as a tool to achieve that 'utopia', but is completely unnecessary for 'optimism about progress', which only requires you to deal with what life throws at you, fight through it, learn and move on

Heh, well I'm nearly half way through it, and you're right in that I don't have my definitions/distinctions completely worked out, but it doesn't look like I ever could, the term "utopian" is applied to so many things. I think the climate of anti-utopianism is strong enough to have an effect on lots of things which aren't really that utopian.

That might sound kindof vague, but your definition seems very narrow to me, and apparently excludes anarchist or libertarian projects which are just as utopian as those which use the power of the state.

R00k wrote:How can you write about the decline of utopianism when our government bases decisions on it at every turn?

They are elected officials, and are supported by a huge number of people who strongly believe in the same utopian ideas. If anything, I would be more likely to say that utopianism has been on a recent upsurge - possibly based on a denial of harsh realistic revelations.

Wait, who is our government? The Bush administration? I really don't see it but a few examples might help your case.

I'm in the UK, and the changes Blair has made, while broadly positive, been fairly incremental.

I will admit though, that I'm talking more about culture than politics, I'm an art student so that's what I know and it's what writing my dissertation about.

If I was to pick an example from politics, I might say the UN. That's sorta utopian, all the world's countries getting on together. Thing is it's got no power.

Why not change that situation? Well tbh I don't really know why it doesn't happen, probably a lot of it is to do with money, but no doubt the anti-utopians (which is like pretty much everyone as far as I can see) would call it a sinister plot for a world government that would destroy the freedom of individual nations, when really we're a million miles away from that scenario now.

Well, the administration has a utopian vision for the middle east, which is what their foreign policies are based on. They are trying to forcefully enact a spread of freedom-loving democracies across the region, and are basing the idea on the utopian vision that it will put an end to terrorism, and will also help end the Israeli-Palestine conflict to produce peace for all.

Many of the conservative constituents have voted these people into office based on a utopian vision that shares some of the administration's ideologies, but also includes a utopian vision of their own -- namely, the returning of the lord, cleansing of the earth and rapture for the faithful. It could be argued that these religious views aren't utopian, but I have a hard time not classifying them as such.

Beyond that, the conservative christian movement in general is based on utopian ideas of society. i.e., a world of happy, heterosexual people in sanctified marriages and blessed family units, with no justifiable reason for abortions, and where the wonderful faith is taught in classrooms early in school so that all children hear the teachings of their lord when they are young and impressionable.

All this may be fairly unique to the united states right now of course (I didn't realize you were the UK), but similar black and white conservative views of the world seem to be taking hold in other places as well. Canada and Australia, for instance (although without the religious part).

In fact, I'd argue that anyone who agrees with the premise of a global war on terror is embracing a utopian philosophy.

R00k wrote:Well, the administration has a utopian vision for the middle east, which is what their foreign policies are based on. They are trying to forcefully enact a spread of freedom-loving democracies across the region, and are basing the idea on the utopian vision that it will put an end to terrorism, and will also help end the Israeli-Palestine conflict to produce peace for all.

Many of the conservative constituents have voted these people into office based on a utopian vision that shares some of the administration's ideologies, but also includes a utopian vision of their own -- namely, the returning of the lord, cleansing of the earth and rapture for the faithful. It could be argued that these religious views aren't utopian, but I have a hard time not classifying them as such.

Beyond that, the conservative christian movement in general is based on utopian ideas of society. i.e., a world of happy, heterosexual people in sanctified marriages and blessed family units, with no justifiable reason for abortions, and where the wonderful faith is taught in classrooms early in school so that all children hear the teachings of their lord when they are young and impressionable.

All this may be fairly unique to the united states right now of course (I didn't realize you were the UK), but similar black and white conservative views of the world seem to be taking hold in other places as well. Canada and Australia, for instance (although without the religious part).

In fact, I'd argue that anyone who agrees with the premise of a global war on terror is embracing a utopian philosophy.

I'd never thought of it that way, but you do have a point there. Utopian philosophies are many and varied.

Maybe the reason I don't see the Bush administration as utopian is because there isn't an end in sight to the war on terror. What I mean is they don't seem to be aiming for an ideal society, or promising peace. If anything the administration seems to be trying to get us used to the idea of indefinite war. They seem more concerned about getting people to ignore problems than addressing them. If I was a bit less cynical about them it might be easier to see America's conservatives as utopian. I'm sure some of them genuinely do believe in creating a better world as they see it.

My other problem with labelling them as utopian is that in general, conservatives tend to promote fear of change and acceptance of the status quo, whereas utopia proposes an alternative, ideal society in contrast to the problems of our own(see Thomas More's Utopia). While of course utopianism isn't solely the concern of the left, and utopia could be located in some past golden age or religious paradise (rather than the more usual future scenario) it's something I associate more with left wing secular progressive politics. The problem as I see it is that the left has turned against its own principles.

R00k wrote:Well, the administration has a utopian vision for the middle east, which is what their foreign policies are based on. They are trying to forcefully enact a spread of freedom-loving democracies across the region, and are basing the idea on the utopian vision that it will put an end to terrorism, and will also help end the Israeli-Palestine conflict to produce peace for all.

I'd say that their main goal is to secure the US economy for the upcoming 20-30 years (or for how long it now will take for it to become too expensive to continue pumping up oil), by securing the largest deposits of oil in the world. I'd say it has anything to do with freedom, democracy or indeed terrorism, it's strictly down to simple economics. The US won't stand a chance economically against the up and coming nations of Asia without a steady supply of oil to drive it's industry and infrastructure. So the freedom, democracy and terrorism issues are probably just byproducts of a larger, economy-driven agenda, not altruistic, utopian goals in themselves.

Uhh, how could you EVER experimentally prove that exactly 1 memory had been removed? It also seems like many other memories would be affected, weakened, etc.