do you brainwash, and are you a brainwashing victim?

[KalithAlur]

Do you examine evidence objectively, and share evidence in an objective manner?

or are you conditioned to view askew?

or do you play on people's emotions to help them view askew?

or do you use repetition to hammer in a particular point of view?


can you honestly say, "I know what the evidence would look like if I didn't have any emotions!!" ?

is it possible to view evidence without being brainwashed by your own past conditionings and present-moment emotions?

 

[tulc]

Do you examine evidence objectively, and share evidence in an objective manner?

No.

or are you conditioned to view askew?

Well....I really liked Dogma but I don't know what Kevin Smith has to do with being objective.

or do you play on people's emotions to help them view askew?

see above

or do you use repetition to hammer in a particular point of view?

I use it to remember things.

can you honestly say, "I know what the evidence would look like if I didn't have any emotions!!" ?

Nope, because then I'd stop being human.

is it possible to view evidence without being brainwashed by your own past conditionings and present-moment emotions?

...what do you mean by "brainwashed"? Do you mean can we see past the brainwashing we've recieved to enable us to fit into our present society and look at something without a cultural bias of any kind?
tulc(really liked Dogma a lot)

 

[KalithAlur]

"Nope, because then I'd stop being human." I would like to point out even humans are capable of moments of apathy... usually when humans say they are apathetic, they are really feeling something else, but humans are capable of feeling apathy. how about self-induced apathy (prolonged concentration on attaining no emotion) ? some people aren't that good at concentrating, so i'd also like to suggest theorizing on what the evidence would look like to a computer. not quite as effective, but close. by "brainwashed" I mean conditioned to have a subjective, rather than objective, opinion, both because of biological reasons, and because of the conditioning we'v received since birth.

 

[Vene]

Do you examine evidence objectively, and share evidence in an objective manner?

I try to

or are you conditioned to view askew?

Do you mean look only at one side? I try to find all the evidence I can, but don't always succeed in it. I'm only human.

or do you play on people's emotions to help them view askew?

I avoid doing it, but I am still guilty.

or do you use repetition to hammer in a particular point of view?

If they keep bringing up the exact same point, then yes. See PRATTs for more details as to why.

can you honestly say, "I know what the evidence would look like if I didn't have any emotions!!" ?

No, but I try to limit my emotions. And I have found that emotional appeals don't work as well on me as other people.

is it possible to view evidence without being brainwashed by your own past conditionings and present-moment emotions?

No, but I try to avoid it as much as I can.

By the way tulc, if you liked Dogma I would recommend Monty Python's Life of Brian.

 

[tulc]

some people aren't that good at concentrating, so i'd also like to suggest theorizing on what the evidence would look like to a computer.

something like this I'd think:

1010101011110001010100010101000010101010011111010101010101010101111000101010001010100001010101001111101010101010101010111100010101000101010000101010100111110101010101010101011110001010100010101000010101010011111010101010

tulc(that would be my guess anyway)

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

It's impossible to FEEL apathy Kalith. That would be a paradox.

 

[KalithAlur]

paradoxes aren't impossible. when my toe itches, it is an apathetic sensation for me because it doesn't elicit an emotional response. Some would say, "that is the emotion, irritation." only if you find itchiness unpleasant.
but say I touch a key and by the nerves on my fingers, feel that the key is there. That is feeling apathetically.
what the above two examples demonstrate is feeling apathetically, not feeling apathy itself. to feel apathy is to experience an actual paradox, like seeing nothing. I see nothing because it is impossible for me to not see what I don't see.
I feel nothing simultaneous to feeling other things because I notice the lack of sensation. eventually, it becomes a question of semantics, and whether or not I was using language properly to begin with (wink).
other techniques for cutting thru brainwashing:
Pick an issue, say abortion. do a little research. write a few paragraphs defending abortion as if you were a pro life christian fundamentalist, then as if you were a pro life islamic fundamentalist, then as if you were a pro life atheist, then as if you were a pro life libertarian secularist, ect. do the same thing for pro choice. examine the evidence thru the lens of a fictional pro choice liberal christian, pro choice conservative radical, and so on
so not only, finding out what happens when you take emotions out of the equation (you lean on a limited amount of evidence, and only that evidence available to you, rather than developing emotional bias), but also finding out what would happen were your perspective radically different from what it actually is.
diversification of the angles from wince you look at the object/issue/debate/moral and ethic

 

[I Just Believe In Me]

There is no such thing as objectivity. Everyone sees everything through a bias.

 

[Vene]

There is no such thing as objectivity. Everyone sees everything through a bias.

All too true. The best we can do is try to be aware of our biases and work around them.

 

[KalithAlur]

I believe there is such a thing as objective interpretation of the evidence, but that it would be impossible to absolutely prove, even to yourself, that you'r being objective.
.
The only bias I don't see any way around, is the bias of the evidence itself. Even if you don't happen to have any emotions and you'r capable of experiencing your every memory simultaneously, that limited range of experiences is all you have to go on. That is the point at which I agree with you.
.
What I'm saying is, with sufficient experience at concentration and emotional control, I believe you can defeat personal, emotional bias completely. However, the closest you can come to defeating the bias of (what is implied by the evidence is what seems to me to be correct, and what I have to base my decision on), is to admit there's always a chance you might be wrong, no matter how clearly your unemotional interpretation of evidence suggests something is true.
.
however, to prove what I'm saying is accurate would require personal experience... and to dismiss what I'm saying as inaccurate, even arrogant or delusional, would be based on personal experience.