Request For Help - Arguments To Eliminate Materialism

#1
I appreciate that a lot of us are persuaded by the large amounts of evidence across psi studies, reincarnation case studies, NDE studies and others that materialism is false. However these exciting big ticket items frequently fail to persuade those who are say... a bit stuck in the mud.

I believe I have an argument to crack this nut and I would love to discuss it you guys, in this forum and on my YouTube channel via zoom for any of you happy to get into that.

My argument is very simple and I've made it a few times in the course of my channel.

1) Materialism gives us matter that behaves according to physical laws.
2) It feels like something to be us and we can talk about that in the physical world.
3) If the cause of us talking about it feeling like something to be us in the physical world were just those physical laws, then we don't need a you anymore and now we loose morality.
4) But I know there's a sentient me, because consciousness is a fact of my own existence and I can witness myself tell other people about it.
5) Therefore materialism is false.

Working with this argument, expanding on it and talking around these points should I believe give us an unassailable path to winning the argument.

Would you like to help me in this project? Let me know!
 
#2
I think the problem is that in areas like this, science doesn't use scientific/logical arguments at all.

Take my favourite example. There was a conference in the 1960's involving top mathematicians and biologists. The conference was to discuss whether Darwin's evolution by natural selection concept could stand in view of the new information about DNA and inheritance. The mathematicians said evolution by natural selection was impossible, the biologists said the opposite.

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/04/for_darwin_advo/

This area of science has lived with this huge impossibility for decades now!

The argument doesn't need any theorising about consciousness - just the combinatorial properties of DNA - but science hasn't moved. The title of Alex's first book becomes more and more apt as time goes on.

David
 
#3
I would personally leave morality aside, and begin by dismantling the ontological, theological and even historical holes in their arguments. Most of these people haven't read any books on theology, comparative religion, and probably very little on philosophy and history (at least that's what seems to be the case, when one considers their weak arguments).

My own approach with arrogant materialists and atheists, is to start from the beginning:

1. There are only two explanations for the existence of the universe: it came from literal nothing; no laws of physics, no matter, no nothing (let's not imagine a black void, because that would be something). Or it came from an infinite reversion of universes (what the multiverse theory proposes).

2. The concepts of Nothing and Infinite are out of grasp for our minds. We don't and can't understand what does nothing or infinite mean.

3. Therefore, there are aspects of reality that are supernatural (beyond known natural laws and matter), and will remain unknown and mysterious forever.

4. Therefore, there is an open door for supernatural or/and metaphysical beliefs.

This is just one trench of the argument against materialism. I could copy-paste a more detailed document I did on this subjet, with many more arguments (by the way, I'm open for criticism, just like you).
 

Alex

Administrator
#4
I appreciate that a lot of us are persuaded by the large amounts of evidence across psi studies, reincarnation case studies, NDE studies and others that materialism is false. However these exciting big ticket items frequently fail to persuade those who are say... a bit stuck in the mud.

I believe I have an argument to crack this nut and I would love to discuss it you guys, in this forum and on my YouTube channel via zoom for any of you happy to get into that.

My argument is very simple and I've made it a few times in the course of my channel.

1) Materialism gives us matter that behaves according to physical laws.
2) It feels like something to be us and we can talk about that in the physical world.
3) If the cause of us talking about it feeling like something to be us in the physical world were just those physical laws, then we don't need a you anymore and now we loose morality.
4) But I know there's a sentient me, because consciousness is a fact of my own existence and I can witness myself tell other people about it.
5) Therefore materialism is false.

Working with this argument, expanding on it and talking around these points should I believe give us an unassailable path to winning the argument.

Would you like to help me in this project? Let me know!
great idea. good luck with this project.

My two cents (which you probably heard way too many times :))
- these issues can only be understand from a conspiratorial perspective... or the popular term nowadays is parapolitical.

- I'm suggesting that the above is a reality but we have to factor in the highest level. I'm not angry about it. I'm not judging it. It just seems to me what's real

- this shifts the question from "why don't the smartest guys in the room accept the obvious" to " why are the smartest guys in the room using their useful idiots to advance this narrative"

looks like you might have another test biocodex :)
 
#5
I think the problem is that in areas like this, science doesn't use scientific/logical arguments at all.

Take my favourite example. There was a conference in the 1960's involving top mathematicians and biologists. The conference was to discuss whether Darwin's evolution by natural selection concept could stand in view of the new information about DNA and inheritance. The mathematicians said evolution by natural selection was impossible, the biologists said the opposite.

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/04/for_darwin_advo/

This area of science has lived with this huge impossibility for decades now!

The argument doesn't need any theorising about consciousness - just the combinatorial properties of DNA - but science hasn't moved. The title of Alex's first book becomes more and more apt as time goes on.

David
I learn something new every day! Thank you for sharing. That's really interesting actually, hmmm..... I will think on it.

However I think the power of consciousness to do things is the faultline of materialism from how I see it, so I am compelled to jab my intellectual crowbar in there and start pushing :D
 
#6
I would personally leave morality aside, and begin by dismantling the ontological, theological and even historical holes in their arguments. Most of these people haven't read any books on theology, comparative religion, and probably very little on philosophy and history (at least that's what seems to be the case, when one considers their weak arguments).

My own approach with arrogant materialists and atheists, is to start from the beginning:

1. There are only two explanations for the existence of the universe: it came from literal nothing; no laws of physics, no matter, no nothing (let's not imagine a black void, because that would be something). Or it came from an infinite reversion of universes (what the multiverse theory proposes).

2. The concepts of Nothing and Infinite are out of grasp for our minds. We don't and can't understand what does nothing or infinite mean.

3. Therefore, there are aspects of reality that are supernatural (beyond known natural laws and matter), and will remain unknown and mysterious forever.

4. Therefore, there is an open door for supernatural or/and metaphysical beliefs.

This is just one trench of the argument against materialism. I could copy-paste a more detailed document I did on this subjet, with many more arguments (by the way, I'm open for criticism, just like you).
I will give this some thought and sleep on it, but my hot take is that I'd have trouble persuading a materialist that proposition 1 is true. I'll let this argument simmer in my mind though. Thanks for sharing!
 
#7
great idea. good luck with this project.

My two cents (which you probably heard way too many times :))
- these issues can only be understand from a conspiratorial perspective... or the popular term nowadays is parapolitical.

- I'm suggesting that the above is a reality but we have to factor in the highest level. I'm not angry about it. I'm not judging it. It just seems to me what's real

- this shifts the question from "why don't the smartest guys in the room accept the obvious" to " why are the smartest guys in the room using their useful idiots to advance this narrative"

looks like you might have another test biocodex :)
Thanks Alex, I appreciate the kind words!

I really want to see what's achievable without mentioning conspiracies or parapolitical action, because when you play that card, it's hard to take it off the table afterwards, but I'm sympathetic to your view.

It's easy to see how mind over matter abilities could be very threatening to the status quo. I can barely imagine the consequences of what would happen if something like telepathy or psi became accepted mainstream. If the news reported it as true and the research into it skyrocketed, all bringing back meaningful data. Would our belief that it was real make the effects much stronger? Would a genie be unleashed that was nearly impossible to get back in the bottle? I have absolutely no idea, but it is fun to think about.

It's easy to imagine that there would be people who would want to stop that from happening.

I think the question "why don't the smartest guys in the room accept the obvious" is a very powerful tool to encourage people to wonder what the hell is going on. I plan on waving it around a bit. :D

I wasn't sure what you meant by this bit though Alex: "looks like you might have another test biocodex "
 
#10
I'm curious, why do you think it would be difficult to establish proposition 1 as true with a materialist?
It was my instinctive reply, because when I went to reason it all through, I actually think you make a wonderfully interesting case, at this present moment in time I can't reasonably refute it. I think I set my brain into atheist emulation mode previously and it just did the job too literally.

There is this other thing though. To me at some point I felt like the distinction between the natural and the supernatural doesn't matter. The dividing line is arbitrary saying that anything that could be known would become the natural world, but then what seemed supernatural transitions into natural, leaving nothing left unexplained in the end in principle. That's the reason why the supernatural never really exists.

Ok, my brain just went into agnostic mode for a bit again. I feel like I need to know how they would see it and then I am seeing things I think they would see.

In response to that I would say that supernatural being a boundary of what we can comprehend as the natural world and that which to us lies beyond it (the supernatural) is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. It's not that the supernatural lies out there, galaxies away, but that it exists here and now in ways we can barely perceive because it's just the unknown waiting for us to find it one day and until that day, that's our supernatural.

How am I doing here bouncing back and forth?

I've now decided I love your argument so much, that I'm going to present it wholesale in your own words because I've got an atheist booked on the show to have a chat with / debate with next Monday. Show to air after I get the camera angle edit together.

I absolute love it, how would you like to be attributed? Would you like me to photo of you up? (All optional)

This is awesome, thank you.
 
#12
Would you like to help me in this project? Let me know!
I suggest you also consider the psychology of persuasion. If you want to persuade someone you are likely to be more successful using psychology rather than logic because people use logic mostly to defend their beliefs but they tend to form their beliefs because of psychological reasons.


Mass hysteria is that ordinary state of human consciousness.
Here is a somewhat related view by Scott Adams
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...itual-engineering-392.4215/page-4#post-126242

Scott Adams writes in his book, "Win Bigly", that when you understand the psychology of persuasion, you are not impressed by the consensus of scientists because they are just as suceptible as ordinary people to mass delusions. According to the psychology of persuasion, mass delusion is actually the normal state of consciousness. This is particularly true for scientists studying climate change because their career and financial incentives are involved. In the following excerpt, 2-D is the normal world view and 3-D is Adam's world view that people are not rational but make decisions based on other factors and then use logic to defend their beliefs.​
On top of our mass delusions, we also have junk science that is too often masquerading as the real thing. To the extent that people can't tell the difference, that too is a source of mass delusion.​
In the 2-D view of the world, mass delusions are rare and newsworthy. But to trained persuaders in the third dimension, mass delusions are the norm. They are everywhere, and they influence every person. This difference in training and experience can explain why people disagree on some of the big issues of the day.​
For example, consider the case of global warming. People from the 2-D world assume mass delusions are rare, and they apply that assumption to every topic. So when they notice that most scientists are on the same side, that observation is persuasive to them. A reasonable person wants to be on the same side with the smartest people who understand the topic. That makes sense, right?​
But people who live in the 3-D world, where persuasion rules, can often have a different view of climate change because we see mass delusions (even among experts) as normal and routine. My starting bias for this topic is that the scientists could easily be wrong about the horrors of change, even in the context of repeated experiments and peer review. Whenever you see a situation with complicated prediction models, you also have lots of room for bias to masquerade as reason. Just tweak the assumptions and you can get any outcome you want.​
Now add to that situation the fact that scientists who oppose the climate change consensus have a high degree of career and reputation risk. That's the perfect setup for a mass delusion. You only need these two conditions:​
1. Complicated prediction models with lots of assumptions​
2. Financial and psychological pressure to agree with the consensus​
In the 2-D world, the scientific method and peer review squeeze out the bias over time. But in the 3-D world, the scientific method can't detect bias when nearly everyone including the peer reviewers shares the same mass delusion.​
I'm not a scientist, and I have no way to validate the accuracy of the climate model predictions. But if the majority of experts on this topic turn out to be having a mass hallucination, I would consider that an ordinary situation. In my reality, this would be routine, if not expected, whenever there are complicated prediction models involved. That's because I see the world as bristling with mass delusions. I don't see mass delusions as rare.​
When nonscientists take sides with climate scientists, they often think they are being supportive of science. The reality is that the nonscientists are not involved in science, or anything like it. They are taking the word of scientists. In the 2-D world, that makes perfect sense, because it seems as if thousands of experts can't be wrong. But in the 3-D world, I accept that the experts could be right, and perhaps they are, but it would be normal and natural in my experience if the vast majority of ciimate scientists were experiencing a shared hallucination.
To be clear, I am not saying the majority of scientists are wrong about climate science. I'm making the narrow point that it would be normal and natural for that group of people to be experiencing a mass hallucination that is consistent with their financial and psychological incentives. The scientific method and the peer-review process wouldn't necessarily catch a mass delusion during any specific window of time. With science, you never know if you are halfway to the truth or already there. Sometimes it looks the same.
Climate science is a polarizing topic (ironically). So let me just generalize the point to say that compared with the average citizen, trained persuaders are less impressed by experts.
...​
People use reason to defend their beliefs not to form them.
Why Won’t They Listen? ‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt By WILLIAM SALETAN SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW MARCH 23, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html
The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others.​

Scott Adams, who in addition to being the author of the comic strip Dilbert, is a trained hypnotist. In an interview on FoxNews@Night with Shannon Bream on March 19, 2018, Scott Adams explained that hypnotism teaches us that people don't use logic to make decisions even though we think we do. (2:59: youtu.be/vLhcrbtbCEg?t=2m59s):
We humans ignore facts but we think we don't. The great illusion of life is that we're rational beings making rational decisions most of the time. But when you become a hypnotist, the first thing you learn is that that's backwards and that mostly we're deciding based on our team, our feelings, our emotions, irrational reasons, we make our decision and then we rationalize it no matter how tortured that rationalization is."​

https://www.economist.com/news/book...g-knowledge-between-minds-making-people-think
People overestimate how well they understand how things work. Direct evidence for this comes from the psychological laboratory. The great Yale psychologist Frank Keil and his students first demonstrated the illusion of explanatory depth, what we call the knowledge illusion. He asked people how well they understand how everyday objects (zippers, toilets, ballpoint pens) work. On average, people felt they had a reasonable understanding (at the middle of a 7-point scale). Then Keil asked them to explain how they work. People failed miserably. For the most part, people just can’t articulate the mechanisms that drive even the simplest things.​
People are persuaded much more by psychological factors than by facts.
In the video below, Scott Adams, who is a trained hypnotist and writer on the psychology of persuasion (in addition to being the author of the comic strip Dilbert), says people are 90% irrational and 10% rational. We make decisions based on emotions not facts. He says you can't be a hypnotist if you don't understand that because otherwise nothing about hypnotism would make sense.
I wanted to understand more about this so I looked into some references on persuasion to see how people are influenced by factors other than facts and logic. Adams has a list of recommended books on persuasion and I tried to find information online about what those authors wrote. What I found is that the vast majority of the techniques of persuasion identified by experts are based on psychological or rhetorical "tricks" that have nothing to do with facts and logic. I think that is what Adams means when he says people are not rational.

Here are some excerpts from Adams reading list on persuasion. I did not list all the books, just examples that help convey what a category is about. See the link for the full list. The full list includes books on skepticism including books by authors such as James Randi that show people are poor judges of objective reality. It also includes books by authors such as Sam Harris that support the belief that we are biological robots "moist robots" .
http://blog.dilbert.com/2015/09/24/the-persuasion-reading-list/
I have grouped the reading list by virtual chapters as if this is one meta book.
...
Chapter 1 – Things You Can Stop Believing
The first chapter is designed to make you skeptical about your ability to comprehend reality. If you are already a hardcore skeptic, you can skip this chapter.
  • An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural – by James Randi
...
Chapter 2 – Stretching your Imagination
These books are selected to open your mind for what follows. If you have experience with LSD or mushrooms, you might not need this chapter. (Yes, I am serious.)
  • Jonathan Livingston Seagull – by Richard Bach
...

Chapter 3 – The Moist Robot Hypothesis
The Moist Robot Hypothesis first appears in my book that is listed below. The idea is that humans are biological machines, subject to cause and effect. According to this view, free will is an illusion and humans can be programmed once you understand our user interface.

With this chapter I ease you into the notion that humans are mindless robots by showing you how we are influenced by design, habit, emotion, food, and words. Until you accept the Moist Robot view of the world it will be hard to use your tools of persuasion effectively because you will doubt your own effectiveness and people will detect your doubt. Confidence is an important part of the process of influence.
  • Free Will – by Sam Harris
...
Chapter 4 – Active Persuasion
...
  • Trump: The Art of the Deal – Donald J. Trump
...
Here are some of the techniques of persuasion I found discussed by some authors on the list (Blair Warren and Robert Cialdini) and by some authors not on the list (I have a link to web site about NLP but the page I quoted from does not mention the NLP authors on Adams list: Grinder and Bandler - I don't know if the quote does or does not reflect their views.) Notice that these methods of persuasion do not rely on facts and logic, that is what I think Adams means when he says people are not rational. And there is a difference between not using reason and using faulty reasoning. But even when people are not using reason, if you ask them why they did something, they will give reasons. Our experience is that we think we are rational even when we are not using facts and logic ie reasoning. And by "we" I mean materialists, non-materialists, new-agers, and self identified super-rational "skeptics".
  • Blair Warren wrote: "People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions and help them throw rocks at their enemies." :http://www.actionplan.com/pdf/BlairWarren.pdf
  • Certain words can influence you to think in ways that will cause your own mind to aid in persuading you. For example, if someone says, "Imagine ...", it causes you to visualize what they want to to believe. "Because" is also a "power" word. When you give a reason, even a weak one, people are more likely to do what you ask. "You" is another "power" word. More of these "power" words and explanations of why they work can be found at these links:
  • Robert Cialdini is a professor of psychology who is a well known author on the subject of persuasion. He has identified several "principles of influence":http://changingminds.org/techniques/general/cialdini/cialdini.htm
    • Reciprocity - We feel obliged to give back to people who have given to us.
    • Consistency and commitment - When we make a promise, we feel obliged to work hard to fulfil that promise. When we make a decision, we like to feel that this is the right decision for us.
    • Social proof - We copy what others do, especially when we are unsure.
    • Liking - If you can make people like you for example by showing them you are like them and or by praising them, they will be easier to persuade.
    • Authority - We defer to people who seem superior.
    • Scarcity - When things become less available, they become more desirable.
    • Click, Whirr - When certain cues are presented to us, we feel an urge to complete actions that have, in the past, been successfully paired with the cue.
  • https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/282642
    • Unity - Any sense of shared identity such as family, ethnicity, geography, etc. can aid in persuasion.
  • .
    You can take an on-line quiz to test your knowledge of these principles at https://www.qzzr.com/.

  • Subliminal Persuasion, Conversational Hypnosis: The web site nlpnation.com explains several techniques of subliminal persuasion or conversational hypnosis.
    If someone tries to influence you directly you might naturally resist them. But there are several techniques that can be used to sneak information past your "resistance filter". The general principle is that instead of making a statement or suggestion directly, it is included in a broader statement so you hear it indirectly while you are focused on something else.
    1. Questions: If someone makes a direct statement, you might doubt it. But if they put the information into a question that assumes what they want you to believe, you may get distracted thinking about the answer to the question rather than whether the premise is true.
    2. "And" and "But": If someone tells you something you don't want to hear you might start to argue with them. But if they give you the bad news first followed by "but" and something good or positive, you are less likely to start arguing. They also might add more positive statements linked by "and".
    3. Because: People are more likely to do what they're asked if given a reason even if the reason is not very compelling. If things seem to make sense people don't look too closely at it and it may slip past their resistance filter.
    4. A means B: This is another way to sneak things through your resistance filter. If you're reading this, it means you are learning important information that will help you avoid being manipulated. That sentance was an example of a means b. Did you notice it?
    5. Awareness patterns: Certain words and phrases cause you to assume what is being said is true rather than question it. For example, "As you know ... ", "Clearly...", "Undoubtedly ...", "I'm sure you realize / notice / see ..."
    6. Agreement Frames: Instead of disagreeing outright someone may say they agree, but then try to convince you of something else. "I agree, and this means ..." or "I agree, and what's more ...". Notice they use the word "and" not "but". They may agree in principle or agree that something about what you said is true without ever directly saying they disagree.
    7. Pacing and Leading: This technique tries to sneak a suggestion past your resistance filter by presenting you with a natural progression of events. You get distracted by the logic of the progression and are more willing to accept the suggestion.
  • The article at nlpnation.com has links to pages with example that illustrate these methods.
The subject of persuasion is related to the subject of how internet applications are designed to make you use them compusively which also shows how we are influenced by factors other than facts and logic. In particular we will unconsciously do things that cause the brain to produce chemicals like dopamine that are involved in experiencing pleasure. Here are some links and excerpts on that subject:
Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, said

https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-2508036343.html


... The thought process that went into building these applications ... was all about: 'How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?' And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that's going to get you to contribute more content, and that's going to get you more likes and comments.​
It's a social-validation feedback loop it's like exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you're exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology. The inventors, creators - it's me, it's Mark [Zuckerberg], it's Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it's all of these people - understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.​
...​
God only knows what it's doing to our children's brains.​
I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.Roger McNamee, Aug. 8, 2017, usatoday.com

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...s-made-fortune-but-now-they-menace/543755001/

Facebook and Google get their revenue from advertising, the effectiveness of which depends on gaining and maintaining consumer attention. Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners.​
...​
Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term. Users fail to recognize the warning signs of addiction until it is too late.​
...​
Consider a recent story from Australia, where someone at Facebook told advertisers that they had the ability to target teens who were sad or depressed, which made them more susceptible to advertising.​
...​
In the United States, Facebook once demonstrated its ability to make users happier or sadder by manipulating their news feed.​
...​
The fault lies with advertising business models that drive companies to maximize attention at all costs, leading to ever more aggressive brain hacking.​
...​
The Facebook application has 2 billion active users around the world. Google’s YouTube has 1.5 billion. These numbers are comparable to Christianity and Islam, respectively, giving Facebook and Google influence greater than most First World countries. They are too big and too global to be held accountable. Other attention-based apps — including Instagram, WhatsApp, WeChat, SnapChat and Twitter — also have user bases between 100 million and 1.3 billion. Not all their users have had their brains hacked, but all are on that path. And there are no watchdogs.​
...​
Incentives being what they are, we cannot expect Internet monopolies to police themselves. There is little government regulation and no appetite to change that. If we want to stop brain hacking, consumers will have to force changes at Facebook and Google.​

Nir Eyal is showing software designers how to hook users in four easy steps. Welcome to the new era of habit-forming technology. by Ted Greenwald in technologyreview.com
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535906/compulsive-behavior-sells/
Forging new habits has become an obsession among technology companies. In an age when commercial competition is only a click away, the new mandate is to make products and services that generate compulsive behavior: in essence, to get users hooked on a squirt of dopamine to the brain’s reward center to ensure that they’ll come back.​
How Technology is Hijacking Your Mind — from a Magician and Google Design Ethicist Tristan Harris May 18, 2016
https://journal.thriveglobal.com/ho...ian-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.” — Unknown.​
...​
I’m an expert on how technology hijacks our psychological vulnerabilities.​
...​
I learned to think this way when I was a magician. Magicians start by looking for blind spots, edges, vulnerabilities and limits of people’s perception, so they can influence what people do without them even realizing it. Once you know how to push people’s buttons, you can play them like a piano.​
...​
And this is exactly what product designers do to your mind. They play your psychological vulnerabilities (consciously and unconsciously) against you in the race to grab your attention. I want to show you how they do it.​
...​
Hijack #1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices​
...​
By shaping the menus we pick from, technology hijacks the way we perceive our choices and replaces them with new ones.​
...​
Hijack #2: Put a Slot Machine In a Billion Pockets​
...​
If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do is link a user’s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward. You pull a lever and immediately receive either an enticing reward (a match, a prize!) or nothing. Addictiveness is maximized when the rate of reward is most variable.​
...​
When we pull our phone out of our pocket, we’re playing a slot machine to see what notifications we got.​
...​
When we pull to refresh our email, we’re playing a slot machine to see what new email we got.​
...​
When we swipe down our finger to scroll the Instagram feed, we’re playing a slot machine to see what photo comes next.​
...​
When we swipe faces left/right on dating apps like Tinder, we’re playing a slot machine to see if we got a match.​
...​
When we tap the # of red notifications, we’re playing a slot machine to what’s underneath.​
...​
Hijack #3: Fear of Missing Something Important (FOMSI)​
...​
Another way apps and websites hijack people’s minds is by inducing a “1% chance you could be missing something important.”​
...​
Hijack #4: Social Approval​
...​
When I get tagged by my friend Marc, I imagine him making a conscious choice to tag me. But I don’t see how a company like Facebook orchestrated his doing that in the first place.​
...​
Hijack #5: Social Reciprocity (Tit-for-tat)​
...​
Like Facebook, LinkedIn exploits an asymmetry in perception. When you receive an invitation from someone to connect, you imagine that person making a conscious choice to invite you, when in reality, they likely unconsciously responded to LinkedIn’s list of suggested contacts.​
...​
Hijack #6: Bottomless bowls, Infinite Feeds, and Autoplay​
...​
News feeds are purposely designed to auto-refill with reasons to keep you scrolling, and purposely eliminate any reason for you to pause, reconsider or leave. It’s also why video and social media sites like Netflix, YouTube or Facebook autoplay the next video after a countdown instead of waiting for you to make a conscious choice (in case you won’t).​
...​
Hijack #7: Instant Interruption vs. “Respectful” Delivery​
...​
Companies know that messages that interrupt people immediately are more persuasive at getting people to respond than messages delivered asynchronously (like email or any deferred inbox).​
...​
Hijack #8: Bundling Your Reasons with Their Reasons​
...​
For example, when you you want to look up a Facebook event happening tonight (your reason) the Facebook app doesn’t allow you to access it without first landing on the news feed (their reasons), and that’s on purpose. Facebook wants to convert every reason you have for using Facebook, into their reason which is to maximize the time you spend consuming things.​
...​
Hijack #9: Inconvenient Choices​
...​
Businesses naturally want to make the choices they want you to make easier, and the choices they don’t want you to make harder.​
...​
For example, NYTimes.com lets you “make a free choice” to cancel your digital subscription. But instead of just doing it when you hit “Cancel Subscription,” they send you an email with information on how to cancel your account by calling a phone number that’s only open at certain times. Hijack #10: Forecasting Errors, “Foot in the Door” strategies​
...​
Hijack #10: Forecasting Errors, “Foot in the Door” strategies​
...​
Lastly, apps can exploit people’s inability to forecast the consequences of a click.​
...​
People don’t intuitively forecast the true cost of a click when it’s presented to them. Sales people use “foot in the door” techniques by asking for a small innocuous request to begin with (“just one click to see which tweet got retweeted”) and escalate from there (“why don’t you stay awhile?”). Virtually all engagement websites use this trick.​
...​
I’ve listed a few techniques but there are literally thousands.​
 
#13
4) But I know there's a sentient me, because consciousness is a fact of my own existence and I can witness myself tell other people about it.
I make a similar argument here:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/08/consciousness-cannot-be-emergent.html

There is much more at the link but the crux of it is this:

Thinking you will be able to explain how consciousness emerges by understanding more about a massive number of nerve cells is like trying to make a ham sandwich from bricks. You can't make a ham sandwich from bricks and piling up more and more bricks will never get you any closer to having a ham sandwich.

The subjective experience of consciousness cannot be understood in physical terms therefore, consciousness cannot be a result of any physical process. Consciousness is a fundamentally different thing from any physical process.

Here are links to other similar types of philosophical arguments against materialism:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-materialist-explanation-of.html
 
#14
It was my instinctive reply, because when I went to reason it all through, I actually think you make a wonderfully interesting case, at this present moment in time I can't reasonably refute it. I think I set my brain into atheist emulation mode previously and it just did the job too literally.

There is this other thing though. To me at some point I felt like the distinction between the natural and the supernatural doesn't matter. The dividing line is arbitrary saying that anything that could be known would become the natural world, but then what seemed supernatural transitions into natural, leaving nothing left unexplained in the end in principle. That's the reason why the supernatural never really exists.

Ok, my brain just went into agnostic mode for a bit again. I feel like I need to know how they would see it and then I am seeing things I think they would see.

In response to that I would say that supernatural being a boundary of what we can comprehend as the natural world and that which to us lies beyond it (the supernatural) is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. It's not that the supernatural lies out there, galaxies away, but that it exists here and now in ways we can barely perceive because it's just the unknown waiting for us to find it one day and until that day, that's our supernatural.

How am I doing here bouncing back and forth?

I've now decided I love your argument so much, that I'm going to present it wholesale in your own words because I've got an atheist booked on the show to have a chat with / debate with next Monday. Show to air after I get the camera angle edit together.

I absolute love it, how would you like to be attributed? Would you like me to photo of you up? (All optional)

This is awesome, thank you.
I'm really intrigued to know what an atheist could have to say about this argument. I once used it with an atheist, and he didn't answer to the propositions, he just called me a apologetist and told me that I didn't know anything about "real" science.

I will follow your channel from now on, not only because of this; I looked into it, and I found your thoughts very interesting. But I will definitely tune in next Monday.
 
Last edited:
#15
It's not that the supernatural lies out there, galaxies away, but that it exists here and now in ways we can barely perceive because it's just the unknown waiting for us to find it one day and until that day, that's our supernatural.
I forgot to reply to this. For me the word "supernatural" defines that wich lays beyond the natural world, ergo: realities that are not bounded by physical laws or matter. That's why it's super. But at the same time, from another perspective, the point you made is very true... everything is natural: everything is real, not only matter. Those realities wich we cannot access, are just as real as our present material reality.

I like to see it as different levels of consciousness, or even, different levels of sensorial perception. What I mean with the latter, is that our bodily tools for absorbing and interpreting information, are not sufficient. And I'm not even mentioning our limited psychological tools. Even materialistic science has not been able to escape the evidence that the human brain and the human sensory organs (yes, even those from the scientists) are very dumb. Does that disarm arguments against evolution? I honestly believe that it does not. But that would be for another discussion.
 
#16
these issues can only be understand from a conspiratorial perspective... or the popular term nowadays is parapolitical.
If I'm following you here (and I may very well NOT be ;) ), is a possible explanation a more simple pushing back against the traditionally dogmatic religious explanations? I ask this as I am consistently struck by it when watching/listening to atheist/materialist debates on the topic. It also fits my intuition when thinking about the general populace's reluctance to accept scientific findings that are (or at least appear to be) in conflict with their religious views.

Having said that I do find the argument's disingenuous and even intellectually dishonest, but I stop short of seeing this as conspiratorial and more directly as a system of control (if that's what you are alluding to). As a point of support, its not hard to find mainstream scientists who are more open on the topic and properly keep current science in its lane; so to speak. (i.e., it still has nothing to say about many/all? of the big questions.)
 
#17
I suggest you also consider the psychology of persuasion. If you want to persuade someone you are likely to be more successful using psychology rather than logic because people use logic mostly to defend their beliefs but they tend to form their beliefs because of psychological reasons.


Mass hysteria is that ordinary state of human consciousness.


People use reason to defend their beliefs not to form them.


People are persuaded much more by psychological factors than by facts.
It feels like you've got enough material there for a university course Jim! It took me a little while to read and take in without following the links. The good news is that these are not alien concepts to me, I've learnt how to hypnotise people, use NLP and the like. I'm already familiar with Scott Adams. His invitation to sip coffee with him in a synchronised fashion amuses me. However I am very passionate about trying to use logic.

I'm practising on conversations in my comments sections at the moment. I'd be very grateful for your analysis of how I did after I've done my first atheist interview.

I think we have a tendency to think about people in soundbites, to summarise who they are in a paragraph and I want that summary of me to be the paragraph that keeps making materialism look obviously stupid. :D (But not just because I said so, but for deeply rational reasons)
 
#18
Oh, you can quote me as Fabian Cuello (it's spanish, and I don't know how to explain the correct pronunciation, so pronounce it as you wish), but that's not very important for me... I'm really intrigued to know what an atheist could have to say about this argument. I once used it with an atheist, and he didn't answer to the propositions, he just called me a apologetist and told me that I didn't know anything about "real" science.

I will follow your channel from now on, not only because of this; I inspected it, and I found your thoughts very interesting. But I will definitely tune in next Monday, don't doubt it.
It's being recorded Monday, but I'll be putting it into an edit to get different camera angles together to visually make it more interesting than just a zoom call livestreamed or uploaded raw, so there will be a delay, but I'll get it uploaded as soon as I can!
 
#19
It feels like you've got enough material there for a university course Jim! It took me a little while to read and take in without following the links. The good news is that these are not alien concepts to me, I've learnt how to hypnotise people, use NLP and the like. I'm already familiar with Scott Adams. His invitation to sip coffee with him in a synchronised fashion amuses me. However I am very passionate about trying to use logic.

I'm practising on conversations in my comments sections at the moment. I'd be very grateful for your analysis of how I did after I've done my first atheist interview.

I think we have a tendency to think about people in soundbites, to summarise who they are in a paragraph and I want that summary of me to be the paragraph that keeps making materialism look obviously stupid. :D (But not just because I said so, but for deeply rational reasons)
I am interested in Adams ideas but I don't like his podcasts, I can't watch them. I wish he would go back to blogging, I like his writing.

I am not against writing about logical arguments, they help like minded people defend their beliefs.

I haven't read every post in this thread so I don't know if this is out of place, but my approach to debating atheists is to be very gentle. If you create confrontation then you just make it harder for them to change their minds. I try to present the data as best I can but I don't really try to win the debate - I just want to plant seeds in the back of their mind that might germinate when they get older or if they lose a loved one and recognize that death is inevitable and that an afterlife might not be such a bad thing.
 
#20
I am interested in Adams ideas but I don't like his podcasts, I can't watch them. I wish he would go back to blogging, I like his writing.

I am not against writing about logical arguments, they help like minded people defend their beliefs.

I haven't read every post in this thread so I don't know if this is out of place, but my approach to debating atheists is to be very gentle. If you create confrontation then you just make it harder for them to change their minds. I try to present the data as best I can but I don't really try to win the debate - I just want to plant seeds in the back of their mind that might germinate when they get older or if they lose a loved one and recognize that death is inevitable and that an afterlife might not be such a bad thing.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about what you're suggesting there, I'm going to try and fashion my own approach of deeply listening and steel manning their positions, making it clear to an audience that they do have positions and then exploring theirs and showing how they differ from my own. I want to make it more of an expose that we all have beliefs and we justify them.
 
Top