Sunday, September 26, 2021

Comments by oameo

Showing 6 of 6 comments.

  • I quote the last two paragraphs:
    “Neoliberalism teaches and encourages individualistic and competitive behaviour. Our common narratives tell us that “you can’t trust anyone,” and that people are by nature lazy and selfish unless given incentives. We are taught that human nature is inherently greedy and we have to accept this as a fact of nature.

    In reality, there is a lot more evidence that humans are inherently cooperative, and tend to want to share from an early age. We have both a tendency to be individualistic and selfish and a tendency to be cooperative and altruistic. How we organise our politics, economies, and therefore societies determines which of these instincts will be nourished and encouraged to flourish.”

    My response:
    A great deal of research in Economics supports this less-dogmatic view of human nature. Within mainstream Economics, much of this work has been conducted in recent decades by what are known as behavioral economists. This research has utilized a broad range of empirical methodologies. Outside the mainstream, Institutionalists are among the heterodox economists who notably agree with the nuanced view of human nature advocated in the post above.

  • I think regardless of this bad information in various places, we have to work on developing good information here at this site. Take arguments and ideas one by one and discuss them. I find the discussion here helpful. By the way, for a non-steering social media site with features similar to Facebook, there are competitors such as MeWe.com, if you like such sites and apps.

  • From a humanistic-psychology perspective, mechanisms exist as well as a meaning for an individual human being. Both of those things are important. In a religious or spiritual interpretation, I wonder if a deity of some kind might even work through human beings, if human agency is involved in the production of voices. God as ultimate author of everything?

  • Hi Someone Else,
    I noticed your comments and the links therein only after making a comment of my own below. Thanks. I looked at the link related to voice-to-skull transmission. I looked up the “microwave auditory effect,” referred to on that page. It is described by wikipedia as “the human perception of audible clicks, or even speech, induced by pulsed or modulated radio frequencies.” This is part of diplomatic and military history, from what I read in a book called Phenomena by an author named Jacobsen. I note that this technology differs from the use of radio waves to transmit to a tiny device with a computer chip inside the hearer’s body! The use of microwaves can indeed induce voice-hearing according to established science, but the recent brain-machine interface (BMI) technologies have people in experiments communicating and moving objects across continents. More than one type of interface exists to pick up thoughts at the brain end of the BMI. Cyborgs are people who have devices implanted by choice to add to their “powers” as human beings. Has some group of hackers, doctors, or experimenters pulled a fast one? Like your third theory, voice to skull, this is a story involving forced participation and electromagnetic radiation. Would it be in the VTS category, which by the way a Hearing Voices Congress participant mentioned to me a couple years ago?

  • I am a voicehearer working on a neurological theory for my own situation that involves a deliberate effort to send and receive data to unwitting victims using brain-machine interface technologies—hacking the human nervous system, including the brain. One problem is that that theory rather obviously sounds paranoid. Given the low epistemological status of people with these kinds of mental differences, if you hacked a mental patient, it might even be hard to convince someone you did this. This situation would involve unethical use of technologies, if for no other reason than no consent is being given. I appreciate your critique of neurological theories of spontaneous voice hearing. I say spontaneous, because these are theories that assume no human design involving changing someone’s body with machines, right? Technologies are being developed all over the place aiming toward a BrainNet. Already, for example, an experimental subject can move a robot in another continent with their thoughts. (Such technologies are discussed in the popular science book The Future of the Mind by Michio Kaku and numerous other places.) It may be as commonplace eventually to read about hacking a human being as it is to worry about hacking cars or medical devices. Numerous commercial applications suggest themselves, including instantaneous customer feedback with 100 percent response rate. A framework of rights will be needed that presumes we “own’ our own bodies and brain data. So, I hope you aren’t soured on all explanations involving the “wiring” of the body. I am a social scientist in a nonbehavioral science field.