Thursday, 22 March 2012

Subjectivity & Nanotechnological Perfect Minds

The following essay (The Fallacy of Objectivity. The Dangers of Cognitive Adjustment.) was written sometime around 2010. I am now providing an update about Morality Pills regarding brain alteration (drugging) to increase a person's sense of morality. Morality Pills have recently been mentioned in the New York Times and elsewhere; the website IEET for example.

IEET ironically stands for the Institute of Emerging Ethics and Technology, it is ironic because morality pills are immoral, unethical, they are evil. Note this IEET poll where the majority of IEET readers think morality pills should be widely available. 26% of people polled actually think morality pills should be added to the water supply, mandatory drugging.

If the above IEET poll-link is redirected or otherwise unavailable you can view a frozen Google cache here once you scroll down past the broken image: IEET removed their poll results from the first location so I froze a Google cache but the comments where Hank admitted he was one of the 26% have not been cached (email-notification-copies of most comments are available if needed). IEET's new location for the poll will hopefully not be changed but if it is changed again I won't continue to update links therefore you must rely on the Google cache if they change the URL again.

Involuntary Lithium Medication

Before including in this update my thoughts arising from a debate about the IEET poll, I will mention how various studies have concluded we should consider adding Lithium to the water thereby decreasing suicide. Dr Moosajee Bhamjee is mentioned in the Guardian; he advocates adding Lithium to the water supply. There has also been research in Texas, Japan, and Austria advocating mandatory Lithium drugging via the water supply. Suicide is a natural response to highly unpleasant situations. People who commit suicide are responding to extreme mental or physical pain. Our perception of pain is vital to determine value therefore the danger of mandatory drugging is that people will become docile slaves willing to meekly accept oppressive circumstances without protest. There is a clear danger people could become mindless nonentities, without high values, happy to accept gross abuses of trust (political corruption). Mandatory Lithium drugging could easily create herds of docile human cattle with values no better than happily chewing the grass in a mediocre field.

It is also pertinent to mention how there have been breakthroughs regarding the creation of a stress vaccine. Dr Robert Sapolsky used a modified herpes simplex virus, as a delivery vehicle for gene therapy, which could theoretically "vaccinate" people against stress. Wired magazine explained Sapolsky's expriments thus: "He has shown that by injecting the amygdala with a modified herpes virus, he can dramatically reduce the anxiety the animals suffer when they’re placed in an open space, where they instinctively fear predators." So in the future instead of being anxious about politicial corruption, people who have been vaccinated against anxiety will very likely have no worries about politicians. I am sure will make the polictians very happy. Tyranny here we come.

Morality pills in combination with the stress vaccine, and lithium added to the water, constitute alarming proposals for chemical subjugation of free-will, free-thinking, free-minds.

IEET Poll Debate Comments

People should be free to change their minds and bodies in any way they desire. I object to the morality pill because discussion of a morality pill long before the causes of hostility have been addressed is intellectually flawed. The immorality problem is not a fault with the individual it is a fault with the socioeconomic system. The pill seems to be a knee jerk reaction from the middle classes who wrongly assume all anti-establishment feeling is immoral. We are considering a pill which makes people "nicer by increasing their patience and empathy" so maybe it would be given to all people who are arrested for public order offenses. #OWS protesters for example are not patient or nice from the viewpoint of Wall Street bankers. I am sure many politicians would like to see OWS protesters being given a morality pill. I suspect the middle classes are largely responsible for the knee jerk desire to see widespread usage of morality pills, but not of course for their own personal usage. 

Bio-modification is appropriate if people want it but I don't see masses of people wanting an increased morality modification. I am reasonably sure all the people advocating it don't consider themselves to be in need of increased morality, they do not think their morality is flawed, they want the pill for other people, thus in this situation modification is not appropriate, a situation where one person wants to apply it to another person, a situation where there is no real desire for it in the person to whom it is applied. Over reliance on external agencies for the management of consciousnesses tends to debilitate intellect. For example health and safety laws make people less alert because people have surrendered their safety management to external agencies to protect them. Decreased alertness means people are less observant less thoughtful. Technology can aid us immensely but I also think people should be self-reliant (self-determinism) whenever possible. People can use their minds to be more cooperative. I don't see a pressing need for a cooperative pill especially when the people who want it implemented don't seem willing to take it themselves (with the exception of the 26% who want morality pills added to the water supply, or maybe not if they have an alternate drinking water supply such as bottled water).

In the year 2045 it might be OK if the brain withers and dies, replaced by more competent mechanisms, but in the interim period I think people should use their brains as much as possible. I have issues with the source of the "problem". It is my view that the source of the problem does not principally reside within the brain, it is a problem of economics and politics, this is the source of immorality (lack of cooperativeness).

Our priority should be to address the causes of hostility. First we should fix the causes before people start radically altering their minds based upon a soon to be outdated sociopolitical system. Morality pills are akin   to investing all your money in a petrol-engine-car a few months before all petrol supplies run out and all cars become solar-power based.

Altering the mind in for morality or pleasure amplification, or editing memories, or any other drastic modification, it is a powerful step and potentially extremely damaging because the mind is the core of who we are. Morality pills will soon be irrelevant because all immorality is based upon our soon to be obsolete sociopolitical system.

Morality drugs sound like Brave New World Soma, which was clearly bad. Excessive safety is actually very unsafe. It is very dangerous if you erode all freedoms. You can make the world very safe but the loss of liberty is very dangerous. It is dangerous to weaken personal independence, self-determinism. For example someone may say our safety could be enhanced if our brains were re-engineered to always involuntarily follow the instructions of the police, but if the police are corrupt then it is very dangerous. Consider the brainwashing in A Clockwork Orange. Breakout the Victory Gin.

Morality is such a wide-ranging issue impacting upon the core of our identities; but if we are talking about mere love and compassion then legalize Ecstasy, MDMA, which increases love without excessively altering our ideologies, our morals, but Ecstasy should be never made mandatory. MDMA is emasculating therefore ideally people should not need to use it, but it isn't the downright evil of the morality pill, therefore if people want to use it they should be free to do so. I am less concerned about MDMA because it is already in usage with clear examples of how it doesn't alter our brain structures in authoritarian ways. 

I want to you assume civilization is mentally ill. We are all suffering from mass psychosis, we are deranged which is why humans are frequently irrational. Now consider how definitions of sanity can become skewed therefore an insane person makes flawed decisions based upon their insanity, which H G Wells explained in The County of The Blind, and Dr Erich Fromm explained in The Sane Society when he stated alienated psychiatrists will define mental health based upon the alienated personality, therefore they will consider sick what is actually healthy, and sickness will be considered health. Note also Anti-Psychiatry.

I am all for extreme modification of humans but such modification must only be done when we have a truly clear picture of reality, which means we first need to eliminate the causes of hostility (our sociopolitical system of scarcity). Morality pills are comparable to investing all your money in a petrol-engine-car a few months before all petrol (gasoline) supplies run out and all cars become solar-power based. During this era I therefore lean towards changes to external circumstances instead of adapting humans to the circumstances. You could irrevocably adapt humans to circumstances only to discover a short while later the circumstances are very bad, furthermore the bad circumstances are due to be obsolete. Some Transhumanists are too hasty. Considering if we live long enough we will live forever, I feel it is better to wait before rushing into a potentially very authoritarian type of modification.

I am not squeamish. It is simply silly to rush into non-essential medical intervention which could alter your body in damaging ways. If the body is truly obsolete in 2012 let's watch Stelarc discard his body tomorrow. I suspect people such as Stelarc are motivated by deep self disgust and not a desire to progress. I suspect Transhumanists who want to blindly rush into radical emotion or morality modification are actually emotionally disturbed but instead of confronting their emotional repression they want to excise their emotions or modify their minds in other ways. It is important to make decisions with full awareness of your motives.

Freedom is the highest moral. IEET readers are horrendously immoral, incredibly unethical, if they endorse morality pills. Sadly the irony of their immorality is lost on them. Morality pills are evil. Morality pills are slavery. A total abomination. It is utter depravity, utterly immoral that people are even considering such a proposition. Unfortunately I doubt the type of specious morality being considered will protect the moral right of free will.

The Fallacy of Objectivity. The Dangers of Cognitive Adjustment.

Via tackling the fallacy of objectivity this essay raises important points about rationality, reality, subjectivity, the future of the human race. AI and the forthcoming futuristic neural/cognitive augmentation are very positive advances but they must not be compulsory. Due to the inescapable fact of subjective bias - cerebral augmentation or adjustment must not be forced onto people. This is an essay I wrote regarding the fallacy of objectivity and the dangers of cognitive adjustment.

Objectivity is a fallacy because if a human removes himself or herself from his or her emotions and perceptions the human then ceases to be human. It is simply not possible to be objective. Emotions are essential for higher brain functioning. Emotions can never be objective.

Views corresponding to reality are defined as truth (accuracy). The question we need to consider is this: what is reality? Humans possess emotions. The human possession of emotions is an important truth from my viewpoint. Emotions are a fundamental aspect of high-level-cognition. Emotions motivate intellectual (analytical) endeavours. Pain, pleasure, happiness, sorrow, and despair are powerful motivating factors. Without such emotional motivations cognition would lobotomized. Emotions are essential for consciousness. What therefore is the truth or accuracy of emotions (reality)? In our modern-repressive-world there is a tendency to shun emotions. Objectivity is the great falsehood of modern thinking because objectivity is impossible. Objectivity is a delusion akin to believing you can pull yourself up by your own boot-strings. Reality-fascism (emotion-fascism) demeans the value of subjectivity.

Reality is processed within the brain of each individual. Reality (for individuals) does not exist if there are no individuals to make it real. If no humans were alive then reality would not exist. "Reality" is a human invention; it is a word utterly dependent upon the existence of humans for it to be real. We can speculate about the reality of animals (or trees and rocks) but because animals cannot understand the concept of "reality in humans terms" we cannot be sure "reality" exists for animals. Reality is a subjective experience. Reality is something unique for each individual. There are common things we can agree on within reality because we all share the human-commonality, but despite commonalities each of our realities differs because we all tread different paths in life causing us to experience different personality-changing emotions. Subjectivity is therefore the epitome of rationality.


Regardless of differing personalities (induced by differing life-paths) it is possible there is an ideal type of thinking, feeling, action, reality, rationality, or personality for all situations and all people. This ideal hypothetical, globally applicable, modality of thought and feeling is not objectivity because it does not come from outside the human existential system. The problem is that anyone outside the human system (such as a hypothetical God, A.I., or Aliens) cannot accurately determine the true type of ideal cognition for humans. Furthermore nobody is outside the system, all entities are tainted by their bias, their subjectivity.

This ideal universal mode of thought and feeling for humans, implied by so-called "objectivity", could be true for the entire human race but all humans are tainted by their own bias, their subjectivity, thus we cannot decree a universal solution for human cognition. What is right and what is wrong? Differences of opinion between individual minds (personality and reality) could be due to delusional, flawed thinking, whereby some people misunderstand reality; or different world views possessed by humans could occur because there are many equally valid worldviews.

This human problem of values arises because we analyze all situations (and ourselves) via potentially flawed measuring devices (our subjective human minds), therefore how can we say who is truthful and who is deluded? Honesty is the solution, but only to thine own self be true can we be true. Many people think they are being true, but many people allege many people are deluded. Sometimes people think they are being true when they are not. Everyone has at one time made a mistake, but I cannot truly assert all people have been mistaken about reality on at least one occasion. I am not intimately familiar with every individual mind in the world, furthermore such intimacy with another mind is impossible. The external measurement of honesty (the evaluation of honesty in others) is a biased measurement based upon the peculiarities of the individual mind responsible for the measurement.

Internal measurement of honesty will always the ultimate form of truthful measurement because we are subjective. When we wish to impose our measurements on other people we lean towards fascism and when we accept people (their ideologies and feelings for who they are) we lean towards anarchism. The ultimate reality-mind-personality-rationality-fascism (measured from the deluded objectivity viewpoint) would be to impose futuristic nanobot brain-rewriting upon everyone to create a uniform mind-personality for all individuals, but who will decide the pattern? The subjective (truthful) viewpoint sees how we are all individuals, thus all biased, therefore we must not force other people to conform to our views because we cannot be certain we are truthful. Subjectivity is rationality. Rationality is the potential to recognize how our minds could be deluded. All realities are true. Everybody is rational (or irrational). We can only hope that the majority of people agree with our individual truths. We can never really know another person's mind.

Technology and science is a good thing but we should never utilize knowledge to impose supposedly universal truths onto people. Diversity and subjectivity must be upheld. Demand cognitive sovereignty.

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

James Corbett's intellectual poverty

Oh dear it seems I'm not very popular with James Corbett, regarding The Corbett Report from 3rd August 2011 (see video below). The opinions of James are very unintelligent, which is to be expected during this benighted pre-Singularity era.

James Corbett appears to live in a fantasy world where logic does not apply to reality. Instead of logic he prefers wild accusations.

On a positive note it seems my "evil" cult is inherently popular regarding my attempts to enslave the human race.

James Corbett misunderstands the definition of utopia. If utopia cannot be real because it is a nowhere-imaginary place then dystopia likewise cannot exist because the word dystopia is rooted in the word utopia. Contrary to to the opinions of James, both "utopia" and "dystopia" are actually very valid words to describe perfect or imperfect socioeconomic societies. The word "Utopia" was created via a novel but this fictional origin does not mean the concept cannot change thereby becoming real. Sadly the thought-police will probably insist utopia can only ever apply to the novel.

James perplexingly wants to state the concept of utopia cannot exist, based on the etymology of the word. Most people know the word utopia means a perfect social and political system, a perfect way of life, a perfect era, but it seems James doesn't have access to a dictionary. My description of my utopian identity contains various dictionary definitions of utopia if you need clarification.

Perhaps James was reading 1984 at the time of his so-called "Report", thus he's enthralled with the Newspeak idea of removing words (concepts) from our language. If James Corbett has a problem with the word "utopia" I can invent a new word based on Latin, novus temporibus (aetas) perfectus verus ratio, which explains my meaning, the meaning of utopia: a new time (era), perfect, real, true, a system based on reason (science). Taking the first letter of each aforementioned Latin word I could create a new word "ntapvr" to replace "utopia" or we could simply be sane thereby continuing to utilize the word utopia. Utopia and dystopia are both very possible situations, which can manifest in reality in a very real way. Utopia is not merely science fiction eternally destined to never be real.

Shortly after Sir Thomas More created the word "utopia" Copernicus was formulating the heliocentric model of our solar system. Around 70 years after the Copernicus heliocentric exposition, Galileo struggled to explain the difference between the unreal and the real. Sadly the truth told by Galileo did not prevail because the church deemed heliocentrisim to be "absurd and false". Understandably in 1516 the idea of utopia could easily be deemed eternally impossible (an imaginary or nowhere place) because in 1616 (100 years after the word utopia was created) the following excerpt reveals shockingly untrue and irrational conclusions by the Catholic Holy Tribunal and Inquisition:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you."

The etymological origin of the word "utopia" maybe unreal (fictional), but the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four demonstrates how fictional concepts can apply to real life, thus the initially fictional term of "Big Brother" or "Thought Police" can be applied to to describe real-life, tangible scenarios. Words and phrases evolve beyond the initial circumstances when they were created.

Before spaceflight was a possibility the concept of leaving the Earth was merely fiction. Utopia will likewise be a reality one day. In our current era notable people such as NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Google's Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt are willing to state science fiction will become, or is becoming, fact.

Attempts to create utopia in the past have failed but it's worthwhile note how the first attempts to create airplanes flailed. Initial repeated failure doesn't mean failure is eternal because if it does then we should give up trying to cure AIDS, cancer, and many other illnesses. After many failures it can often seem darkest before dawn but the dawn will eventually come. Don't fall prey to the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome.

The earliest piece of science fiction is widely accepted as being written in the 2nd century, which was a long time ago. Thankfully the wildest imaginary-nowhere-science-fiction-places from our dearest dreams will soon become real. Don't be afraid to dream. I have a dream of utopia. In words of NASA Administrator Charles Bolden: "We're gonna turn science fiction into science fact." I hope you have a dream too. Contrary to the narrow-minded views of James Corbett, I will not enslave you and I'm not evil... utopia is coming and it is real. Science and technology is not a fantasy. The dream of black equality was real, not a fantasy, likewise the dream of utopia is real; we are striving for a very real state of affairs.

Sunday, 11 March 2012

Anti-Psychiatry Intelligence Explosion.

Hopefully regarding the intelligence explosion, the explosion will truly be intelligent thus for the first time in history we will witness human civilization based on intelligence. The vast majority of humans don't understand intelligence, their puny brains cannot visualize revolutionary ideas, which is problematic. The severe deficiency of imagination within typical human brains means: intelligence has no relevance to civilization. Intelligence arises contrary to civilization therefore new ideas evolve VERY slowly. Intelligence is an accidental aspect of our capitalist civilization. Intelligence is counterproductive regarding the capitalist ethos. The rapidity of the Singularity is extremely appealing because the slowness of humans is extremely depressing. Rapid intelligence is desperately needed. Theoretically the Singularity should create true intelligence, tryue sanity, for the first time in history. 

Human psychology is obviously poignantly relevant to the intelligence explosion, therefore a true explanation of human psychology is needed, thus I shall explain Anti-Psychiatry.

Throughout the past 12 months I wanted to write an Anti-Psychiatry explanation, regarding the intelligence explosion, but I could never summon the motivation. Thanks to David Pearce I have been nudged into writing this article. David published a link on Google+ regarding how "music therapy may help depression". My following essay is is an edited and embellished version of comments I made in response to David Pearce and his cyber-friends. My comments may not be visible on Google+ due to user-name censorship issues in regarding the account I used to make the comments.

I published this too early before I finished editing these rough notes, but what the hell I'll leave it online and then maybe I will be compelled to finish it quicker.

I don't downplay the enormous suffering of emotionally disturbed people.

The foundations of this subject can be epitomized via a quotation regarding Jiddu Krishnamurti who said: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." This sentiment by Jiddu has also been similarly stated by the renowned psychologist Dr Erich Fromm in his book The Sane Society: "Alienated psychiatrists will define mental health in terms of the alienated personality, and therefore consider healthy what might be considered sick from the standpoint of normative humanism." Fromm is criticizing the "sociological relativism" viewpoint, which deems anything compatible with current sociological norms is healthy, thus mental health from the traditional psychiatry viewpoint deems conformity as healthy even if the conformity is to great barbarity, irrationality, and cruelty. 

My point is that our whole society is psychologically sick, our civilization is mentally ill. Our civilization is plagued by mass psychosis. The so-called "normal people" able to cope with the horror of civilization are the truly disturbed people, but the people who desperately need help are the so-called "abnormal people". "Abnormal people" are actually mentally healthy people (healthy from the anti-psychiatric viewpoint) because they cannot cope, and due to their awareness their suffering is extreme thus they need help. Anti-psychiatry definitions are confusing because everyone is insane. There is confusion due to the mixed meanings but hopefully you can comprehend my points. The world is insane therefore we all need help but the sane people ("sane" from the anti-psychiatric viewpoint) need more help because their awareness of the truth regarding reality makes their suffering exceptionally painful. Unaware people are less in need of help but there is a serious problem because it is largely unaware people who are giving help therefore due to their unawareness of the problem the help they give does more harm than good. The problem revolves around the insanity perpetuated by unaware people. Unaware people who have no real conception that they are deeply disturbed are causing immense havoc and cruelty in the world. Unaware people ("normal" people from the traditional psychiatric viewpoint) are extremely sick, they inflict their vile sickness onto everybody which causes greatest suffering for people who are aware.

The suffering of "mentally ill" people ("ill" from the the traditional psychiatric viewpoint) is very real, extremely real. Emotionally disturbed people endure pure agony, they experience horrific mental torment, but I insist the people within our inhuman world who are actually insane are people who aren't disturbed by the horror of civilization. So-called "normal people" are actually insane. The people who can function normally are the true gibbering psychopathic lunatics. The genetic predisposition to being emotionally disturbed is a valuable trait (mental problems gave early humans an edge). Penny Spikins, University of York archaeologist states: "I think that part of the reason Homo sapiens were so successful is because they were willing to include people with different minds in their society - people with autism or schizophrenia, for example."

Help is desperately needed for people who are suffering mentally, but the type of help given is often very unsatisfactory due to mistaken assumptions of sanity regarding the person giving help. There is an flawed assumption of sanity applicable to the minds of the people trying to give help. The "helpers" are not noticeably emotionally disturbed but they are very deeply insane. The helpers are sickeningly irrational, they are very dangerous. Mental health professionals and other associated people (helpers) commonly exhibit severely disordered thought processes, a psychotic trait similar to all so-called "normal" people. The "helpers" possess minds which are intransigently relentless regarding an illogical insistence upon correctness of their pseudo-normality. All intelligent people feel excruciating despair regarding being trapped in our benighted civilization (circa 2011). The despair of intelligence arises because within this civilization there is no requirement for intelligence; intelligence is obsolete thus morons are a hideous blight upon our collective existence. There is no hope thus hope must be created. Contrary to extremely depressing circumstances intelligent people must fight against overwhelming hopelessness to create hope. Hope is being created in the most inhospitable of circumstances. Fabricated hope bolsters intelligent people somewhat regarding the existential horror of reality. Intelligent people can also insulate themselves from the rabble via affluence.


Mental illness is method of oppression.

R.D. Laing
Thomas Szasz
The Rosenhan Experiment
The Myth of Mental Illness
Wineville Chicken Coop Murders - Christine and Walter Collins
Martha Mitchell Effect
The Games People Play
The Milgram Experiment

Consider the Rosenhan experiment, and anti-psychiatry. I am convinced mental illness is merely a term for people who ideologically cannot function within a irrational social-system (our current civilization).

A percentage of people who cannot function within a inhuman society will become emotionally disturbed. Various aspects of society, most notably via Government approved doctors and departments of heath, will push people disturbed by the inhumanity of civilization into being "a patient" with an "illness", which would theoretically be good if actual help was given but no real help is given to mentally ill people. The Government via its medical establishments will commonly implement a programme of persecution towards mentally ill people. The medical community generally has no sympathy for mentally ill people therefore mentally ill people are treated with less medical respect than so-called "normal people". In addition to deficient or incorrect help, all the ostracising baggage of the "mentally ill" label is lumped onto the aware person who is suffering deeply due to being lost in a horrifying civilization. Mentally ill people are essentially scapegoats for the insanity of civilisation thus mentally ill people are psychologically abused in subtle ways by so-called normal people. Mentally ill people allow the majority of people to maintain their illusory sanity and this is the principle scapegoat role mentally ill people play.

Mental illness is the prostitution of emotionally disturbed people. It is a form of psychological prostitution which serves to maintain illusionary normality for the majority of people (the irrational masses).

Turning the world upside down

A mortally wounded Kurtz whispers his poignant last words: "The horror ... the horror ..."

Dear I don't downplay the suffering.

The suffering is very real regarding emotionally disturbed people, but in our inhuman world I would say that *the people who are actually insane* are the people who are not disturbed by the horror of civilization. So-called "normal people" are actually insane. The genetic predisposition to being emotionally disturbed is a valuable trait.

What needs to be edited out is the genetic predisposition to being "normal"; and then once everyone is sensitive to the horror of civilization we can begin to address the actual cause of people being emotionally or perceptually disturbed. The causality is our inhuman way of cruel life.

The code allowing humans to equanimously tolerate an inhuman (insensitive) way of life is the truly nasty code. Sangfroid regarding the horror of civilization is the *real insanity*, which we need to edit out. Emotional sensitivity is not the problem. The bias of assuming poor mental health is a "genetic problem" is an assumption is comparable to assuming mortality is a problem with being alive thus the solution to mortality is to execute people. It doesn't matter how many studies are done to prove a thesis if the people conducting the studies are insane and unaware of their insanity; such proofs prove only the insanity of the so-called scientists.

Insanity *may* be a genetic problem for some people but genetic etiology can only be determined once civilization is sane, and while civilization is currently insane (inhuman) it is more likely than not that all instances or poor mental health *are healthy responses to a mental unhealthy environment.*

When your society is cruel and inhumane it is healthy and sane to be emotionally disturbed.

No , what I'm stating is that the definition of mental illness is backwards. Dr Erich Fromm described how alienated psychiatrists will define "mental sickness" as "mental health" and "mental health" will be deemed "insane".

The point is is that "wrong" is being falsely defined as "right" but despite those flawed definitions, right and wrong both exist.

? your example of catatonic schizophrenia does not mean catatonic schizophrenia is a mental illness. There is a strong possibility that catatonic schizophrenia is a sane and very rational (mentally healthy) response to an insane civilization.

The mistake made by Establishment psychiatrists and psychologists, when they consider the creation of "mental illnesses", is that they assume civilization is faultless but in fact I'm firmly convinced our flawed civilization is the principle cause of so-called "mental illnesses". Our civilization is *VERY* far from perfect but *Establishment voices* refuse to see how our deeply inhuman way of life impacts severely, very negatively, upon our mental health.

The current Establishment viewpoint is that whatever is compatible with the Establishment is correct, and anything anti-Establishment is wrong, but that Establishment ideology disregards logic-rationality. For example if the majority of people, backed by the Establishment, thought homosexuality was a form mental illness then homosexuality would be an mental illness, which not very long ago in history it was a mental illness. The question is this: was homosexuality mistakenly classified as a mental illness? If homosexuality was mistakenly classified, then perhaps also there are other mistaken psychiatric definitions? The current *sociological relativism* viewpoint of the Establishment is very wrong. Hopefully super intelligent machines will evolve before humans can do too much damage regarding their flawed notions of right and wrong.

?, when you mention "paranoid schizophrenia" regarding *disorderly thought* you make the mistake of assuming civilization is ordered. The illusory order of civilization is illusory normality, which causes people to think they are sane when they are actually insane. The problem with the vast majority of humans is that they are suffering from *Mass Psychosis*.

"Order" is relative. Order from the viewpoint of a lunatic will be deemed disorderly from the viewpoint of sane people. The question is who is "sane" and who is "insane"? Can you truly be sure you are sane? Insane people often think they are sane therefore merely thinking you are sane does mean you are actually sane.

Is it really correct that high functioning people (those who can cope with the daily horror of civilization in a supposedly "orderly" manner) are actually sane? From the sociological relativism viewpoint it's "normal" to accept and tolerate unperturbed the possibility of being robbed or attacked whenever you are out on the streets, which is why we live in an excessively secure world where everything must be locked (locked homes, cars, bikes, computers, phones).

The normality of having a deep distrust of other people is most poignantly embodied in the concept of "money". Money regulates the deep distrust humans have for other humans. Murder is a daily occurrence ( and war is also reasonably common therefore given our fundamentally inhuman structure of civilization we can state civilization is fundamentally insane, but people are habituated to the insanity thus the horror seems "normal" because most people are actually insane. The *sane* and *honest* response to our inhuman civilization of cruelty, murder, war, theft, and greed would be to breakdown emotionally, to despair, to become unhinged, to be disturbed, to have so-called "disordered thoughts", to be tormented by the deep horror of life.

Hope that makes sense, I may edit this for greater clarity... later.

Perhaps Tony Blair or Bush should have been detained due to their poor mental health because considering the amount of innocent women and children killed in Iraq and Afghanistan Tony Blair is far more dangerous than any so-called psychopath. Tony Blair is a *"dangerous person".*

90,000 civilian deaths is a conservative estimate. The santcions prior to the Iraq war which ultimately disposed of Saddam alledgedly killed many children.

UNICEF estimates a total of 500,000 children killed due to the sanactions and war:

Not one single mentally ill person has ever come close to killing such as large amount of children. Mentally ill people who very rarely kill people are weak and oppressed people whereas powerful people such as leaders of countries are never classified as being insane.

Political leaders are FAR MORE DANGEROUS than so-called "mentally ill people". I would say the real mentally ill people are the so called "normal people" who are complicit in our insane Governance. "Normal" people who vote for so-called "normal leaders" are the biggest danger, they far more dangerous than the official definition of a mentally "dangerous person".

Establishment definitions are biased.

Dear , regarding your earlier comment: "Clearly there are legitimate and illegitimate causes for causing bodily harm. And this is where politics enters the picture."

The problem is that all psychopaths think they have legitimate reasons for their actions. Psychopaths think they are being logical and that their actions are entirely justifiable. What is legitimate and illegitimate can be a gray area, very open to individual interpretation. At one point in history it was legitimate (legal) to persecute Black slaves. Merely because something is currently legitimate this does not mean it is absolutely right, people can be deluded, people can be mistaken. Maybe today there are errors comparable to the Fugitive Slave Act but because people are insane they cannot see the harm they cause?

Ryan Carey wrote: "I still don't understand. I share your conviction that society is insane. I share your conviction that the world is irrational. And I'd love if people would point that out more often. It would seem that I'm a perfect candidate to accept your views. What would help me to do that is if you could provide evidence. Here's mine: people with schizophrenia behave in a way that would, on the face of it, appear stark raving mad. Take the person who cuts open his head to remove a transistor that he thinks is controlling his mind. He says he knows he is being mind-controlled. When he talks about it, his heart rate goes up, he starts sweating, and his words flow faster. He's obviously anxious.To me, the simplest explanation is that he truly holds this belief about mind-control. Your competing explanation seems to be that he is acting out of a profound sense of irony. He is acting insanely to draw attention to the insanity of ordinary society. There are obvious problems here. If he is acting out of a sense of irony, he has at least never said it. So you would have to explain why he wants to draw attention to society but without telling anyone about it. And then, one ought to draw attention to the insanity of society by laying low and being as ordinary as possible, rather than distracting everyone by getting oneself locked up in an institution!"

"I'll spin on a dime if you can find that schizophrenic patients overwhelmingly self-report drawing attention to the insanity of society as the justification for their acts."

NOTES: Harassment hurts other people what is "harassment" is often wrongly defined. Something can be defined as harassment when it is merely unconventional. Some types of behaviors are mistakenly defined as harassment, occasionally.

Saturday, 10 March 2012

Truly Free #Freedom

Here is the second part of a Post-Scarcity statement I'm preparing for Anonymous.

Many people have said "no" to progress throughout history. They were often wrong.

In the tradition of Galileo, Copernicus, equal rights for Blacks (ending slavery etc), the Suffragettes (votes for women), and Gay rights (sexual freedom)... the struggle continues. We approach the final battle for true freedom, everything will be free. The above examples of liberty show how minds have historically been opened to new ideas regarding freedom. Monetary freedom is the biggest liberty, it is the final liberty in a chain of libertarian progress. You need to open your mind to everything being free. Our forbears opened their minds to racial, sexual-orientation, and gender freedom. Now you need to open your mind to everything being free. You need to contemplate a world where prices are obsolete; a world where everything is free. Economics (scarcity) is the underpinning of all oppression. Scarcity of resources causes subjugation. True freedom is coming.

Are you skeptical regarding the future? If you are then please consider how the Abolitionists attempted to abolish US Black slavery, their task was definitely not certain but I'm sure they approached their task with 100% confidence of eventual success despite their task sometimes seeming to be impossible. I also believe that if they had been skeptical regarding their chances of success then Black today people would possibly be enslaved. Sometimes the skeptical viewpoint is bad. You need to see what is possible and then you need to see how your expectations shape the future.

Considering intelligence is potentially limitless with plenty of room to expand throughout a potentially limitless universe, or if we are in a finite universe then intelligence will expand beyond the boundaries of the universe, I am sure you can see how solving the problem of a civilization based on scarcity is a VERY SIMPLE TASK for intelligence billions of times greater than human intelligence. Due to the accelerating nature of progress, everything points towards strong-superintelligence being created by 2045, thus Post-Scarcity will arrive.

Air is free; energy is needed to create air. The reason air is free is because there is a lot of it, there is not a short supply of air for people to breathe. This superabundance of air will soon be replicated regarding computers, food, shelter or anything else which humans pay for. Everything will be superabundant like air. Everything will be free.

We approach the final battle for true freedom, everything will be free. Monetary freedom is the biggest liberty.

Friday, 9 March 2012

#Singularity Explosion Images 8

Here are 8 explosive images representing the Singularity.









Friday, 2 March 2012

Facebook #Censorship #NymWars #Weibo

People who supposedly love freedom have zero credibility if they attempt to justify the enforcement of so-called "real names" on the internet.

Sadly some influential figures from democratic countries did try to justify the former oppressive Google+ name policy, and they continue to support the current oppressive name-policy for Facebook users. At the height of the #NymWars various people attempted to justify, as being righteous, the authoritarian insistence upon wallet-names (so-called "real" names) by G+ and Facebook.

All people from democratic countries who support the idea of democratic ethics (equality, fairness, and freedom) should be utterly horrified by the current name policy of Facebook and the former name policy of G+. The people who demand "real names" on the internet should be thoroughly ashamed of their demands because such demands are a serious insult to freedom.

Insistence upon wallet-names (Government issue names) is blatant authoritarianism, it is censorship. Google and Facebook should be utterly ashamed that they implemented or tried to implement this name policy before China did. Facebook policy makers are toady Apparatchiki, utterly disgusting. Here is some FKN news about Weibo:

"Chinese micro-blogging phenomenon Sina Weibo has warned that new government rules mandating the use of real names on social networks could silence at least 40 per cent of the site’s punters."

"Last month, the Beijing municipal government said users would have three months to register their real identities or face the consequences."

The most shocking thing about Western wallet-name policies for internet communication is that Facebook had not been instructed to implement the policy; whereas Weibo is only implementing the policy because the fascist Chinese Government demands it.

If I communicate in a public place, in real life, I am not required to prove my identity, I am not required to use my wallet-name. If I talk to a random stranger on the street I can say my name is Pixie Fairy Dust and it will be acceptable even if it does raise an eyebrow. Why should we have less freedom in cyberspace?

Mark Zuckerberg will try to tell you it is unethical if we exert our individualism and creativity to define our identities in non-traditional ways contrary to Government name-regulation. It seems Mark and Julie Zhuo (the product design manager at Facebook) are basing their ethics upon Chinese authoritarianism, a fascist curtailment of free speech, #censorship, curtailment of creativity.

Censorship on the internet is becoming problematic: "Corporate Censorship Reborn: PayPal Bans Erotic Fiction"

For a while on Google+ during the NymWars my G+ account was suspended but my appeal was thankfully successful and then Google changed its name policy. Thankfully I don't live in China although sometimes due to the attacks on our freedom it feels like I am in China, or Iran, or on Facebook.

Video via ALJAZEERA:

# Blog visitors since 2010:

Archive History ▼

S. 2045 |