Quote from: Epidemic on 2003-11-02 16:11:57   

Destruction means eliminating the bad habits and ideas that you have been programed with thusfar. This is probably the hardest part of the equation and it is my opinion that the Cognitive approch is best. I'll post again with more information on this.

The Cognitive approach, especially in therapy, to psychology is that the way we think alters our perceptions so that we react differently to stimuli. That's a pretty bad simplification, but it'll work for the purposes here. To illustrate, a person might suggest that you do something differently with your work on a project. Some people take that as a kindly suggestion for improvement, others as a criticism of ability. Obviously, your perceptions change your actions, which can impact your social abilities, which can come full circle to leading you to have psychological issues.

Anyways, the idea is that the way we think is learned, not hardwired, and thus can be unlearned. For example, a patient of Cogntive Therapy spearhead Dr. Aaron Beck suffered from depression and noted that it was worst when he failed, such as doing poorly on a test in college. Beck found that the reason failure had such an impact on this patient was because of the great importance that patient put into getting high marks so he could get into law school.

The goal of the theraputic method here is to probe into the subtleties of a person's psychological standing to pick out the irrationalities, such as that failing a single test in college will ruin one's ability to go to law school. For the purposes of, and I steal from Brodie here, Level 3 Consciousness the Cognitive approach is ideal for probing into the self and picking out the problematic memes.

If you notice that you have a consistent habit, or reaction, or belief that arises, begin to question it. Why do I do this? Why do I say this? Why do I think this? Keep going, maybe get a confidant to help, or write it out so you don't get stuck; eventually, you'll find something irrational and you can begin to teach yourself to think, react and act in a different manner. Much like Socrates said, "Know thyself,"  for, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

That's a subjective matter. To some, happiness is all that matters. To others, truth is more important. Right now, I'm more focused on proper implementation than what the end result will be, so both Brodie's idea and your implied idea for what "Level 3" should be would fit with my ideology.

If you're actually trying to ask what my desired end result would be, I'd say it's probably much closer to your idea than Brodie's. If natural selection (genetic or memetic) works by the more fitting traits being replicated more, then our "Level 3" should be to force engineered traits that have the greatest chance of survival.

We're born into certain cultures and inherit their ideologies, even if we don't think about it or consciously agree with it, we still possess it in many cases. In the West, it's been remarked, the atheistic vision of godliness that is rejected is the same vision of godliness accepted by Western theists for example. So, for me, "Level 3" should be to eliminate these influences that I don't want and replace them with something more desireable, and something that hopefully has good chance of replicating in others. To use my previous example, instead of accepting or rejecting one concept of godliness, I can choose to accept or reject another concept of godliness. Whether this means I'll be happy, or whether it means I'll know the truth is anyone's guess really, I don't want to make that distinction as of yet, since in much of my thinking both terms are subjective.

Quote from: David Lucifer on 2003-11-14 11:03:54   

Is it not problematic that the very memes you want to replace with something more desirable are precisely the same memes that influence, or some cases determine what is desirable?

It both is and isn't. It is problematic if you take firm grasp of the philosophy that one should be free of mind viruses (as Brodie would put it), it isn't if one sees truth as subjective (which I would do).

Also, there are memes like you point out that set parameters for what other memes become desireable. Such as the capitalism meme making price fixing seem okay, but the socialist/economic equality memes would not. And that leads to my point, in individuals, there is no defining line of what parametric memeplexes are superior to others in terms of individual benefit. Empiricism as a means for finding the truth, in an individual, is no more or less effective than staunch spiritualism. It's only in groups that these difference crop up. So, for any one person to decide, "I want to re-engineer my life," whatever goal they select is fine. Whatever parameters they select are fine. It's all a matter of choice

If you were to decide that truth is the most important aspect, you would select different parameters for what memes are desireable than a person who chooses happiness. But in the end, either choice is just as good for the individual.

Quote from: David Lucifer on 2003-11-20 20:58:28   

What do you mean truth is subjective? Are all beliefs equally true? Where did you get the idea that price fixing is OK under capitalism? I find it hard to believe you think all goals are equally good. Surely that would lead to huge inconsistencies. What if almost all premature deaths are avoidable meaning that they are the result of ignorance of the truth. In other words, if the person knew that their actions (or lack of actions) would lead to their imminent death, they could do something to avoid dying. How is that good for the individual?

1. Beliefs, even in the empirical system of finding it, are based on observations of phenomenon. Observation, more accurately called perception, is fundamentally flawed in that the observer can freely create whatever it is they wish to see. For example, gestalts and other optical illusions. You can see multiple things, often times contradictory images, within the same object. "Truth" is subjective because we choose what truths to believe in. Empiricists, claiming to study only replicated and verifiable phenomenon, invaribale choose to believe in a consensus-held belief. But just like the Earth was once the center of the Universe, following consensus is equally damaging to following "the truth."

2. Price fixing SEEMS okay under capitalism because the businessmen who engage in price fixing are still operating in a free marketplace to gain for themselve more money. The morality of the culture the event takes place in is another matter and separate from the system of economy used. However, by no means would price fixing even appear okay under socialist economics because the goal to ensure everyone gets their fair share, not that a free market exists or that an individual can make more for himself with little effort.

3. In individuals? Why wouldn't all goals be equal? Person X, looking for happiness and happiness alone is no less intelligent or important than Person Y who seeks nothing but the Truth. If you could show me how this is not true, I'd retract the statement.

4. Ah, what if we could stop death questions are always fun. They're fun because they make the assumption that death is a bad thing, and they're fun because they make the assumption that death is stoppable at all. But, I'll play anyway. If all deaths not of natural causes were due to a lack of foresight by the deceased, then how would it be good for a person to act in a way that did not prevent this death? Because the statistical chances of any given action or inaction leading to death is slim at best.  We have seatbelts because we have the foresight to know that using them may save our lives. How many of us, though, get into potentially fatal auto accidents? It's a lack of foresight to carry around metal objects in an electrical storm, but how many people get hit by lightning each year?

Why live in constant fear of the inevitable, especially when the sources of that fear are most commonly exceedingly rare phenomenon? For example, people are deathly afraid when a gun is pointed at them. Only ten percent of gun shot wounds are fatal. Why alter one's lifestyle over such a small chance of death?