THE BRAIN IS A SERIES OF TUBES.

Ok, let's take the most simple analogy I can think of.

Imagine your brain as a forest, you walk through it every day nonstop.
The more you walk through any one way, a path forms under where you step, if you follow a path for long enough it has trouble growing back and imagine you want to follow a trail more the more it's developed, and that the more you follow the beaten trail, the more you fear straying from it and the more difficult it is you you to even think about trekking back into a less beaten path.

Your "World View", how you see the world, is made up of the shape and location of these trails, some people have trails that dead end into clearings, some people have trails that loop into themselves further carving the beaten path below them, and some people just don't have much of a developed trail because they don't like to entertain any one side of a world view.

Now, imagine bigotry is like a patch of poison oak (you can't kill it with a machete and you can't break it down, you can only avoid it), bigotry is not like a little vending machine in your head thats totally isolated, it's actually a part of an already existing pathway, since we are thinking about it as bad, we are thinking about it like poison oak.

Every time you walk that path, you have to be careful not to touch it, OR you could just stroll right through and not care, but the only way to really stop the problem is A) change the path slightly (very difficult for those with completely barren paths) or B) Choose an entirely new path.

What I was saying, is that things don't just float around in your head like vegetables in a bowl of soup or anything like that, they are carved into you like circuitry or an operating system, it's not a file you can just delete or rename, it's actually coded into you.


More on the tech metaphor, he uses the word "culture" to explain your synapse pathway formation, he also talks about the shamanistic approach to reset the brains programming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU

Wouldn't psychiatric help work better than shamanism?

That's just if you don't get your mind blown hard and often. I've always thought it important to keep a light and breezy head where thoughts don't just float like in soup but soar like the wind!

PS. Shamanism is what psychiatry would be if the man hadn't banned LSD, yo.

LSD isn't the best tool, but yes you are describing a pretty pathless mind =]

Depends what your problem is, if your problem is that you can't get over a little speed bump in your life, like your lover left you or your boss is mean, then go cry about it, but if you were raised into a head you generally dislike at a fundamental level, then no amount of talking it over will re-write you code, AKA talking it over wont do anything, but if you take the plunge and hammer away you can kind of start branching off paths from your main one, what the shaman does is he erases the paths if it's needed, but more than the he evaluates what is needed.

Analogous Tolerance
 

Sheesh I write lots. I'm sick, really should be hopped up on meds, but am probably running a very low grade fever. Go figure I'd write a ton of stuff. Apologies for dyslexicating any spelling or going on tangents in what's below, as well as any offense - none is meant (although mild rebuke and instruction is, as I'm a Republicanpompous, arrogant, patronizing right wing zealot who thinks he knows best). So: I'm putting stuff in swap tags. Three different arguments, three different tags.

Number 1: (Re: "tolerance") You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen (Post 1041317) But tolerating something is just staying neutral to it.

Nope, that's not Tolerance, though that's an unfortunate repeated element of the "Tolerance" movement. Tolerance isn't neutral. It's recognizing that someone else is wrong, but not hating them. Tolerance is actually something all people need to have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus (Post 1041414) I don't think our society is liberal in the sense that we are so sensitive we even accept racist viewpoints as "possibilities", although at the end of the day we have to tolerate these people instead of driving them out with fire and sword. I don't think we are so PC we can't call them out for being racist douchebags, though, or pick apart their arguments for racism incredibly easily and expose them as fools.

See, this is Tolerance: he accepts people as people, doesn't hate them, but certainly doesn't agree with them. He's non-neutral, but not hateful.

Number 2: THE BRAIN IS A SERIES OF TUBES.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lev (Post 1041463) THE BRAIN IS A SERIES OF TUBES. Ok, let's take the most simple analogy I can think of. Imagine your brain as a forest, you walk through it every day nonstop. The more you walk through any one way, a path forms under where you step, if you follow a path for long enough it has trouble growing back and imagine you want to follow a trail more the more it's developed, and that the more you follow the beaten trail, the more you fear straying from it and the more difficult it is you you to even think about trekking back into a less beaten path. Your "World View", how you see the world, is made up of the shape and location of these trails, some people have trails that dead end into clearings, some people have trails that loop into themselves further carving the beaten path below them, and some people just don't have much of a developed trail because they don't like to entertain any one side of a world view. Now, imagine bigotry is like a patch of poison oak (you can't kill it with a machete and you can't break it down, you can only avoid it), bigotry is not like a little vending machine in your head thats totally isolated, it's actually a part of an already existing pathway, since we are thinking about it as bad, we are thinking about it like poison oak. Every time you walk that path, you have to be careful not to touch it, OR you could just stroll right through and not care, but the only way to really stop the problem is A) change the path slightly (very difficult for those with completely barren paths) or B) Choose an entirely new path. What I was saying, is that things don't just float around in your head like vegetables in a bowl of soup or anything like that, they are carved into you like circuitry or an operating system, it's not a file you can just delete or rename, it's actually coded into you. More on the tech metaphor, he uses the word "culture" to explain your synapse pathway formation, he also talks about the shamanistic approach to reset the brains programming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus (Post 1041467) Wouldn't psychiatric help work better than shamanism?

Yes, it would, in theory. The problem with Lev's arguments and their strengths.Lev is pointing out is the point at which someone literally breaks their mind in. The forest in his analogy - a given person's mind - is where we traverse. Walk the same path long enough and things can no longer grow in that area - in otherwords, nothing new can enter, and it's really difficult to change: it can be done - with the proper implements, such a hoe, rake, and other things - you can actually reclaim the land for the forest and allow it to grow back, but it takes hard effort at that point. The brain is similar. Further, if we identify the "problem spots" in our brain (such as the bigotry/poison oak) with care (and some itching - something most people don't want to face) we can actually destroy those things so they don't grow back and replace it with something else. So, in those ways it's a pretty anapt analogy.

That said, Lev's analogies, graphics, and quotes have had several failures in communication and more than a few logical fallacies (including the presupposition of the finite to truly comprehend the infinite - as a mathmatician friend once told me, one of the key causes of mathmaticians to tend to go insane moreso than in other fields). He's got a fair idea of why people become so entrenched they can't get out, but he fails to see why they get there in the first place.

To return to one of the strengths of the "forest path" analogy: that of making a path. Lev's contention is that when people walk the same road too many times, they fall into a rut - the forest path. My counter-argument is that the "rut" is actually quite useful. Those who've created it know where they're going, can get there faster, easier, and better. Our brains are similar in that they physically reconform to neural pathways we follow a great deal. That's why many people specialize in college - they think on one thing long enough and they get really good and really fast at it and don't get lost in bewildering forest "maze". Not all paths are equally ideal, and sometimes different people can be taking a similar path, but arrive at different locales (conclusions) - two scientists in a similar field can interpret the same finds completely differently. Similarly, not everyone's "forest" (read brain) has the same physical make-up - some have the analogous "poison oak" while some don't (or have it in a different spot). Nonetheless, the path needs to be made and, unless you have training, you can't always recognize "poison oak" (bigotry/other problem) when you first blunder into it (or even always easily afterwords). It may take quite a few times passing through that same "patch" (problem) and recieving the "itch" (negative consequence) before identification can occur.

Although I could be misreading, it seems Lev is against this kind of path-making? To me (to use cliche phraseology) that smacks of keeping an "open mind" so "open" that you can't keep anything in it. I'm not against having an open mind (or more than one well-trod neural pathway), but you have to actually use your mind or it's becomes worthless. Similarly, Lev has a well-trod neural pathway that allow him to skillfully wield fireswords, and philosophically holds that most traditional World Views (as expressed by broadly termed Western Culture) are inherently bigoted against change - similar to how his own view seems bigoted against the concept of changelessness (again, I may be wrong, but this seems to be what's being said).

Even if he does accept that rutted (neural) pathways are very useful, the quotes, graphs, and wording he's using are provocative in negative (disparaging) ways. And Lev's smart - I'm sure he can figure out other ways to saying what he wants to, although at the moment he seems to be relying on cliches.

Number 3: On CompetitionEven if "competition" is not inherently evolutionarily superior, humans (and really all thinking creatures) probably have a competitive nature. Why? Because: we think, evolution (presuming we're going with that) doesn't. Given thought processes, we're likely to select those who compete for resources. We (tend to) select the "best" (competition) mates (those that please us visually, mentally, physically, or whatever), select the "best" (competition) students for scholarships, the "best" (competition) athletes for our sports teams, and "best" (competition) candidate for the presidency. Oh, but those are too cultural? Okay, let's look at: we select the "best" (competition) sheep to breed, the "best" (competition) crops to grow, the "best" (competition) animals to tame, and the "best" (competition) people to hang out with. This competative instinct isn't just about finite resources (although there's that too) it's about the drive to improve ourselves. Still not satisfied? We're on an internet forum argueing about whether or not "competition" is a valid, inherent part of our nature. Without a competative drive to "prove" our point, we'd not be arguing this at all. We'd just go "okay, yeah, you're right, who cares" and move on. Competition isn't going to go away. We have it at personal levels and at corporate (I don't mean financial business, "corporate") levels. We have it at every element of our life, just as we have cooperation. Given an evolutionary system, both would become important, even as they seem contradictory. Limited resources or not, we will still compete. Competing doesn't even mean "struggling hard" for something - it can be passive. Jamestown nearly failed because people passively "competed" to do less than others while still reaping the benefits of a full days labor.

Okie, I'mma go die and/or haunt another thread with my far-too-many words and low-grade fever. Probably while hopped up on meds. Mmmm... meds.

If you don't hate someone and don't love them, I'd call that being neutral. Do you mean there's a fourth option? I don't see it. >_>

Oh, sure.
 

See, it's not "hate" v. "love" v. "neutral". I can hate someone and tolerate them. I can love someone, feel they are very, very wrong (and making a terrible choice) and still "tolerate" someone. I can also be completely ambivalent about someone (neutral). Tolerance requires an emotional involvment in some way - you have to care about their choice/action/belief for some reason. Neutrality doesn't.

Er, Anapt? Yes, the bigotry is actually more like emotional baggage, it can be released and untangled from your processes but we cannot actively remove or regrow land consciously, we can either identify and stray or wall off (walling is very dangerous in the long run) the problem areas to force a re-route. The forest will regrow on it's own as the synaptic pathways reform.

It's not that things don't grow in a pathless forest, it's just that to those who don't train on walking without the path tend to slip and fall like a cityboy trying to crawl up or down a muddy slope filled with roots, the pathless will recognize the roots and where the path can be stepped on, he can walk or run in a straight line, where as the pathed will have a difficult time. It's a matter of preference.

Or tldr, you could compare the path to int and the pathless to wis, and I am 100% biased to wis over int, so I agree with the assumption that I have a path, analogybreaking or self-contradictory as it is.


If you want the real definition to tolerance, southpark did it rather well. http://www.xepisodes.com/episodes/61...Tolerance.html

Tolerance means to act neutral, I think I said. My point being that it doesn't affect you feeling curiosity or animosity towards different people. Seems like we're on the same page, tacts.

Haxx0red!
 

Sorry, I see how what I said was easily misinterpreted. That's not entirely what I meant: I meant we can work to repair the damage and let our nature take over the rest. We can work to make it more likely that the forest will regrow more quickly, allowing our paths to work better. We can't "will ourselves better" by the "power of our consciousness" or anything so silly. We can, however, break up the hard-packed earth (packed so because we've trod it so often) and replant seeds. Effectively we can go a different rout until it seals itself up, or we can weaken the mental pathway and seed it so it grows up faster.

Nay, I say thee: simply wandering through the forest isn't always good enough. A path allows you to use "horses" and "carts" (tools for processing larger-scale things) and you can take others with you on that path (or help them develop similar paths). The pathless will do great, but if they have a heavy burden to carry, they must either move very slowly or fall often. Also, beyond this, you're right, the analogy begins to break down.

I would be biased toward wisdom over intelligence too, however that's not entirely accurate, although I see what you're saying. You would err on the side of intuitive elements instead of carefully worn treads. I'd refudiate this by saying that if we don't have have those carefully worn paths, we wouldn't have a society - we'd fail to have viable forms of communication, as we'd all be attempting to "intuit" everything. No, each person needs their own well-worn neural pathways, otherwise we'd still be at square one - a square at which no flaming swords, internet, or other things for pleasure could exist, as we'd be not have anything but intuition. In other words, while wisdom is superior, we need both, otherwise we have nothing.

But that will never stop me from being an over-bearing pompous arrogant, self-rightous argumentative wind bag! Who's full of himself! (Alt: 'kay, I see your point, I just didn't read it that way)