Forum Post: Are We No More than a Virus that Breeds Upon This Rock
Posted 11 years ago on Jan. 19, 2013, 6:57 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll
(13032)
from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Are we?
Is this the sum of Humanity?
.
Let us speculate . . .
.
If I say, that should human subject A perform operation B which then impacts human subject X, and that further, should human subject C perform operation D which does the same, while human subject E, G and I perform operations F, H, and J, all of which also impact human subject X, all of which induce various degrees of cognitive dissonance -
And further, should my speculation stipulate that the sum of this cognitive dissonance instilled in human subject X will have the specific result of rage, where human subject X is seen to blame human subjects L, M, and N which human subject X transfers to the demographic subgroup identified by S, and the result is an instance of mass murder, mass murder that devastates demographic subgroup S -
and IF - subject to my speculation, I set all of these various operations in motion, and it does indeed turn out exactly as I have speculated -
Am I guilty? Am I not a murderer?
At the very least, am I not guilty, as an accessory, before the fact?
And IF: human subject X must hang for his crime, should I not do likewise?
.
But we will have no such public discussion. We will not for we have not the stomach for such debate. It raises too many difficult questions about the nature of who and what we are, let alone our concepts of freedom and human dignity.
Yet I say, that if such a series of operations were performed, then the person or persons who conducted such speculation with said result have indeed committed a crime - a crime against their own human nature - a crime against all human nature, and as such -
A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
For surely, every individual of the human species is far more than the sum of a complex synthesis of stimulus.
And if this is not so, then those who engage in such speculation are no more than a product of their own environment, and as such, malignant, putrid, metastasizing the whole of the human species into a cancer - a vile blot upon the face of this rock we call Earth, a cancer to be eradicated lest we somehow infect the whole universe with our madness . . . .
dismiss the cynics.
[Removed]
Speculation: http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-story-of-love-good-and-evil/
http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/06/villains-by-necessity.html
Result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
[Removed]
The reason for the attack in Aurora by James Holmes
The evidence consists of two things.
That the attack was unusual or unique with its lack of apparent or stated motive, an attacker who was otherwise successful in life before the unusual behavior leading to the attack, and expressed no desire to die to, or even fight against law enforcement.
Coincidences in timing that link his actions leading up to the attack to the blog.
I will just go down the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas ; many of the other categories such as workplace and school massacres are aimed at people the attacker knew personally.
(Keep in mind that the basic argument is that an intelligent person would have anticipated the form of the attack, and that intelligent people would have been enjoying themselves in that way only if they were confident that other people in the audience were prepared to group up to fight an attacker instead of running away. So the fact that people in the audience generally did not know each other is important.)
1. Delgado Morales, Campo Elias Blamed his family, as well as experience in Vietnam. Not someone who had a 'successful' life.
2. Hennard, George Pierre "an unemployed merchant seaman who was described by others as angry and withdrawn" ... ended up killing himself as well.
3. Huberty, James Oliver Employment problems, ignored by mental health center. Not a 'successful' life.
4. (No Wikipedia article)
5. Wong, Jiverly Antares Blames police in letter sent on day of shooting.
6. Unruh, Howard Barton Harassed; said to police it was because his front gate had been stolen.
7. Holmes, James Eagan He did fail an exam... but university officials were willing to let him continue the program, especially since his previous performance had been so outstanding. Declined and dropped out with no explanation.
8. Pough, James Edward History of crime, not a 'successful' life.
9~12, no Wikipedia article
13. McLendon, Michael Kenneth Relatives were first victims, not a 'successful' life.
14. Starkweather, Charles Raymond, Fugate, Caril Ann Employment problems, conflict with girlfriend's family (first victims).
15. No Wikipedia article.
Other than James Holmes, there is a clear sense of a grudge against society or against specific people. In rare cases, such as Anders Behring Breivik, the stated motive is to help a certain group of people by harming a different group, even if the situation leading up to the attack is more complicated. (For how people can feel a sense of freedom after surviving a dangerous event, see http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/reprieve/ ... it's possible people who were not in danger themselves could feel the same way, but the reason people might lack confidence that 'the system is broken' too complicated to describe here of course)
The actions of James Holmes have only a superficial resemblance to the typical pattern, and the blog (and things that happened, or did not happen elsewhere) remains the best explanation. The thing is he was trying to plan for both possibilities: 1) that people in the theater would stop him and his neighbors at his apartment would open the door and trigger the explosives, or 2) No one would stop him and his neighbors would allow the disturbance to continue.
If the reality was #1, he wanted to go down in style. The question that explains the actions of people in both locations is, "Do people have enough confidence in themselves and other people to stop bad things from happening that affect people other than yourself?" (This is the same question that explains support of petitions on the idea of working less, after eliminating other possibilities.)
The timing coincidences: From http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/us/before-gunfire-in-colorado-theater-hints-of-bad-news-about-james-holmes.html?pagewanted=all
This might have been related to this post, also on 17 May: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/05/alternative-to-socialism.html Around 1pm Mountain time, give or take an hour. This post pointed out how being insensitive to prices because you have too much money hurts poor people (best seen with the 18 million empty houses in the US, despite homeless people).
On the same day, around 2pm (?) Mountain time: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/05/feedback.html
As well as notes. However, the first post was made on the OWS forums several days earlier, the most likely way for him to have discovered the site.
21 May, post explaining why the lack of feedback was not proof that it was incorrect, or even that people did not understand it: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/05/need-for-reality-interpretation-in.html
22 May, James Holmes purchases a pistol.
Don't want to speculate on whether his purchase of the second weapon six days later was related to anything; I don't know if he was actually reading Paul Krugman's blog (where Paul Krugman, unusually, mentioned in advance that he would be visiting Seattle, causing me to be distracted by [chinaSMACK] since I didn't feel like trying to talk to Paul Krugman).
June 6, the post explaining how the middle class is to blame for the government not creating jobs: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/06/traitors-within-us.html
June 7, James Holmes fails oral exam and purchases rifle. The idea though is that he was trying to see if his assessments of his own ability were accurate; he expected to fail the exam, and was proved right. Maybe wrong, but this is probably why he took the exam at all. From the NYTimes:
One thing that might contradict this explanation for the shooting is this quote:
There is nothing about his academic performance deteriorating at that point, and if this was out of character for him it could weaken the connection. The blog was started on 24/25 March, with a post made on the OWS forum around that time. But continuing...
24 June: after OWS did not respond to the provocation "Are you going to let Wall Street win?" which followed an explanation of how Wall Street obtains its profits legally without requiring any government corruption, announced that OWS was not going to support the solution and then this post on the blog: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/06/villains-by-necessity.html
The first line was "Why do I feel like this blog hasn't provoked anyone to action?" It explained how the world was broken to the point that people could feel it was the morally correct thing to kill another person.
25 June, James Holmes emails application to join a gun club. Owner calls back and gets the weird answering machine message several times.
There were reports that a neighbor saw James Holmes frequently leave with his rifle bag to practice somewhere, but I don't know if this was ever confirmed and it wasn't at that range.
July 4, post which suggested the widespread extent of knowledge of hidden problems in the song "Love The Way You Lie" (parts 1/2): http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/07/ideals-of-freedom-and-independence.html
July 5, James Holmes creates profiles on Match.com and Adult Friendfinder (//i.imgur.com/f0RiZ.jpg) ... not saying that it was that closely related, the idea is that he did not especially 'want' to kill a bunch of people but was not able to convince himself that people would otherwise end up using the idea of working less and therefore felt obligated to continue following the blog and its updates.
Second pistol purchased on July 6. That would have been before this post: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/07/limits-of-trust.html
Which may have been related in some way to Paul Krugman making a post in which he said it was fine for rich people to work less (if not for lower taxes paid according to his post), or who knows maybe it wasn't related: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/what-you-add-is-what-you-get/
Those are the events mentioned on Wikipedia. I think the [June] 24/25 events have the strongest connection. I don't expect James Holmes to have done anything to point specifically at the blog; another post, made without any knowledge of James Holmes, stated this: "The method by which decisions are made is, of course, timing. This provides plausible deniability to all parties." [...]
[Removed]
As I see it, James Holmes viewed his actions as a backup plan in case I failed or died. I was living outside at the time ("homeless") and slowly running out of credit.
It would have been easy for most people to just ignore what I had written, or to forget about it. By placing himself in that situation, it is inconceivable he would forget why he was in prison awaiting trial (or at this point, an arraignment so he could offer a plea).
There was also the chance that he could have been killed and the bomb at his apartment triggered, at which point I could have concluded that the reason people were ignoring me was because they wanted problems to exist so I could stop living outside.
His match.com profile included this: "I spend a lot of time thinking about the future. Mind = blown"
The full list of problems that the concept described on the site would fix is quite extensive although admittedly hard to imagine what a world without those problems would be like. (For many people it might not even be very different.) http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-message-to-no-one/
[Removed]
[Removed]
And where will we viruses go when we are through cooking this rock?
[Removed]
maybe you are a virus but i am descended from apes.
Did you - did you - set all of these variations operations in motion?
That is the question we now place before the court, for surely, if you DID, then you shall surely HANG.
Surely, we cannot permit ourselves to be reduced to the biological but the reality is that cognitive ability is but a defense mechanism, and the whole life of our lives is to serve no other purpose but promotion of the entity that is us.
Touché to you, Big Dog, for another extremely well written post.
The first step towards answering your questions is to define the nature of your operations. Furthermore, you would have to provide evidence that your operations led to the result you foreshadowed, and that it wasn't instead a case of pure luck. Without further clarification of the case, we can only speculate which is an empty activity.
[Removed]
Two questions: was Lloyd Holme or Vance Packard in any way connected to the MK Ultra project? And secondly, is this post in an indirect way a reference to the Sandy Hook incident?
You're a hell of a deep thinker ZD. And as you know, that can often lead to insanity, although I'm not implying such is the case with you.
And the equation in your OP notwithstanding, it is my belief that, yes, we are a virus on this rock and an antidote is probably needed for the survival of said rock. In fact, I believe the antidote has been found:
"It's right outside in the parking lot!" :)
[Removed]
You certainly are not. I have my suspicions as well, at least in some recent incidents, something I'm considering touching on in an upcoming post. But for your consideration in regards to manipulation of the public, if you have the time, I would suggest watching the documentary "The Century of the Self" if you haven't already. And a few random bits:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.xml
http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/05/verizon_patent_would_monitor_you_as_you_watch_tv_so_it_can_customize_ads.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
[Removed]
There's plenty more, of course. The "Century of the Self" documentary is three hours long, I think. I've only watched the first segment so far but it's pretty insightful, which begins with Freud's studies being usurped by his nephew's employers essentially, so these studies predate MK Ultra by quite a few years.
I also had a bookmark dealing with a computer simulation being developed that will essentially have one 'avatar' for every American, presumably for the studies of disease transmissions and such. Call me suspicious, but taken in the aggregate, I envision a time in the not too distant future that, not only will they be able to predict what any one of us might do in a particular situation, they could conceivable single out a particular individual that would be "most likely to" commit mass murder (or whatever) and then, as you suggest, know exactly what set of stimuli or circumstances it would take to get him to do exactly that.
[Removed]
Yep, and for those that are paying attention they're bringing all these systems, databases, etc. together. I'm a big fan of certain aspects of modern technology, but in some cases I believe it's going too far. But like they said during the early days of nuclear power, "Once the genie's out of the bottle . . . "
[Removed]
If I'm not mistaken, I believe I heard eugenics is having a resurgence in certain circles. Now that's an outrage.
[Removed]
I believe it's been bandied about within the depopulation crowd, which would fit in well with their mindset. But then again, there are those who don't even believe there's such a thing as a 'depopulation agenda.' Personally, although it may not be an agenda per se, I do believe that population reduction in some form or another is certainly discussed in 'select crowds.' I believe Prince William, potential future puppet of the Commonwealth, was once quoted as saying if he died he'd like to return as a virus. Of the pandemic kind. It may have been his brother, but no matter, since they're both members of the same 'select crowd.' (" . . . and we ain't in it." G. Carlin RIP)
For the record, I'm not a fan of Alex Jones or his ilk and don't frequent his website. Just wanted to get that out there.
2 children per 2 parents would keep a population stable. 1 child per 2 parents diminishes the population in half with each generation. The ratio of male to female births does not matter.
Take 1,000,000 couples. That's 2,000,000 people. They can have 1 child per couple, that results in 1,000,000 children, half of 2,000,000.
I can't reply to Builder directly so I'll reply here.
The one child policy became effective in 1979. Your quote has nothing do to with our discussion.
As pointed out in your paragraph, immigration and decrease in death rate also play a role. Furthermore, the one child policy only affects 35.9% of the population. "It restricts urban couples to only one child, while allowing additional children in several cases, including twins, rural couples, ethnic minorities, and couples who are both only children themselves.In 2007, according to a spokesperson of the Committee on the One-Child Policy, approximately 35.9% of China's population was subject to a one-child restriction." If you want to measure the decrease, you'll have to isolate that 35.9% of the population which is affected by the law, not the population as a whole.
This is because it takes time to decrease a population with the one child policy. You must wait for the older generations to die off. Like your quote states, a decrease is expected to start around 2030.
The point is that the one child policy is aimed at decreasing population growth. It's plain and simple.
Wrong. Despite China's population control, their numbers are growing.
(quote/)As recently as 1950, China's population was a mere 563 million. The population grew dramatically through the following decades to one billion in the early 1980s.
China's total fertility rate is 1.7, which means that, on average, each woman gives birth to 1.7 children throughout her life. The necessary total fertility rate for a stable population is 2.1; nonetheless, China's population is expected to grow over the next few decades. This can be attributed to immigration and a decrease in infant mortality and a decrease in death rate as national health improves.
By the late 2010s, China's population is expected to reach 1.4 billion. Around 2030, China's population is anticipated to peak and then slowly start dropping.(unquote)
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm
You got me.
Why believe when we know. The Chinese had a one child per family policy for years. That's a depopulation agenda.
I would consider that more population control. It seems to me depopulation would imply negative population growth although a 'one child per family' approach could possibly achieve negative growth depending on the ratio of male births to female births.
Wasn't that a movie? Future Crimes
It's not ringing a bell, although there might be one out there. I didn't come to my conclusions from a movie if that's what you're suggesting. Hold on a sec and I'll go to IMDb and look it up.
Edit: Nope. No such movie title at the IMDb website. But that doesn't mean there isn't a movie out there with that plotline.
Future Crimes was about a supercomputer system that could predict crimes before they happened by analyzing people and situations - the cops would be sent out to arrest the criminals before the crime was committed.
Something like that it has been a while since I saw it.
You may be thinking about 'Minority Report' with Tom Cruise. I haven't seen the movie because personally I can't stand the guy and haven't watched a Tom Cruise movie since Rain Man. Which I have to admit was a damn good movie. But the plotline to Minority Report isn't exactly what I suggest, although it could be considered related. It that movie they prevent the crimes; in my scenario they would cause them. Not a whole lot of difference tho, when you think about it.
[Removed]
"If you can predict them then there is no reason in the world why that information cannot be harnessed toward creation."
That makes sense. It may not work 100% of the time, considering the chance of an unanticipated variable, but it seems even in the presence of possible unknowns, given enough information and computing power the end result could still be achieved. As in, "if Plan A doesn't work, switch to Plan B."
And I'd have to largely agree with your last statement as well, although there may be a few, most of man's scientific achievements have been used in one way or another for killing his fellow man. We are indeed a violent species, but take heart. It's rooted in our DNA, part of our survival instinct. We just can't help ourselves (yet):
http://www.livescience.com/5333-evolution-human-aggression.html
http://www.livescience.com/2231-humans-crave-violence-sex.html
[Removed]
Those ten profiles you use would just about offset the ten profiles a certain forum member (who shall remain nameless) used to down vote the hell out of me about six months ago. Then I'd be about even, heheheh
[Removed]
So I would assume with a fine enough granularity, it would be possible to achieve a 100% success rate. I don't see why not.
I'll check your links on Trapwire and Trailblazer. I clicked your link on Trailblazer and glanced at enough of it to have piqued my interest. And Trapwire, which I hadn't heard of, seems to fit quite well with my comment to you yesterday:
" . . .I envision a time in the not too distant future that, not only will they be able to predict what any one of us might do in a particular situation, they could conceivable single out a particular individual that would be "most likely to" commit mass murder (or whatever) and then, as you suggest, know exactly what set of stimuli or circumstances it would take to get him to do exactly that."
. . . so I'll be checking those links as well. The NSA spy-center links I'm aware of. In fact the one from 'Wired' is one of the links I gave you last night.
Bullshit it is in the flesh being eaten not the dna makeup because that has been shown to change with condition and surrounding and even margarine changes us. Life is change and if you eat meat I would consider making changes quick if you choose to live because the doctor ain't fixing a thing except bank pocketbook. But there is no escape TRUTH will be so. You are what you eat where is the mystery in this simple reality. I will not understand how eating cut up dead stuff could be worth all ails and pains much less karmic price for death being made in the name of? I am WE...
[Removed]
You sure have an interesting way of looking at things, Zen. Logical and interesting. And yeah, 100% success rate probably isn't possible, as our buddy oldJim was quick to point out to me. You've probably read thru this thread a bit since last night. I guess he got bored with you (or you logged off) so I was handy fodder. It was far too late last night to put up with it for too long though, so I bailed.
How can you manipulate an action if you can't predict it? You know that a very loud high pitch sound will force someone to cover his ears because you understand the physics of the ear and of sound. However, that's very basic stuff. I fail to see how you could possibly manipulate someone into doing very specific actions if you can't even predict the effects of your manipulations.
It's certainly possible to manipulate people in a very rough and unpredictable way. However, Quantum Physics makes it impossible to manipulate someone into doing specific actions like in the movie The Manchurian Candidate.
The human brain is made of billions upon billions of neurons each affected by Quantum Physics. The state of these neurons changes each fraction of a second. Even with a massive computer the size of our solar system you could not compute the outcome of a thinking brain in the hopes of predicting the next action of a person.
I beg to differ. You're being too technical, I believe just for the sake of being argumentative. Besides, in my and Zen's original conversation we were dealing with, not predicting a person's next action necessarily, but manipulating it. Big difference. And if you're going to try to convince me, via Quantum Physics or otherwise, that it's not possible to manipulate a person, don't waste your breath or my time because it's absolutely possible. It's done every day.
No, Quantum Physics has shown a long time ago that predictions can never be accurate because of randomness.
Admittedly, I know little to nothing about quantum physics. I assume when you say "can never be accurate" you mean 100% accuracy. And although that may be true in quantum physics I would still contend that this comment of mine: "It may not work 100% of the time, considering the chance of an unanticipated variable, but it seems even in the presence of possible unknowns, given enough information and computing power the end result could still be achieved. As in, 'if Plan A doesn't work, switch to Plan B.' " is still valid in the context of my conversation with Zen because I don't believe that, in human nature, there are an infinite number of variables. Although I could be wrong.
I was wondering if you'd get around to me on this thread, oldJim, considering the amount of time I've spent on here bullshitting with Zen.
Yep - Information - science - technology. Good/Bad - often times depends on the intent of the user/abuser.
100% correct. The non-existence of events or things can never be proven.
What is interesting is to ask one to provide examples of how particular scientific endeavors were used for murder. Do you have an example of the study of prime numbers being used in murder? What about the taxonomy of sea weeds?
[Removed]
You have comprehension problems. Saying that anything can facilitate murder does not mean that the human species are a murderous and bloodthirsty lot. That would be like saying you became more bloodthirsty when you bought a car just because it gives you one more way to kill others (by running them over). I don't think a particular person's murdering tendencies increase with every purchase he makes, only his potential to kill which is very different. Don't mix the two.z
More to the point, someone who wants to kill will do it with his bare hands if he has to.
[Removed]
You'e still stating a negative, which is unprovable. Take a basic logic class at your local university.
[Removed]
Great. How about the taxonomy of sea weeds. Search hard now. I'm sure you'll find something eventually. Perhaps a type of poison was invented that depended on knowing the differences between sea weed species. Good luck with this second challenge.
Facilitating murder is not murder. I don't get your point. Everything can be argued to have facilitated murder in one way or another. So what? Cavemen who carved stones to cut meat could be said to have facilitated murder with that invention. Do you want us to go back to pre-caveman times? Pants, soup cans, bags, etc... all facilitated murder. The invention of language itself facilitated murder. If you are such a technophobe that you want to make sure you are not facilitated to kill anyone, I suggest you get a lobotomy. Once you are in a vegetable state the chances of you being able to use devices like language, your kitchen spoon, or prime numbers to commit murder will be near non-existent.
[Removed]
You asked to prove a non-existence. You asked us to find a field of scientific endeavor that has not been harnessed to the production of murder. What we can show are positives; that a certain field has been used for murder, but we can't prove negatives. Even if I can't find an example of murder for a specific field doesn't mean there isn't one.
You didn't learn that you cannot prove negatives in your logic or science classes?
All the examples in your previous post show positive evidence that some fields of science have been used for murder. That's easy and obvious. It does not show that all fields of science have been used for murder, very far from it. But wait! That's not even what you asked. You don't want us to show that all fields have been used for murder, you want us to find a field that has not (a negative).
Your view of the world is Newtonian. For the last 100 years + we have known how Quantum Physics makes correct predictions impossible because of randomness. This is certainly true of the human brain. Even with a full theoretical understanding of the brain and a way to track data processing within it, it would not be predictable because of Quantum effects. We could predict possible outcomes, but never precise outcomes. You must move passed Newton.
[Removed]
Easier to commit them I should think - Shock Doctrine ( now in 3D )
Funny how Shock Doctrine seems to come up a lot on this website, isn't it? And not in a 'ha-ha' funny way.
Looks like we were both at the IMDb website at about the same time. What a coincidence.
Yeah we seem to do a lot of coincidental things.
Shock Doctrine - yep never in a ha ha way - watch it before or just after watching Inside Job - it is even less haha when other events get mixed in ( looked at )
Yep, I've seen Shock Doctrine twice already. I started watching Inside Job one morning (had it taped) but had to turn it off after the first half-hour because it got me so pissed off, it started to ruin my day. So I figured I'd better wait until a later time. Haven't got to it yet, but will eventually. Not really necessary tho, since I'm aware of the gist of it from things read on this forum and there's a whole lot of other things I'd like to see for a couple posts I'm thinking of putting up. I need to spend a few hours reading some bookmarks and a fairly long pdf I have saved for one I'm anxious to get to soon.
Minority Report (2002) - IMDb www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/ Rating: 7.7/10 - 242015 votes ... Max von Sydow. In a future where a special police unit is able to arrest murderers before they commit their crimes, an officer from that unit is himself accused of a future murder. ... 25 January 2013 9:59 PM, PST | The Guardian - Film News ... Directed by Steven Spielberg. Starring Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell.
Not surprised now as to why I couldn't remember - was not all that good.
In that case you could not be held responsible in court, even if you had imagined the outcome as murder. The problem is many people have issues in their lives which cause them to be irritable, have problems in relationships, diminish their capacities to reason, etc... and the number of these people who kill is miniscule. People will react in a wide range of ways to this stimuli, and, of course, it won't be the only stimuli in their lives. A person would not kill his wife because of a bad state of mind alone, that person would have other predispositions such as build up hate for his wife or a mental illness of some sort.
What you're insinuating would mean that, for example, violent video games make people do violent acts. There's just no evidence that shows this is the case. It's also important to note that many people live or work in high noise situations and I don't believe they are more prone to killing than other people.
A prosecutor would have to show that what you did directly led to the murder, and I just don't that has possible. Your outcome prediction would play no part since it could be coincidence.
"Any behavior" includes very precise and complex behaviors like making it so a person dances Thriller every time they see an Oprah show on Mondays. I believe noise makers could only make someone irritable, and not install any behavior you could imagine. This is a personal opinion based on speculation. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to get the details of where I could find a research paper on this. Thank you.
I would also like bibliographies to research papers that show evidence for Lloyd Holme's claims. (This is a different case than the noise makers issue unless of course Lloyd Holme used noise makers to implement "any behavior" he wished.)
Note: I personally don't believe Lloyd Holme's claim is even possible to prove in it's generalized form simply because an infinite range of behaviors cannot be tested for. It seems to me he was speculating when he said "any", and it doesn't seem like the type of talk a scientist would use.
Note: For you to state that Lloyd Holme was correct in saying that "any" behavior could be implemented in a person I assume you not only read research papers on this but also recreated the experience on your own to validate his claims? That's how scientists work, and my assumption here is that you are a serious scholar who wouldn't make claims without being able to back them up 100%.
[Removed]
Oh yes you will!
The fact that one man wrote a phrase in 1968 and was quoted by another man in 1977 does not mean much at all. I don't believe from faith, I require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. This is an extraordinary claim, and, as such, must be backed by many research papers and practical evidence conducted inside a serious scientific framework. If this is true, it is the finding of the century in the field of psychology and there should be hundreds if not thousands of research papers on the issue. Where are they?
By not dancing I assume you do not wish to make the effort to back up your wild claims. You asked questions and I answered as best I could. In reply you shut down. Only creationists and conspiracy theorists shut down when asked to explicate themselves, men of science who hold some form of truth proudly display their work or the work of others to back up their claims.
Unless you can back up your claims, I do not think Occupy should waste time with them. We won't go anywhere if we study everything everyone writes. We must show a willingness to think critically.
[Removed]
You asked a few questions in your original post and I answered as best I could. I then asked you to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims. A legitimate and responsible request. Instead, you spewed out a flurry of ad hominem which have nothing to do with our discussion. What does it matter if I'm full of shit or not, I simply asked you to provide evidence for your claims, nothing more.
I did not question the authority or reputation of Vance Packard in any way. I stated that such a huge discovery would have generated hundreds, if not thousands of papers on the subject. If only one man wrote about this amazing possibility, then I don't believe we can be assured of its validity. It certainly requires much more research. Scientific discoveries must always be researched by more than one person before we credit them with the scientific seal of approval.
Why bother posting in public forums about ideas if you aren't going to discuss those ideas and defend them in a proper way? I'm not sure what your goal is. You asked questions in your original post, but you seem unhappy when you receive answers.
Why not write a blog instead if you do not wish to receive honest feedback?
[Removed]
Your sketch does not indicate method. A concept without method does not indicate the possibility of replication, it does not even indicate if the concept is practically doable. I could talk about the concept of intergalactic travel, but, unless I can explain the exact method of achieving this, I could not claim the ability to do so.
It's easy to say that someone could perform an operation that would impact another's will and behavior to the point of dictating any behavior so wished. However, it means nothing unless you carefully describe the nature of this operation.
Many things are culturally relevant, like alien rectal probings. It does not provide any evidence that they are real.
You proposed the claim, you should back it up. I asked for research papers because I was interested in doing my homework by reading them. If you can't even take the time to support your claim with a bibliography then you don't care for your claim which means nobody else should care for it either.
Interesting concept. Poorly documented by a proposer who neither cares to back up his claims, nor cares for proper discussion. Repost on a blog with a disabled comment section, not on an open forum. Next.
[Removed]
I guess some people don't care about evidence and will thus believe in aliens, ghosts, etc... I guess some people don't care to back their claims with bibliographies. That's fine. It's strange that you ask questions but refuse answers. That's fine too, some people are strange.
I guess I should stick to reading serious articles in serious journals, articles which are not based on vacuous speculations.
Good day.
To make an omelet you gotta break a few eggs - hand me another would ya? - what do you mean thats the only one we got? - ooooops
What pretentious, pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
I have lived this and it is good that your location is elsewhere because you both would have been so sunk here. Begrateful for what you are given cause some people have paid dearly to get this far with their entire lives being subjected to these descriptions here in Salem, Oregon my screenname same Peace, Hurricane I am grateful because it just means that it packs that much potential and the purple haze confirms it to be...ALL ONE
[Removed]
lol - apropos - expect no understanding from the self proclaimed dead one.
[Removed]
Yes - I think Archie would say - Meat Head - myself - I don't think there is much meat there - perhaps rock?
[Removed]
Too deep ( book ) - I will accept block head though.
[Removed]
LOL - I meant dead zone. It is late and my synapse ( singular ) is firing slowly. Catch ya later.
BTW - did you choose your name? or did people who know you ( and avoid you ) choose it for you as your likely top achievement?
Something like a year book credit - voted most likely to die - foolishly. Hey?
And you would know to judge - what - because you are deathshead? ya whatever.
What an epic piece of shit! I wish you personal success and I hope Sandy didn't hurt you. But nonsense like this is completely and uttlerly laughable, and a sign of mental degeneration.
Were you dropped on your head as a child? What the hell is wrong with you?
My first response when I read that was whether or not ZenDog was OK. It looks and sounds like clinical depression or complete and utter hopelessness and no human should feel that way
You should have gone with your first response. Has it ever occurred to you to at least make an attempt to walk out of this life doing the least amount of harm to another?
But what drives a man to that kind of conclusion? He is a lot older than I am. What has he seen and experienced to draw that kind of conclusion?
Listen.
Withold judgement.
So of course you "you" would kick him - what an asshole.
No, call it intervention. I never said he was a piece of shit, I said his thread was a piece of shit.
This is why you are still at the kid's table. That is not intervention and it isn't "tough love". You lack the capacity to treat anyone else with dignity.
[Removed]
Interesting. but where does this lead?
[Removed]
Hey Zen, You used to be able to get those courtesy cards on the spot, without ID, but at least in some cases, they now insist on mailing them to you. This is true for my local super-market, but not so for the corporate-owned drug store where I gave them a fake name and address. Do you remember when the book 1984 seemed so distant, and unbelievable?
~Odin~
[Removed]
Look at what we have built Zen, namely a movement that has begun to open the eyes of the world. While our task is indeed monumental, so will our numbers be in time through exponential growth. Anything really worth something rarely comes easy. PERSEVERANCE, and continual resistance to the corrupt system, while reaching out to the still uninformed is the key to our eventual success. Eventually when enough people realize that the possibility of short term discomfort is worth chancing.... against the inevitable prospect of long term suffering for not only ourselves, but our children too....the tide will change.
As Chris Hedges, who covered the uprisings in Eastern Europe has pointed out.. in essence...., 'There is no way to predict how or when this...(victory) will happen.' Unfortunately the impetus that rockets this struggle forward may be an enviromental, or an economic disaster, but hopefully it will be a gradual awakening of a critical mass of people who finally realize that they have to do something, as doing nothing is no longer an option. People will become emboldened then.
Building community along the way is also essential to our success. As the speaker in the MLK celebration at St Jacobi church said, "Community is unity, and in unity there is power." Hence overlooking the differences that people have, and uniting in our common struggle is paramount. Look at us: Despite our differences which i do not have to point out ;-), we respect each other. We have been able to set aside our shared hard-headedness ...you more than me, lol.... for the 'greater good.' And in that process, we have come to consider each other... friends.
I urge you to NEVER give up...NEVER!!
~Odin~
[Removed]
Exactly...we can never stop trying.
~Odin~
[Removed]
Ummm - welll - seeing the mess that people have allowed to happen to this world - wow - I am sure any surviving form of life would be appreciative - in a way - though probably happier if this situation was not allowed to happen in the 1st place.
Eat shit - you seem hungry for your favorite food.
Zendog,what are you proposing in English please?
Black Ops?
The method behind the madness of the latest flurry of massacres?
Just break it down simply for the rest of us,thanks.
[Removed]
Thankyou ZenDog, for this post...albeit sad...but very informative.
[Removed]
Thanks for that reply and sorry to hear about Laura.
[Removed]