PsiPog.net

View topic - Your ethical standpoint

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Telepathy and Empathy » Your ethical standpoint

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Your ethical standpoint

Author

Message

Posted on Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:28 pm

Elliptic

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 199

WhiteRaven wrote:

True, crying out may startle the attacker, causing it's attention to drop, or in the most risky scenario, cause a bigger attacker to come along, and yeah, that last argument didn't make much sense, probably because I was sleepy. but I've asked several biology teachers, and they agreed that all mammals and some birds are, in fact, self aware, though not necessarily very smart.

The phrasing used here is very important, and it is a subject of some debate.

WhiteRaven wrote:

self aware and intelligent are two very different beasts. self aware simply means that the creature knows that it exists. intelligence involves high level thinking, all animals think, of course, but high level thinking is limited to humans, and the occasional monkey.

And dolphins, and corvids, and yes, some apes. It's very difficult to test self awareness, since it requires a form of communication.

WhiteRaven wrote:

Of course, speaking of morals again, Humans are the only animals that use them, how odd...

That we know of. It's quite possible that dolphins, corvids, and so further have some kind of ethics that we're unable to understand because of a linguistic barrier. However, ethics are typically something humans demonstrate because we are (for the most part) reasoning creatures.

just for the record on Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:10 pm

Rainsong

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 67

Parenthetical comment:

(For the record, in case any of the new folks might be wondering, Evan was speaking the truth.)

We now return to our regular, scheduled debate on self-awareness.

Posted on Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:25 am

Omega92

Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 43

correct me if im wrong, but TPS overpowers your will. i think perhaps anyone who wishes not to be "controlled" by it should strengthen their will. im afraid im also siding with JoeT on this debate, yes, taking someones free will is immoral, but when its involving things that its better for them to temporarily lose their will rather than permanently lose their life, its entirely moral to me.
i also find simple little things such as "could yah get me the remote" fine, but things such as "you will retrieve the remote for me" unnecissary. yes, the first example still entriails taking their will, but whos to say the majority of the human race has correct morals anyway? IMO humans pretty much disgust me, hearing of all the sick things that they have done to one another. but in this upside down world, whats suggesting someone to get the remote going to hurt.

Posted on Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:45 am

Elliptic

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 199

Omega92 wrote:

correct me if im wrong, but TPS overpowers your will. i think perhaps anyone who wishes not to be "controlled" by it should strengthen their will.

Doesn't quite work like that - no matter how strong your will is, properly done, TPS will make you think that the action is your will.

Omega92 wrote:

im afraid im also siding with JoeT on this debate, yes, taking someones free will is immoral, but when its involving things that its better for them to temporarily lose their will rather than permanently lose their life, its entirely moral to me.

I think that the use of TPS is immoral and will affect your life negatively - therefore, I am going to TPS you so that you change your mind. This is because it is moral for me to make you do what I think is right. Yeah?

Omega92 wrote:

i also find simple little things such as "could yah get me the remote" fine, but things such as "you will retrieve the remote for me" unnecissary. yes, the first example still entriails taking their will, but whos to say the majority of the human race has correct morals anyway? IMO humans pretty much disgust me, hearing of all the sick things that they have done to one another. but in this upside down world, whats suggesting someone to get the remote going to hurt.

It's ok to steal candy bars, but you can't steal TVs. Wait...maybe it's ok to steal TVs, but not cars. Wait, maybe cars are ok, but not yachts. The issue here is quite straight forward: if it is OK to TPS someone to get the remote, then why isn't it OK to do the next thing wih it? It's a slippery slope.

The fact is that TPS utterly revokes someone's free will - even a minute, even with a stupid little task, is still a revocation of free will. Just because the outcome is (seemingly) harmless doesn't mean that the offense against rationality is any less. You can't rape someone "a little" or murder someone "a bit" and you can't TPS someone, for any reason, without negatively impacting their right to sentience.

Posted on Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:24 pm

Gekido

Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 44

Elliptic wrote:

Doesn't quite work like that - no matter how strong your will is, properly done, TPS will make you think that the action is your will.

How is this different from effectively used Rhetoric?

Posted on Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:41 pm

Elliptic

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 199

Gekido wrote:

How is this different from effectively used Rhetoric?

While rhetoric often uses carefully selected words and convincing techniques, it appeals to the individual's rational self (be it the appeal to intellect used to convince the intelligentsia, or the appeals to emotion that stir the proletariat masses) - pushing them to decide for themselves a certain way. Rhetoric itself cannot change a mind - the mind has to comprehend the rhetoric and accept it. TPS, on the other hand, bypasses the target's ability to comprehend or even think for itself, and directly inserts the Sender's will as the target's own.

Posted on Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:20 am

Omega92

Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 43

your example of changing my standpoint on the issue, yes, that is taking my will, but it doesnt harm my well being in any way, im not going to die because i changed my mind.

okay, so TPS is never okay...right. well i was thinking last night, and i came up with this.
well you seem to like to use rape and murder in your comparisons so, lets say someone was trying to rape and/or murder you, would using TPS on them to stop be immoral? after all, its their will to rape/murder you. and you say in any circumstance taking someones will by intentive means is wrong.

at the same time, im curious about my whole will standpoint, if there is anyone who is sure that they can perform TPS at a higher level, id be interested in being a guenea pig to it. and yeah, i do realise the possible concequesnces, but its not like they can make my life worse then my standpoint of it.

Posted on Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:44 am

Gekido

Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 44

Elliptic wrote:

That's subjective. Rhetoric can indeed change a mind, or at least be the catalyst. Think of Propaganda and the like, or someone with a death sentence making a final appeal (and succeeding).

Rhetoric is defined as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every given case. Telepathic Suggestion is indeed different, as it jumps the language barrier; however, it is still a means of persuasion.

As to your second point, I am heavily opposed. I believe in the individual's reason and strength of will. We ultimately decide what actions we take, and we do have the capacity to overcome certain influences. I see where you're coming from when you say the individual is fooled by TPS, but I also see a flaw.

If I were TPS'ed to jump off a bridge, that would strike me as very odd. Never have I thought of jumping off before, and I have no reason to. I would give up that want, and continue my day. If someone TPS'ed me to remain quiet in a library, I would have no objections. It would be what I would normally do, in any case.

People who fast, remain celibate, or who are pacifists is a perfect example of each individual's potential to resist an impulse.

It would take a brilliant man to make me jump off a bridge. Psion or not.

Posted on Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:07 am

Jael

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 55

Gekido wrote:

Rhetoric is defined as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every given case.

First of all, your definition of rhetoric is rather flawed.

Dictionary.com wrote:

n 1: using language effectively to please or persuade
2: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation [syn: grandiosity, magniloquence, grandiloquence]
3: loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric" [syn: palaver, hot air, empty words, empty talk]
4: study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking)

Second, rhetoric by itself does not have a similar effect as TPS. I will suggest that leaders of cults (whom I believe you were referencing) could be using TPS. I suspect they know 'what' they are doing (controlling people/having power over people) but not 'how' (TPS and possibly other manipulation tools). And if they do know the 'how', they are people like Adam (aka, amoral people).

Gekido wrote:

As to your second point, I am heavily opposed. I believe in the individual's reason and strength of will. We ultimately decide what actions we take, and we do have the capacity to overcome certain influences. I see where you're coming from when you say the individual is fooled by TPS, but I also see a flaw.

If I were TPS'ed to jump off a bridge, that would strike me as very odd. Never have I thought of jumping off before, and I have no reason to. I would give up that want, and continue my day. If someone TPS'ed me to remain quiet in a library, I would have no objections. It would be what I would normally do, in any case.

People who fast, remain celibate, or who are pacifists is a perfect example of each individual's potential to resist an impulse.

It would take a brilliant man to make me jump off a bridge. Psion or not.

That's nice that you believe that. Rolling Eyes

However, it is one extremely false belief. Perhaps you missed this paragraph in the response Aphanas gave to JoeT.

Aphanas wrote:

Bullshit.

I?ve personally been involved in two separate interventions (neither of which involved Evan) to deal with how Adam fucked with someone?s head. In one, the individual had suicidal ideation that was both specific and lethal, because of Adam?s little programming playground in their head. Our group actually had to make phone calls to a foreign country to have that person?s college advisor run a physical intervention against suicidal behavior.

Third, the pressure people feel to eat, have sex, or stay completely non-violent is completely different from what we are talking about. Those are 'normal' pressures coming towards someone through 'normal' means (aka, not through the means Erik described). Here is an excerpt of Erik's post about the internal mechanics of TPS.

Erik wrote:

The target would perceive the thought as though they thought of it themselves. It bypasses all of the procedural filters one uses when naturally perceiving information and puts it first in the queue. A target of TPS would generally have no way of knowing the thought was implanted.

In case you've missed it, I'll state it again. TPS can and has made people do things they would NOT do otherwise. Including attempting to kill themselves. I suggest you re-read the scientific and psychological descriptions and address those, rather than simply stating what you believe when your belief goes against the proofs presented.

Jael

Posted on Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:08 pm

Gekido

Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 44

Jael wrote:

First of all, your definition of rhetoric is rather flawed.

Dictionary.com wrote:

My definition of Rhetoric is not flawed. If it is, take it up with Aristotle. =P I did look on Dictionary.com as well as a few other sites for as many working definitions as possible. I thought Aristotle's definition to be a good starting point for my argument.

Jael wrote:

I was not referencing to them, but that is a fair example. I still believe that while TPS is not the same as Rhetoric, they do share common qualities. Such as the ability to change a person's decision or thought pattern. After reading Erik's post, which I foolishly skipped, my view on the matter has changed; my stance, however, remains the same.

Jael wrote:

That's nice that you believe that. Rolling Eyes

However, it is one extremely false belief. Perhaps you missed this paragraph in the response Aphanas gave to JoeT.

While I respect you responding to my post, I would ask that you be a little more civil. This whole post had a very caustic feel to it. I have no personal agenda to piss people off, but I'm sorry if I offended you.

Free will and rational thought is not a false belief. I read about the conflicts between the members of PsiSoldier, and I believe it has nothing to do with this thread beside the fact that TPS can be used in an immoral fashion.

Jael wrote:

Erik wrote:

Those are just examples. I could've also thrown in an example of someone who has Paranoid Schizonophrenia, but fights these thoughts and eventually overcomes them. Or a tortured POW who didn't give up military secrets. The point I'm making is that we have an infinite potential of self control. You are correct, stating TPS is unlike any other natural impulse. But it is still an impulse. Erik also outlined in his post that if the command were outrageous, the mind might flag it. Suicide, to me, seems to be an outrageous thought.

Jael wrote:

I read them, and as I stated before, I felt foolish for missing Erik's post.

I'm curious whether or not people who reported being TPS'ed to attempt suicide did not have personal reasons to attempt such an act on their own. For those people, they're trying to assign the responsibility of that act to someone else.

As for the whole Adam ordeal, I can not post my opinions. I was not there, and I don't know enough on the subject to make any statements. The paragraph before this one does not relate to this case, so don't jump on me for that. Thanks.

I'll clearly state my stance. I am morally opposed to Telepathic Suggestion, because the method is highly covert and deceitful. I also believe that we can resist any TPS command, if our resolve is strong enough. I've had a few people do it to me, and I used my reason and my will to overcome it. I'm not saying those experiences were at all pleasant, though. I'm talking about Telepathic Suggestions to hate a certain person, or to not speak for long periods of time. It is almost impossible to resist something such as picking up a spoon, because your mind won't normally flag it.

Now, is TPS inherently immoral? I'm undecided, although I'm leaning towards no. It's our nature which abuses it. Even if we use it to benefit someone, we're doing it unethically.

Thank you for your response.

Telepathic suggestion on Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:39 pm

Rainsong

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 67

"I'm curious whether or not people who reported being TPS'ed to attempt suicide did not have personal reasons to attempt such an act on their own. For those people, they're trying to assign the responsibility of that act to someone else. "

That is an entirely reasonable question. There are some cases with which I am personally familiar in which the victim neither had suicidal tendencies nor more than the usual reasons to consider such an action. In fact, they did not know about the attempt to "TPS" them until later.

That said, there are almost certainly some folks who attribute their own thoughts to someone else....but that is a different question.

Posted on Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:39 pm

Jael

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 55

I suspect that Aristotle would take fewer bits out of context should I be able to discuss the topic with him. For a more complete discussion on the definition of rhetoric, I suggest http://web.missouri.edu/~engjnc/rhetoric/defining.html where their abstract is:

Quote:

Is it possible, even desirable to establish a singular definition of "rhetoric"? To help in the pursuit of this question, this page provides some basic resources, including dictionary entries, a sample of remarks from work in rhetorical theory and philosophy, and a bibliography of pertinent texts.

You ignored the common usage of the term, and took one out of the context of the paper because you could make it work well for you. When you do that, expect it to come back to haunt you. The balance of the paragraph on Chapter 2 (http://www.public.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/oneindex.html) goes on to describe rhetoric, and it is rather similar to the way it is commonly used today. In fact, this thread would be considered rhetoric, as it is the discussion of one particular way of persuasion. I will refrain from going into the Greek terms and their usage during Aristotle's time, though one of the bits in the link with the abstract does comment about it.

I would like to clarify that rhetoric is similar in TPS in that an opinion can be changed after either is "invoked" (for lack of better word). However, with TPS, no choice is made by the target. With rhetoric, a choice is made by the target.

Quote:

The reason you felt the tone of the post was caustic was because it was. This thread is rather long. Many people have explained in very clear and concise details about the hows and whys that TPS can and has affected people without their knowledge or their ability to stop it. The fact that TPS can shortcut free will and rationality is reality. Your belief that your thoughts alone can stop TPS is the false belief.

I agree that the conflict with PsiSoldier has nothing to do with the discussion other than as examples. Because the founder of PsiSoldier tried controlling others, using both TPS and mundane forms of rhetoric both, I referenced that post about the attempted suicide.

Quote:

I'm not familiar enough with Schizophrenia to comment in detail, but from my recollection, that is often caused by a chemical imbalance. A POW could in fact have TPS done to them, at which point, they would likely give up information. However, if 'standard' torture methods were used, then they would be able to resist. As a reminder... TPS can't be resisted, other than by shielding. The outrageous thought could create some cognitive dissonance, but in some subjects, even that dissonance has been defined as 'unimportant' to the target by the person doing the TPS. (e.g. This seems odd... ah, well, not important)

Rain has already answered the question on the attempted suicide bit, so I won't repeat her. I'm not sure why you were commenting about your opinion on PsiSoldier. I was there, but as to opinions on what occurred at that point is irrelevant to our particular conversation. I'm also not following what you mean when you say

Quote:

The paragraph before this one does not relate to this case, so don't jump on me for that. Thanks.

If that is to reference the attempted suicide bit that does indeed relate to the TPS discussion, but it appears that you recognise that. The examples we were discussing were directly related to the PsiSoldier bit.

It is possible for someone to attempt TPS and not be very adept at it. It is also possible that you shield yourself against that type of attack. Additionally, it is possible for someone to think they are attempting TPS and simply practicing various mundane methods of persuasion. Therefore, while you have had someone attempting TPS on you, and resisted, that does not mean that TPS can be resisted by anyone.

Quote:

Now, is TPS inherently immoral? I'm undecided, although I'm leaning towards no. It's our nature which abuses it. Even if we use it to benefit someone, we're doing it unethically.

How can our nature be separated from us? Perhaps definitions would be helpful there. I will refresh myself on the specifics of ethics and morals a bit later, as it is much too late and this post much too long to look into it at this point.

I appreciate a good discussion, but I also expect the participants to have read the information beforehand. That is why my previous post was caustic.

Jael

Ps. The conflict regarding PsiSoldier that you saw was _very_ limited, and much of Joe's information was false. He has yet to respond to anything since he pointed out what his previous moniker was. I find his absence here telling.

Posted on Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:17 pm

Gekido

Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 44

Most of what I'm going to say will be a clarification of what I've already stated. I'll bring this conversation into PM's, if that is agreeable. I'd rather not flood the topic further unless it adds some depth to it.

Posted on Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:33 pm

Elliptic

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 199

Gekido wrote:

I'd rather keep it public. Formal discourse is a tool of rhetoric, after all, and whereas I see my "side" of the debate "winning," I would rather see it continue publically so as to serve to promote my views in the future. After all, the audience may be interested in hearing your opinion and hers so that they can make a decision for themselves - a luxury not granted to targets of telepathic suggestion.

Posted on Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:51 pm

intrepidus6

Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 52

I have done TPS, or atleast somthing similair, not quite sure, because what I have done is more of a "you have no choice, you have to do this" not a suggestion. I have only done this on babies. I make them do some stupid little thing, like scratch there head, suck there thumb, etc. just to get practice. Afterwards I send them a telepathic "be happy" and, in my opinion, this makes it OK.
Now, I have also used this to make babies stop crying because I can't stand hearing a baby cry. After this I do not send the "happiness thing".
Also, I think it would be un-ethical to make somone do somthing that would harm them or somthing/somone else. Atleast 99% of the time anyways.
Just my opinions.

I am trying to work my way up, first babies, then animals, and then non-baby people.

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Telepathy and Empathy » Your ethical standpoint

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.