YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

in #hive-1223153 months ago

INFORMATION WAR = ATTENTION WAR

I have no doubt that you are highly intelligent and well intentioned.

logiczombie_0007.jpglogiczombie_0007.jpglogiczombie_0007.jpg
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING

Click to watch 37 minutes,

We can become trapped by what demands our attention and this leads to very real risks to our individual autonomy.

To the average person in 1835, the discovery of moon bats was incredible and for the New York Sun, it propelled the paper to unrivaled levels of circulation.

The New York Sun, which published these stories was the first paper to run entirely on the harvesting of human attention. What we now call "an advertising business model", so its profits depend entirely, not on its credibility or anything else, but instead on how many readers it had.

Love it or Hate it, nobody cares as long as you're TALKING ABOUT IT.

Click to watch 13 minutes,

This is tremendously planned. The album is now #1, focus there, everyone's going to listen to it again, a couple times, ya know, and also, her show, this was promoted on all of her shows, on the cover of a magazine, like this puts her more in the spotlight, and now, singer, also majorly in the spotlight. I think we are the puppets and they are making us feel all of these feels.

How do we mitigate this CON-GAME?

BY DRAWING THE BRIGHTEST POSSIBLE LINE BETWEEN FACTS AND OPINIONS.

I have no doubt that you are highly intelligent and well intentioned.

The scientific method is a system that promotes the free exchange of ideas and promotes the rigorous use of LOGIC to disprove falsifiable claims and refine existing hypotheses.

Injecting doubt, general skepticism, and even hare-brained hypotheses into the public discussion STRENGTHENS our critical assumptions.

Regarding "dangerous ideas", many people believe that Islamic ideology is a "dangerous idea".

Would you like to live in a world were all "dangerous ideas" were "canceled from the trending page"?

Many people feel threatened by ideas and beliefs they do not hold personally.

There is nothing to be afraid of.

As soon as someone starts to be afraid of ideas, they become actively anti-intellectual.

Some people believe in ghosts and horoscopes, others believe these are "dangerous ideas".

We currently live in a world (IRL) where you can "upvote" a show or movie or a news article by watching it (giving it your attention) and there are various measures to gauge how much attention a "story" is getting. People even have the option of "upvoting" a content creator by either buying their products or buying the products advertised adjacent to their "story".

Now imagine we lived in a world where you could "downvote" a show or movie or a news article that you considered "dangerous" or "inappropriate" by spending some of your energy or resources in order to reduce its visibility to others (or add some sort of prominent warning based on your whim). Imagine you could "downvote" a content creator directly by taking pending revenue out of their assignment and reassigning that same revenue into a pool that would go instead to those who received upvotes with the highest totals (TOP EARNERS).

Wouldn't this inevitably lead to a world were ONLY the most popular content creators could survive?

Wouldn't this inevitably lead to a world where the SAME "popular" content and the SAME "popular" creators would be given an unfair advantage by virtue of their ever-growing "upvote"/"downvote" power?

The more votes they get, the more control they have over the ATTENTION ECONOMY.

Imagine if the Catholic Church had successfully "downvoted" Galileo (or Martin Luther) for their "dangerous ideas".

The "solution" isn't to knock stuff of the trending page.

The "solution" is to teach people how to distinguish FACT from OPINION.

Engage in a rational discussion.

For Example,

There are only a very few FACTS (apodictic truths).

You do not know everything.

This is a FACT.

Everything you know was learned via SUBJECTIVE experience.

This is a FACT.

The sun showers the earth with radiation.

This is a FACT.

Clowns are creepy.

This is an OPINION.

The ancient Egyptians owned slaves.

This is a HYPOTHESIS based on compelling evidence.

SOURCE CONVO 001

SOURCE CONVO 002

Terror (fear mongering) shuts down the function of your prefrontal cortex.

This makes you more susceptible to censorship.

Censorship is the key to psychological domination.

They don't care if you like or don't like the thing they've chosen as the "distraction of the week".

They win as long as you're talking about it.

Rave about how much you hate it, that's exactly what they want you to do.

They can't control what you like or don't like, but they CAN control what you talk about.

SO KEEP STRICTLY TO "CURRENT EVENTS" AND YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS.

INFORMATION WAR = ATTENTION WAR

SOURCE CONVO 003

I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time

Essential HIVE links,
https://hive.vote/
https://beeme.icu/?account=logiczombie
https://hiveblocks.com/@logiczombie

Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".

logiczombie_0007.jpglogiczombie_0007.jpglogiczombie_0007.jpg
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.

Sort:  

Thanks for posting this @logiczombie!
Great post and comment thread.

Terror (fear mongering) shuts down the function of your prefrontal cortex.
This makes you more susceptible to censorship.
Censorship is the key to psychological domination.


Yes, fear is the instrument of choice to force the masses to behave in a manner that is counter to their own interests.

We must always challenge authority. They must provide clear evidence and transparency for their actions as well. When the free press and media outlets are almost entirely captured by special interest it is the duty of all citizens to demand accountability.

We can't afford to blindly follow authority as when we inspect these institutions closely we find that they are just as vulnerable to manipulation, fraud and corruption as individuals are - as they are made up of individuals. Even peer-review journals has been shown to have strong biases as many scientific journals and science departments at the most prestigious campuses depend on corporate and special interest for funding.

Nowadays, we're inundated with information/misinformation and often only read the headlines and get our information from social media, soundbites, memes and preferred pundits. People quote the NYTimes as if it is the final word on objectivity and truth, the same outlet that beat the drums of war in Iraq and bogus claims of WMDs. And to your point, they used fear to realize that outcome. Millions of lives destroyed.

Perhaps nothing is more anti-intellectual than those that cry-out the talking points from their 'trusted sources' - like the NYTimes WMD lies - or who doggedly defend the right or left based on affiliation and nothing more. Asinine blowhards that only care about 'winning' an argument and not about the truth or substance of a given issue.

"The wise man knows he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows all."

- Chinese proverb

I am honored by your comments.

Perhaps nothing is more anti-intellectual than those that cry-out the talking points from their 'trusted sources'

FUCK "TRUSTED SOURCES" (appeal to fabricated authority).

The rather bizarre Orwellian concept of "objectivity" has somehow managed to worm its way into our language. Practically everyone falsely believes (with unjustifiable confidence) that "objectivity" exists and is an unquestionable ideal-high-goal and more so that their own beliefs are "more objective" or "fair and balanced" than their detractors, and beyond that, all their detractors are either being disingenuous, "are fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. Case closed. Let's all go back to our bubbles.

This premise about "objectivity" detailed above, allows people to pretend great atrocities are justified against "non believers" (anti-vaxxers/flat-earthers) because "they deserve what they get". Side note: In order to properly justify such a hypothesis (like "they deserve what they get") would require significant and detailed philosophical exploration. In other words, if you believe in a black & white world and "philosophy" muddies the waters, then "philosophy" is a "problem" and must be wrong, ex post-facto. This is an example of "affirming the consequent" (a logical fallacy) which basically means you are "closed minded" and only seek serious exploration of ideas that you believe are likely to reinforce your own pre-conceived ideas, technically known as prejudices.

And before you think I'm trying to single out one particular group of people, "godless secular liberal progressives" are just as guilty of this type of thinking as the other more obvious religious and political targets.

The simple fact that people (followers of "TRUSTED SOURCES") are able to very effectively dismiss and deflect all criticism by characterizing their detractors as "biased" proves how pervasive and insidious and anti-intellectual this ideal-high-goal of "objectivity" is. This specific technique is a combination of "false choice" and indirect "ad hominem" attack. In formal logic it is widely recognized as an illegitimate form of argument (logical fallacy). And yet, by all accounts "millions of people" think this qualifies as a plausible line of reasoning.

Now before you dismiss me as "a crack pot", I would like to point out that I do believe "a broad consensus" is a very good standard for "truth". And even Karl Popper admits, when pressed, that science isn't based on "objectivity" but rather on "a broad consensus" of "well qualified individuals", which in a lot of ways is nearly functionally identical, but with the key difference being that "a broad consensus" doesn't necessarily categorize detractors as either being disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. It at least leaves the door open to the idea that there may be some legitimate disagreement based on contrary evidence or other logical considerations without an automatic reflexive leap to pure DEMONIZATION (terrorism/freedom-fighters is another good example of this).

Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.

Well @logiczombie. I think that as a pretty coherent response to the content of your whole post and after the interesting debate with @builderofcastles and, above all, the long comment of @v4vapid. All I can add as a thorough conclusion and short summary of your subject, is this below. };)

And, remember that your OUTRAGE is a valuable commodity. Everything you spend your FOCUS on is something you are PROMOTING.

Ah yes! The joys of reckless propaganda.

Curated for #informationwar (by @aagabriel)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation, and Liberty. We are a peaceful and non-violent movement that sees information as being held back by corrupt forces in the private sector and government. Our Mission.
  • Discord, website, youtube channel links here.

Delegate to the @informationwar! project and get rewarded

I'm honored by your attention.

?

Did you really just link to Chinada3 on my blog 😐 ¿

That recording takes place in December of 2017 by the way.
And essentially everyone in that chat is a below average and narcissistic as hell ♨️😎🥓🎉

I've actually included it in my new post.

Please provide a link to some information you personally prefer and I'll take a look.

I stand by my observations in the video...
I crashed that online show to promote Blockchain,
Steem, and my SciFi work.... But every one else in that vid made it about themselves and their Patreon begging... Except for maybe @DaveActon who is more of a hypocrite for posting his smutty opinions on WordPress.

Here is an interesting angle to consider. I'm very entertained still by the possibilities of what's to come.

I'm not convinced that "science & technology" are going to inevitably lead humanity to the promised land.

Me neither.... Because today it is used to distract instead of free burdens. It can create more havoc than it solves.

I'm much more interested in natural science and organic tech. Using the advances already built into your skin suit far outweighs what the next iPhone can do for you 😎🥓
Imho...
IMG_20190726_185157.jpg

thank you for an interesting article, good luck

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. Your attention is extremely valuable.

History is all what has been written down by others (definition) and whereas according to the Hebrew account (old testament) Jews were slaves in Egypt, slavery was not something unusual for the time. Not that I am an expert in history but I used to listen to a podcast https://ancientworldpodcast.com/feed/podcast/ about the ancient world.

It's important to maintain a clear distinction between what must be true (apodictic truth) and what is a plausible or actionable hypothesis.

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT =/= FACT

Yes, a "historical fact", which are by definition taken from people's writings, could be demonstrated as false or exaggerated.

Most of the time they're unfalsifiable claims.

"dangerous ideas""

There are no dangerous ideas. There are only dangerous acts.

Actions are also the only things that provide benefits, so one must act. It is therefore best to consider all ideas before acting, to be as sure as you can you act right.

"Be always sure you are right, then go ahead."--Davy Crockett

Thanks!

Modern Materialistic Science is the worst when it comes to banning "dangerous ideas"

And there is good reason for this.
Imagine sitting there in your chair, looking at a modern science book and deciding whether to toss it or use it as a door stop.

That is life changing. You spent so much of your life learning and understanding what you thought was truth.
And, via new evidence, you find it is all completely wrong. Not a little bit wrong, but wholly wrong. Wrong at its premise. Wrong because of one evil experiment, that was barely an experiment, but was forced onto the scientific community long ago.

So, what do we do about this?

Why don't we teach creationism and evolutionism so every kid has somewhere to start learning from?
Why do we teach evolutionism so thoroughly and never bring up any of its glaring holes?
The only reason is that this is a world of propaganda.

Its all about programming.
And the upvoters have made sure that they are the only upvoters and none can question them.

How exactly do you "teach creationism".

I mean you don't need to fill many pages in order to say "a god might have just made everything so there's really no point in trying to figure out exactly how".

Creationism is a philosophy, a world view.
And there is far more to say about it. About our relationship to it. And what those things mean / might mean to us.

So, in the Christian mythos God created us in the garden of Eden, then Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and thus much of humanities woes came about in that one "original sin".
These few words denotes a world view, a relationship with the universe.

Evolutionism could be summed up:
"god doesn't exist, so long ago a single cell organism formed, and then humans evolved from apes"

But we don't stop there, we go into why and how we think all of these things came about.
In other words, we tell a story about our relationship with the universe.

And, as you stated here in this post, if we give lots of time to one, and not the other, then the one must be the correct view. Or, at least its the view that gets the most airtime in our heads.


BTW neither Creationism nor Evolutionism has many facts supporting it.
They are both mostly conjecture.

So, in the Christian mythos...

Hold on, full-stop.

How do you make the astronomical leap from "creationism" to "christian god"?

I mean, I hope you're aware that there are literally thousands of different creator gods with roughly exactly the same quality of supporting documentation. And really, for all we know, it could have been any of them or any combination of them perhaps even inadvertently cooperating.

It is demonstrable that Christian theology is derived from Sumer and Akkadian Theology, as modified by the Babylonians. We have their earlier holy texts, from which Genesis is lifted wholesale.

Yup.

The problem is the word is muddied.

Creationism:

  1. Literally, God created everything
  2. The Christian creation mythos.

When we see Christians arguing about Creationism being taught in school, they are referring to the Christian creation mythos.

Goddess! I would love a class that just went through all the creation myths.
Christian, Hopi, Hindu... and even Mormon.
Now, that would be a class to take!


The universe is a life creation machine.
We will find life throughout our galaxy and all of it has DNA.
The revelations we are about to find will pretty much destroy our views of Creationism and Evolutionism. (the Big Bang... gone too)

We have been worrying about the loss of species. (mostly because the TV blames in on man)
What we will witness is the birth of new species.

We will also see the birth of a new galaxy.
And it will put paid to the idea that it was an explosion and then coalescing.

Before he died, Joseph Campbell created a series of lectures and a text 'Transformations of Myth Through Time', which was taught as an Anthropology class in a community college in Portland, OR back in the day.

There are notable stages of a heroes journey that feature in almost all mythic traditions, from the Hopi to the Norse.

I'm a big fan of "The Power of Myth".

Goddess! I would love a class that just went through all the creation myths.
Christian, Hopi, Hindu... and even Mormon.
Now, that would be a class to take!

ME TOO!!

NANABOZHO FOR THE WIN!

Creationism:
Literally, God created everything
The Christian creation mythos.

I'm not sure about that.

I saw a documentary that interviewed the creationist advocate who injected it into school curriculum and he insisted repeatedly that there were no religious references whatsoever.

Ok, it was "Intelligent Design" (DEISM).

Full documentary,

Creationism is a philosophy, a world view.

Ok, so, "not science"?

Perhaps it should be taught alongside other philosophies and world views (and formal logic).

I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

Take this one fact

We are the 13th advanced human civilization that has been on this planet.

What does that do to timeline of primordial ooze → dinosaurs → apes → humans?

What we consider "science" in anthropology is we take a bunch of still frames of a movie and we arrange them to a world view.

These people work with assumptions about time.
And people buy it. "This thing was dated to 5000 BC"
When the dating method is completely flawed and based on circular reasoning.

So, we just assume dinosaurs were from long long ago, because that is the current story, when it is more factual to say that dinosaurs were around during the times of "King Arthur"
The tales of knights fighting dragons. Far more plausible when you think of them as dinosaurs.

And there have been many cataclysms that have wiped out almost all traces before the 3rd advanced human civilization back. So, that leaves what we are looking at as fairly recent history.

Add to that, that most of our "history" was made up, and we are probably only in year 1300 AD.

So, Evolutionism has a LOT of holes in it that are obfuscated to continue a world view.
As you say, a philosophy... or maybe a religion.

All ancient historical claims are unfalsifiable hypotheses.

Evolution has practical predictive power and demonstrable efficacy.

It may not be "fact" but it is certainly a very useful hypothesis.

For example, there are remarkable physiological similarities between fish and humans.

In 55 minutes,

And those similarities are a key to what is really happening!

But we get misguided when we try to put them all in a tree thinking we have common ancestors.

What is absolutely frightening in Anthropology is that they compare human skeletons to what are supposed to be proto-humans (actually chimpanzees) skeletons. And there is so many differences that it boggles the mind that one could get to the other.

such as pyramid chest -> barrel chest
muscle connected shoulder → rotator cuff shoulder
etc.

Like i said, we will see the appearance of new species.
And then we will get rid of the idea that everything is a single tree and a single timeline.

And then we will start to look into some serious woo-woo about what makes a creature turn from an egg into what they are.

It will be interesting

www.macroevolution.net

Evolutionism could be summed up:

"so long ago a single cell organism formed, and then humans evolved from apes"

There is absolutely no reference to any "god(s)" in scientific textbooks.

And, as you stated here in this post, if we give lots of time to one, and not the other, then the one must be the correct view. Or, at least its the view that gets the most airtime in our heads.

EXACTLY.

I'm ever so glad we can agree on this point.

BTW neither Creationism nor Evolutionism has many facts supporting it.
They are both mostly conjecture.

The Theory of Evolution is a collection of HYPOTHESES that have proven efficacy in predicting the location of fossilized animal remains.

It is NOT (strictly speaking) a REAL-TRUE-FACT (apodictic truth). And it is technically unfalsifiable (which is not a good thing).

Creationism on the other hand is a single HYPOTHESIS with zero efficacy and not even a faint promise of real-world predictive power.

Some may find it comforting, but it would seem to fall into the realm of philosophy and NOT science.

great post !

"The scientific method is a system that promotes the free exchange of ideas and promotes the rigorous use of LOGIC to disprove falsifiable claims and refine existing hypotheses."

How to disagree? Wouldn't it be scientific to do so? hehehe

watch your time (most limited), health, wallet, mouth and finally your attention... (but if keeping tab of the few first here, there will less opportunity to waste those :) ).

have a nice day !

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and comment.

Click to watch 1 minute,

They fed on my resistance, the more I fought the more powerful they became.

judo

And, remember that your OUTRAGE is a valuable commodity. Everything you spend your FOCUS on is something you are PROMOTING.

I am sure those repetitive outrages are very negative on my overall health, mentally and more importantly biologically...

Loading...

Right, I forgot to mention.

You should be compensated for your valuable ATTENTION.

CORPORATE MOBSTERS should PAY YOU to experience their PROPAGANDA.

Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got more than 12500 replies. Your next target is to reach 13000 replies.

You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:

Hive Power Up Day - The first Response!
Hive Power Up Day - Let's grow together!

Some union organizers, Huber found, used red bandanas and the term redneck as a way to culturally integrate groups of white, black, and immigrant miners—who were often set against each other by owners eager to divide labor’s power—into a single identity. LINK