Are truth and power the same thing? Is voraciously consuming mass media liberating or subservient...

>Your perception of those things is predicated on notions of truth and concepts which are determined by those with power.
Please adjust your tinfoil to your head.

"Those with power" as in those with the potential to control the behavior of other people. A mother has power over her child, a teacher over her students, Chad over his peers, CNN over its viewers, film over patron, dealer over junkie, bully over beta, your crush over you, older brother over younger, cute daughter over father, lobbyists over politicians, customers over retail clerk, a person with money over a person who needs money, you over yourself. Those with the social proof and/or resources to occupy a position of authority are proportionately influential over other humans and therefore are powerful to the extent which they change the behavior of others. Rupert Murdoch is one of the most powerful people in the world as his message is beamed into the minds of millions every day, but there is also power in our little interaction. Since everyone else itt thinks I'm right and you're wrong, I'm the one with power insofar as you don't decide to close this tab.

Truth is what's real, but since human experience is disconnected from what's actually real our truth is a pure construct of simulacra made of word and image symbols which are spread between our minds. People with influence over many minds construct and distribute symbols to advance their cause as an act of truth to power. Before the enlightenment the church was hegemon to this structure in the west. Currently the American mass media industry holds the largest percentage of influence over people. Within the corporations of this industry are magnates and their underlings who decide how to affect viewers in order to advance themselves and their people ("the narrative" is the story we tell ourselves to explain the world. It's idiosyncratic to everyone and created through the synthesization of all incoming streams of information over a person's life. Particularly persuasive information is the result of highly resonant information and the coalescing of disparate inputs (If a similar narrative were playing among the minds of a contingent of powerful people it's possible that their individually motivated messages organize themselves into an input which overwhelms all others, e.g. Brazil nuts, because they are the largest, rise to the top of a can of mixed nuts (Jewish people are 2000% overrepresented in American media))).

Just kidding. Social constructivists are able to push feminism well because their theories are so accurate that they can be used in practical application. It would be disastrous if someone powerful, irresponsible, and self-serving were to realize this and say... take the presidency.

500 milliseconds and the maximization of integrated information

The utterly false human/animal duality

True things you aren't allowed to say: if it weren't for colonialism inner-city violence would be relegated to tribal people in Africa. They would be living in mud huts 2000 years from now if we hadn't interfered with them.

If iq is as important as you say, then you, as someone of a lower iq than me, should stop trying to challenge me and accept that you can't keep up with my intellect. It's not about ideas, a 70 iq black is irredeemable in a society with a 100 average. Likewise for you, little 110 in a conversation with me.

What's the point of coaches depriving their athletes of water?

Is black (African-American) beauty the result of slave breeding? Are Beyonce and Hova dependents of a fortunate man's trinkets? Direct decedents of blue ribbon winners.

Is the joke of "Blank Panther" the continental separation between black people and the glib facsimile transposed of world conquering white men? The Congo is remotely distant to Oslo with gradations of barbarity along the way.

Neo-Nazis are cringy desu

they are pretty much complete opposites

the fact that you think they are related is concerning to me

>The utterly false human/animal duality

name an animal that asks what it's for

I can’t tackle the whole question, but I will add this little caveat about truth: a perfect understanding of truth is perfectly liberating, but there are local maxima where a little more information, but not enough, can leave you in a worse position. If I tel you 2,4,6,8,10,etc. are all integers, but you don’t know the complete definition of integer, you may come to the false conclusion that only even numbers are integers, for instance. The key thing to remember is that even more information would fix this.

(not him)

I appreciate your comment, it contains a good observation.

>a perfect understanding of truth is perfectly liberating

this phrase fills me with dread and anxiety. it seems to indicate a worldview that places far too much confidence in language and human intellectual ability.

I rather feel that humans can only vaguely sense truth and falsehood with their reasoning abilities, and that we will never know the meaning of Truth so long as we live. We will only have the sensation that this or that thing is more or less true.

>we need everyone do it collectively
people don't make choices to think a certain way individually or collectively though, but are likely to make networked choices that branch only because of some set of conditions changing in the segmented group-agency information branch, a self-contained information grouping of agents and conditions, including the competing information variables from other self-contained information groupings of agents and conditions. The seemingly illusory nature of such bracketing of agency is a problem simply of not having the right method of collecting data at a rate and clarity enough to see the overlying patterns, and this unfortunately leaves the imagination to speculate on ones decision making ability to the point that each decision is calculated and thoroughly examined, leaving one weary to our freewill, our infinite negation, which unfortunately is also a horrible way to live, the anxiety of influence and such legacy, such awful legacy, like a good flint during a shipwreck. You can certainly step away from the clouds, you can stop some information from flowing, but when you don't have easy control over some habits of your will, you lose more and more of your agency to a group in exchange for having your needs met. How do you think self-preservation plays out when the self is bondable with its conditions? Like a man in a spacesuit alone flying a winged whale in space is just a winged whale with agency that aligns with the mans, his time on the holodeck spent with his level 28 tennis racket apart of who he is also, also as in the winged whale that he knows all to well, having ridden inside the whale through many adventures and follys, lots of follys which made the winged whale crash and left him almost dead, badly injured anyway. He doesn't do that anymore, has the winged whale closer to his heart than his conscious mind, has his awareness something that goes beyond the sense, as if all his senses of the wing whale where combined into an agency of it's own, a home who terroir is amplified and united in hums and ticks and generator pulses fluctuating with something else, a world beyond there in the screen and monitors, in the collective of information between his self and his own skin a membrane of ship blubber, not of confinement but of presence, of moving off the winged whale towards an anxiousness that being washed out invigorates in his psyche, a shelterless fear and an abandonment of which he has yet to understand that he thinks of himself. "Am negated," without interruption making it clear that the I was not only his, the sound porition: youtube.com/watch?v=BI8Y44J6MgI
I think I'm suppose to:youtube.com/watch?v=s0g28QAgYpo
now.

>what's true is what's real
>what's real is inaccessible to the human mind
>the closest approximation of truth is constructed through social interaction in the same way as language or culture
>those with power determine an approximation of truth commensurate with their authority, e.g. your parents explain the world to you as a child, CNN presents you footage captured thousands of miles away and tells you something is the case
>from a their position of power a person will affirm a truth which reinforces their position as a matter of self-preservation
>therefore truth is merely a tool for people with authority to maintain their postion
>it's as much a club hitting you in the face as the reason your rival is swinging at you

This only applies to a post-violent society. The direct threat of guillotines, hanging ropes, and penitentiaries are a more visceral means of control than subversive mass media. More still, pre-civilized violence was pure power since beating the shit out of your rival was the difference between getting laid or not.

Other mammals could have such thoughts, but that seems like an arbitrary threshold for such a distinction. "Intellect" is post hoc rationalization of emotion.

From a behaviorist perspective a young dog learning to obey is asking what it's for.

>therefore truth is merely a tool for people with authority to maintain their postion

You are using the word "truth" when you should be using the word "knowledge."

Truth is almost never useful to power. Power spreads facts that are convenient to its functioning. Almost as a rule, power prefers to distribute knowledge which is untrue.

>facts that are convenient to its functioning

I hate to break it to you but that's all truth is. We're animals, whatever's actually real is inaccessible to our system of perception. Predictive models are the closest thing we have to truth, but most people are too stupid to understand the steps of the scientific method so the only relevant systems of truth are whatever bullshit Tucker Carlson is telling people and what those people are telling their kids, which is self-serving propaganda.

Your worldview is too distant from mine to dialogue. We can exchange insults and snide remarks if you like but I can't talk to you.

What's an assumption of mine that you don't agree with?

>what's actually real our truth is a pure construct
How is gnosis a construct?

Concepts of the mind created attained through learning, likely in a social environment.

I assume you believe that consciousness is a consequence of the arrangement of some particles. I beleive it is a consequence of God's desire to have us as friends.

Power is the lowest common denominator for human constructions, money is such of the Western attitude; subject-object singularization commodification

>such a distinction.
well it made a bunch of religions

humans will always reject a meaningless existence

nobody has ever achieved gnosis socially, it's a private meditative thing

QM isn't stoicism's atoms-and-the-void you know, user
even if consciousness is isomorphic to brain states (it is!) that doesn't preclude an active theology

some humans or all humans?

all

Would you change your mind if you saw a human not rejecting a meaningless existence? or would you just assume he was bluffing or immature?

I'd assume he'd be unaware of that which he finds sacred

do you think that 'meaning' and 'the sacred' are related notions? that doesn't seem at all obvious to me. what if I conceive of 'meaning' in a purely Wittgensteinian way?

what is sacred seems to be the ultimate meaning, if it holds promise to answer the ultimate anxiety humans seem to burden
>a purely Wittgensteinian way
what do you mean

that tradition conceived of 'meaning' as emergent relatively to a language, to the particular way words are used with each other

if meaning was conceived as relative to our language, what would that change about its implications? Maybe I'm framing that wrong but I think I have the vague idea

well, it would mean that somebody from that tradition would regard the 'meaning of existence' to be a non-question, and would probably focus exclusively on the meaning of "existence"

This reeks of an ideologue's imposition of fairness through sacrificial virtue, projecting power as a corrupting moral element of evil.

or do you mean in the 'might makes right' way.

If it's the latter then you are right.

Externalities have no more influence over you than you permit to entertain them.

Truth is not merely a perception bound make-belief, it's verifiable causality and consistency in both results and observation.
This is the definition of truth as bound within our frame of what 'truth' is possible.
You can make an endless nihilistic semantic relativistic >muh perception maze if you want, it serves no purpose but to enjoy the smell of your farts.

Wouldn't existence then would hold the same properties, since it is relative to language? Or if it becomes a non-question, and can only provide paradoxical answers, the answers would be constrained by relativism form applying to any authentic reality, regardless of any logical paradox.

what's important I think though is where the 'meaning' aims, which to be fashionable could be "'anxiety-towards-death'". But it's needing to deal with an incomprehensible world. some people don't have to, because they're integrated with their community or their world, which as an idea they would defend from unknowns.

How can you start off so well and the descend into muh feminism & da jooooos?

We are subservient to a variety of monsters, state, society, biology, nature, being for itself, etc. Doing any task makes you subservient to it, being under constraints make you subject to them. This invasive self-consciousness about _any_ of it doesn't change the nature of being.

And for the love of God please stop spouting this social construction hay. It doesn't make any of it any less real and it doesn't sully its integrity.

>Externalities have no more influence over you than you permit to entertain them.
t. biology denier

Listen sweetie, gender performance is tied to the anatomy of men and women. Men are deeply men and women are deeply women in that the connection between mind and body such that expectations of shape and proportion . Changing your appearance to treat dysmorphia is a solution, but most of us aren't blank slates and would be deeply traumatized at the suggestion of cutting of our johnson. Normalization of the practice is feminist compulsion toward toward the emasculation of all male humans who are inherently the more powerful gender. That's right, feminists literally want to destroy men because we are an inherently hierarchical species and women are on a lower rung than men. However they may hope, they cannot because all non-tranny men are deeply attached to their male gender role as a consequence of their biology which is unalterable. Feminists btfo

>it's verifiable causality and consistency in both results and observation

Yes, the real world is captured by models of prediction and theory and it's how we know there's a real universe out there. This is unrelated to truth as a matter of the human conception of what is true. Everything you experience is ultimately an illusion constructed from collected inputs, none of these experiences are any more real or true than the last; the experience of QM's predictability is a simulacrum, an incomplete, human translation for what's actually in the world. The best picture of reality with a human lens is inevitably false because so much information is lost between what's real and what we perceive (not to mention the non-existent concepts we project onto everything).

It's a joke and the part about feminism is literally true. Social Constructivism is a brilliant model and they used it to advance their agenda. This supports my argument which assumes a social constructivist epistemology. Also, I'm getting over my fascination with Richard Spencer who is an opportunist jerk off with no real ideas and blatant hypocrisy.

...

authority = authenticity, this is why humanists crave so much the record of their performative statements and think they are good guys

other words are memes

>nobody has ever achieved gnosis socially, it's a private meditative thing
No one has achieved anything without socializing. Your cells need water to function, you need socialization to conjure ideas.

>something is literally happening right in front of you and it means nothing
You're here, that is sufficient meaning.

What's meaningless is the distinction between humans now and what they were yesterday. It's contradictory to deny significance of the past and claim relevance of the present. You're probably just a brute who denies consciousness in mammals.

>'meaning' as emergent relatively to a language, to the particular way words are used with each other
What's meaningful is entirely of the mind and can't be communicated with ordinary language. Most of phenomenology (all meaningful things) can't be articulated in a literal, straightforward fashion. Common experiences of art and connected flow states are meaningful because of the deep connection we're sharing with the artist and fellow patrons and the exact similarity of our experiences allows for a closeness in consciousness (If you experience the exact same thing as someone else you become one with them, i.e. the same thing. When we die we return to the single piece of cloth from which we're all cut. Ripples in the cloth bring consciousness in and out of discursive experiences). Love is meaningful because intimate and persistent interaction create a shared identity, oneness with a group and a motivation for the people who compel you to focus. Life is meaningful because other conscious entities are experiencing something very similar to you as a matter of sameness in neuroanatomy. It's good to care about their welfare because an imperiled conscious state is necessarily bad as matter of definition.

you're full of it
reminds me of those insufferable 'social constructivists' that are so trendy

point is that gnosis is not a social activity
the fact that you have to 'socialize' with your parents as matter of definition for existing as a human is a red herring

persons who have never heard nor read about gnosis can and do regularly achieve it

>'social constructivists' that are so trendy
As a matter of predictive capability, this theory is more right than whatever you're working with.

>persons who have never heard nor read about gnosis can and do regularly achieve it
People who have never heard the phrase "taking a shit" take shits. You don't understand most of what's being said here.

the social constructivist crowd are anti-positivists who don't even think they CAN predict things

are you suggesting that taking a shit is a social activity now?

Theory is a system of ideas who's purpose is to make predictions. Critical theory and all the rest are fundamentally theory.

Taking a shit is a necessary consequence of human anatomy, it is only described as such by certain people with a particular set of ideas in their mind. The common experience you're describing is the result of neuroanatomy shared by many humans who are only able to have such an experience because they can conjure things in their mind which is not possible without socialization. All thoughts and experiences are constituted of symbols we get from other people.

>commodification

So you're a Marxist?

Consciousness is the epiphenomenal result of maximization of integrated information at 500 microseconds.

A better question is do women have rape fantasies because they're copulated to a man with a small dick? Historically, there were 4 women for every one man which means only the top 25% were reproducing while 75% didn't make the cut. What's the 75th percentile of dick length? 6.5 inches? If you don't have a 7 inch dick you are a destined cuck and your girlfriend wants me to rape her with my 9 and rub my six pack. The girls can't stop staring when I walk around with it and gaze into their eyes. They are all at my disposal, but I only take the top 5 for myself and give the rest to my brothers. I go diamonds every night and fuck them with a beautiful and delicate touch. When me and the boys maraud through your village it transforms into a blade which I use to chop up and serve your Arby's number 4, big and beefy. You try to stick in her after that but she's so loose from my rod and son's head. Plus I put so much goo in her that she will be having my children for the next three years. She's used up for me since I only fuck virgins [super cuties who have only been inserted with shrimp dicks]. After I pump and dump I usually return a year later and pick up my daughter or son and make an addition to the harem, but your girl was too roastie to be bothered with.

>Consciousness is the epiphenomenal result of maximization of integrated information at 500 microseconds
gobbledygook
your pic related
high ruse man

A bottom-up mind implies even more fantastic phenomena, by its own definition and within its own parameters, than a top-down one. Also, Biologists are the main Biology deniers.

No, integrated information theory (IIT) is at the cutting edge of neuroscientific theories of consciousness, pleb.