FIML provides an engineer’s point of view

Through real-time inquiries during real moments of real life, FIML reveals the tools and thought processes of the engineer, as they are being used.

As the receiver of a FIML inquiry, you are asked to reflect on the moments just passing.

Your answer provides a lot of information to both you and your partner.

Your partner also has information and insights into what their mind was doing, how it was modeling you and planning a response.

These shared insights are the practical details of your psychologies as they are actually functioning in a real situation.

It is transformative to see these details often.

To do this, I think you have to use a method like FIML because FIML has no presuppositions. FIML does not ask you to believe anything; just do the method.

FIML provides an artist’s point of view

Through real-time inquiries during real moments of real life, FIML reveals the palette and tools of the artist, as they are being used.

As the receiver of a FIML inquiry, you are asked to reflect on the moments just passing.

Your answer provides a lot of information to both you and your partner.

Your partner also has information and insights into what their mind was doing.

These shared insights are the details of your psychologies as they are actually functioning in a real situation.

It is transformative to see these details often.

To do this, I think you have to use a “game” like FIML because FIML has no presuppositions. FIML does not ask you to believe anything; just do the method.

Military thought experiment Part 2

Part 1

  • the attackers described in Part 1 need only target the dominant group within the large society
  • this conserves resources
  • once the target group within the large society has been selected, attackers need only target one of its genders, either male or female
  • best case for the attackers is they simultaneously are able to convince the non-targeted gender to attack the targeted one
  • reasons for the non-targeted gender to attack the other make little difference since the goal is primarily to weaken and destabilize the society to prepare it for takeover

If we observe these signs in any society in the world, we would be right to suspect that a plot like the one described in Part 1 could be or is unfolding.

  • there may be more than one group engaging in this strategy now or in the past
  • one group may have taught others to use similar tactics
  • best if these groups do not seem very much connected though they may share general ideals

Consciousness is that which chooses

Anything that can choose is conscious to that extent, to the extent that it can choose.

In this respect, “that which chooses” has cognition of its options and also tends to make anti-entropic choices, choices that go against the entropy of itself. (If it did not do this or stopped doing this, it would not survive long. Its anti-entropic choices take energy from the environment, of course.)

Choosing and going against entropy does not mean always doing this correctly or in the best way.

It can be argued that matter also chooses or participates in some overarching principle of choice or selection. Matter’s very common cause-and-effect relations with itself must be based on something besides matter itself.

Consciousness, thus, can be defined as that which:

  • chooses
  • has cognition of options
  • is primarily anti-entropic for itself

We can also say that this same consciousness as just defined:

  • chooses though not always well
  • has cognition though often mistaken
  • is anti-entropic in ways that can be counter-productive

Matter itself conforms to principles—the laws of physics—though these do not appear to apply or apply well to chaos, radiation, quantum fluctuations, black holes. Nor to themselves in the sense that they do not reveal where they come from.

This suggests that matter itself persists under unknowable conditions much as we do.

What we do not know does not just include metaphysics but also anything we can imagine. At some point, we just won’t know anymore.

Socially, we rarely know the motives of others. Psychologically, we often cannot be rational about our own motives. And even if we are being rational we often base our decisions on bad data or incomplete or unknowable data. We often do not understand or even know what our own motives are.

When there are many factors, we become confused. Our minds feel chaotic. We become anxious, indecisive, emotional. This is a form of consciousness trying to make choices, struggling to choose, to select.

Excellent comment on Jews and why criticizing them is good

The anonymous comment I am posting below is better than anything you will read in any newspaper.

Having browsed more than enough Chan board content in the last few months as a companion to t_d, the problem of Judaism is similar yet different than Islam. Some people of both religions have done really shitty things to other races and cultures by infiltrating them and undermining the host nation / ethnicity (using justification from the Talmud or Koran) while using similar victimhood claims to deflect blame and shame critics. Neither religious community stops it or does anything significant to warn of it, thus becoming guilty by association in the eyes of the victim nation/culture/ethnicity.

In my opinion, open criticism of every religion and their community should be allowed otherwise you give them absolute power of zero responsibility via blocking criticism and identification of wronghood. Censorship forces critics into more extreme stances, if you criticize Jews or Judaism you’re automatically a Nazi and persecuted as one, if you do the same for Muslims or Islam you’re an Islamophobe and persecuted as one. If you’re facing similar punishment for moderate and extreme criticisms* you’ll tend to take the more extreme stance as it awards more protection against what you’re worrying about with zero increase in social backlash. And that’s how you get moderate critics of Islam/Muslims and Jews/Judaism turning to extreme opinions on the solution to the problems they see.

  • (ex. “Some Jews like Soros need to be arrested” vs “Deport all the Jews! Ban Judaism!” And “Some Muslims like the Swedish rapists or Linda Sarsour need to be deported” vs “Deport all the Muslims! Ban Islam!”)

This is why I’m concerned about rule 3 of T_D: “No anti-semitism”. Normally you’d think that means “No saying gas the Jews”, which is reasonable, but in effect I’ve seen the mods enforce “No criticism of Jews or Judaism or even pointing out facts”. Criticism of Christianity and Islam is allowed, and we’re moderate and reasonable. Ban criticism of Judaism and youll just send more moderates to the extremist Jewish conspiracy theory sites like Stormfront. At the end of the day we’re fighting radicalism and best way to do that is allow all speech below the bar of advocating genocide or violence against anyone. This leads to moderate and reasonable discussion with reasonable decided solutions. Every religion has extremist douchebags with their own favourite methods of fighting everyone else while covering up their actions, we need freedom of criticism to figure out who that is so we can give them the boot or handcuffs, whichever is deemed appropriate by the justice system. Then all the moderates can go on living peacefully together.

Annnnnd if still reading this, thanks. I hoped this made sense. (Source)

(Archived link if original source is censored, which would prove the commenter’s point)

The importance of seeing the small in the large and the large in the small: repost

When the subject is human behavior and we see the small in the large and the large in the small, we will be much better able to appreciate the spectrum of thought, feeling, and behavior that underlies whatever is in question.

For example, the self-centeredness of individuals scales from the individual (small) to society (large) and everything in between. Two friends can be self-centered together as can larger groups and entire societies comprising millions of people.

Similarly, when we see self in other and other in self, we are more likely to grasp the spectrums of thought, feeling, and behavior that underlie the actions of all individuals.

For example, alcoholics often make false accusations against others as their conditions worsen. They take the seed of unreasonable defensiveness that resides in all of us and expand it into malicious attacks against “adversaries” that do not even exist.

In FIML practice, partners will discover many kinds of small mistakes in themselves. Usually, it is easy to see how these small mistakes, if left uncorrected, can lead to much more serious misunderstandings and bad (because it is based on a mistake) behavior.

For example, the alcoholic who falsely attacks a friend is almost certainly magnifying some little misunderstanding into something huge, something  worrisome or insulting that demands revenge.

Nations can behave like children and all good people have at least the seeds of a malicious drunk in them.

FIML discussions can be greatly enhanced by seeing almost everything as part of spectrums that underlie all people and societies.