if a hypothetical test procedure could be developed where the outcome would only be a predictable, a-causal, binary and not an analog range, the outcome truly independent of the substance used where it is tested upon and this could surely trigger a belief that the analysed substance, is harmfully affected by a imaginary contagious toxin and therefore, the toxin is apparently in the individual tested, would that not a) cause an imagined reality in that individual that they are affected by the imaginary toxin, b) that the surrounding social environment beliefs this is true as well and that the individual should be avoided to prevent a further virtual, possible spread of the imagined harmful toxin in a cascading effect on a larger scale?.
If the media then is involved in the enhancement and certainly, in the exaggeration of this belief, declining and even blatantly ignoring and censoring (with a personal, direct experience and repeated proof of course) all other stories than the projected belief, would it then be possible to create a large scale trigger with the opportunity to control certain areas on a very large scale with this test to quickly spread the belief that the imaginary toxin is traveling, using the tested objects as their host based on the statistics presented on the results of testing?
All based on a controlled distribution of this test procedure and means that guaranteed will trigger a designed outcome on a designed moment in a designed place within a designed social environment, emphasised by the media, even the apparent controlled opposite ones, controlled top down with a dedicated one objective: to create this designed virtual social environmental disaster based on a belief supported, virtual story using the preferred projection over the reality in a large amount of social structures.
A natural, annually reappearing detox phase in the population tested would of course be a fine timing to launch such a test providing it with an imagined causality where there is none.
What could be then a possible purpose of the science and psychology behind a test launch like this, if it ever would occur and getting the space to do so of course?
The temporary satisfaction of proof of control for a few?
The reinforcement of the proof that the large majority of the tested population are still bathing in a projected belief rather than reality, that the world is what the media presents us with?
Or to create a large scale fear and proof that imagined societies are still capable of fully manipulating populations and areas with what their network members own with the media as its only lever to manipulate?
Or to see where the cells of objection arise, how well disorganised they are and show this in their face?
Would it not expose them, as surely will be the case, in the light of their competitors which are more patient than the originator of the plan itself and therefore backfire upon the same originators in exposition and a raised awareness in that population, that it is manipulated through the media?
Or even all of these?
Surely a released test like the above would totally undermine the trust in the science and medicine creating and supporting such an, for most, unreliable and manipulative monster, if it was found out of course: it would fully support the theory that science is bendable through fear using the status and coin raking addictions in its individuals, no longer the independent engine of the discoveries of mankind in the operation of nature and beyond.
Is the risk of this undermining worth the try?
Curious as always in your answers. My thanks in advance for reading my questions and grateful of all your contributions.
Ut Hic Permanet
Thanks Robert,
not easy to strip my quesions into multiple individually answerable clauses as my core question in regards to the desire for a certain outcome sits in the chaining of events and interrelationship between seemingly unrelated actions to distract or cover-up the core desire for the result.
For instance: if I separate the behaviour of the media from the basic principle of the test (to detect an instance) but the test is not actually created to do that, the link between the social behaviour of the ones that are tested, but are influenced by the one instrument they believe is telling the truth and therefore they believe it is detecting a contagious toxin, is then lost.
The mechanics of all parties involved to support the required desired outcome, because the test should not reveal its background purpose, is complex for a reason: non-detection of the actual desired outcome
Perhaps a parallel in computer gaming can clarify a bit of the complexity in my explanation of the question:
The main objective in the company that creates a computer game is to make money. No money making principle, no company to pay employees to create the money making tool and lever, the game.
The core objective of the company needs to be embedded in the core algorithm of the game.
On a lower level, the game needs to be entertaining enough for the game player not to feel being forced to either watch too many ads and having to spend too much money to keep enjoying the game long enough to keep playing. To keep the player playing the game is essential, whatever happens on a less significant level is irrelevant. The game needs bodies to play it.
Example: one of my aquintences plays Match Masters a lot. To reach a certain level the team effort is thrown in so social pressure is certainly applied to let the core algorithm be sufficiently unnoticed or less obvious to keep the exitement of the player on a certain level to come back and play some more. The exchange of stickers and boosters is another means, founded on social behaviour, to keep the player glued to the game. Even the superficial disruption between team members and the ones that are booted out of the team is present.
Then there is the algorithm in the game itself: what pops down on possibilities for extra moves, mushrooms and whatever causes the opportunity to create more points to win from the opponent, is highly dependant of how much money you spend and how much ads you watch during the game. The player spend a few pounds of the game and lo and behold, he wins a fair few games in a row as the reward of his spending.
After watching a few ads to raise the coins and trophies, the possibility to see more ads dies out and the opportunity to buy the coins becomes more prevalent, including temporary discounts of course.
Back to the complexity of my question: the more distracting influences and activities, the less the feeling of being toyed with by the, in the latter case, game player, in the former case, the one that undergoes the test.
This is important for the director behind the test or the game not being found out: once you are aware that your mind does not really exist, the internal game of projection is over, you won't be fooled again.
I can draw another parallel to our voting habits: the more the play of candidates is unfolding in front of us and is entertaining enough to keep watching the drama, the less possible the discovery that voting is not really changing anything in the governmental foundations of running a country, only to colour of the ties is changing, the administration behind the scenes is continuing what it suppose to be doing in the big scenario.
With the above in mind, the social pressure to vote and the democratic right to vote is never going to change because of the essential feeling in the voter that a vote matters, it does not. You have a choice of a selection of a predetermined set of parties that are well inducted to the continuation of the central core of the decision makers.
30M employed taxpayers in the UK paying an average of £1K a month in tax. Does one really thinks that the ones that are able to play with 30B a month are going to allow a change in this bathing in taxpayers money? And this is only tax on employment, added to that are corporation tax, tax on alcohol and smoking, inheritance tax, tax on the accumulation of money, Council tax, etc, etc. No way will a tipping vote undermine the structure and this flow of money.
Again, back to my question: the complexity makes it possible to cover up the initial core intention so, wherever there are smoke curtains and we are drained in distractions, emotional hooks and lucrative invitations, the complexity is fired up to avoid the core drive to be exposed.
The same goes with ourselves: the accumulation of thoughts, with a imaginative mind as the director behind them, covers up the essential truth that thoughts are just options to the bare and raw reality in front of us.
The influence of thoughts on our body, in the shape of emotions, causes feelings which are a feedback to the generator of thoughts and causes more of the same thoughts and an inescapable storyline unfolds within us.
It does not take away that the thoughts are stil options...
The entire superficial story I think I am, collapses when you realize the mechanism behind it all.
Unfortunately this will not happen if I continue to believe the story to be true and when I keep myself immersed with the complexity of superficiality which, of course, I regard very essential for my existence in this state ...
That is exactly where the core of my question lies: is our desire for a certain result cleverly used by a mechanism that raises the complexity of life to keep the essentials out of the spotlights?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence