• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    True leftism is when you reject reality, and anyone that doesn’t subscribe to your extremely niche, extremely online ideology is either a conservative or a centrist. Everyone who disagrees with you, whether on the basis of theory or history or material conditions or lived experience, is just too morally impure to achieve the same level of leftism as you, you are the One True Leftist, and you’re not going to let little things like what things exist or are possible get in the way of that.

    • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Wow, a fellow soulist. You’re being a bit too evangelical, though. We actually have a discord server with over 70 members! https://discord.gg/nfbVVyXK. And if you don’t like that one, there are two newer servers run by different mod teams. https://discord.com/invite/w7tvaR6s. https://discord.gg/5THVKZrk. Also, many soulists come from diverse walks of life and have more lived experience of realist oppression than nearly anyone. For example, I have schizotypal personality disorder, so my experience of reality is neurodivergent to begin with. There are many otherkin and plural systems within the community. Even material conditions, which are fake and socially constructed, can radicalise someone towards soulism. Over half of soulists are transgender. Obviously, soulism is more attractive to any trans person than realism, because it offers faster and more complete transition than any realist ideology.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        I am not a soulist. In fact, I consider it to be an extremely dangerous ideology. If you’re successful in undermining consensus reality, we’re going to have dragons and vampires running around terrorizing people. The moment reality becomes mutable enough for someone to turn themselves into something with mind control powers, like a mind flayer, we’re all fucked.

        I am trans and neurodivergent, and I take offense at this statement:

        Obviously, soulism is more attractive to any trans person than realism, because it offers faster and more complete transition than any realist ideology.

        Trans identities are not a rejection of reality. I don’t find your ideology appealing in the slightest. I believe in objective science, and the science is 100% on the side of trans people.

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Of course the science is in support of trans people. Realism is anti-science. The scientific method points us inexorably towards antirealism. Soulists oppose the manufactured, false consensus reality which denies trans lives experiences. Because we’re awesome. Mainstream movements say pre-transition trans women are female on the inside, but soulists say the outside body is a mental construct, and cannot be taken as fact in any sense.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Realism is anti-science.

            Absolute nonsense.

            but soulists say the outside body is a mental construct, and cannot be taken as fact in any sense.

            Of course the body exists, in the same way that anything exists. It is an objective fact, and denying that doesn’t help anyone.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                I watched the whole 20 minute video, just for you. I’m not interested in reading more from him as I was not impressed.

                Welcome to philosophy. These ideas are not remotely new, they’ve been discussed for literally thousands of years. Obviously there’s a difference between sensation and perception, and obviously it’s possible for senses to be fooled, and obviously optical illusions exist. No one denies these things.

                One thing that he is wrong about near the end is the rather arrogant idea that reason and logic are somehow magically immune to evolutionary pressures. The whole host of cognitive biases we experience as humans are grounded in the fact that we evolved in contexts where group cohesion was important to survival. He doesn’t seem like a particularly knowledgeable cognitive scientist if he either isn’t aware of the bandwagon effect (for instance), or if he can’t see the obvious connection between that and the need to fit in with a tribal community.

                But more to the point of his thesis, the reason it’s trash is because it fails it’s own test. It’s indeed possible that, contrary to all evidence and observations, we’re living in a simulation, or whatever gobbledyremoved he said about conscious beings creating reality - the problem is, so what? By definition, this theory is unfalsifiable, and it is not capable of helping us do anything at all.

                There is a saying in science, “All models are wrong - but some are useful.” Physicists are well aware that when we draw a diagram of an atom on a piece of paper, it differs from an actual atom in several crucial ways. It’s very large, for instance, meaning that the drawing can absorb and emit photons without really changing. Our mental models of atoms are necessarily imperfect, the only perfect representation of an atom is the atom itself. However, we still use these imperfect drawings and mental models because they help us navigate reality and predict events. This person’s theory does none of that.

                It appears that he has conjured up an imaginary, unobservable world, that does not interact with us in any way, and he has, for some bizarre reason, chosen to dub that with the moniker of “reality,” instead of the actual, you know, reality that we can sense and perceive, that is testable and verifiable, that is necessary to navigate in order to survive. Why he’s chosen to call his fantasy reality and reality an illusion, I don’t know.


                Now look, this whole thing you’ve come up with seems like a fun little form of escapism, and I don’t have a problem with that in itself. The problem I have is when you start trying to interject it into actual politics, when you actively try to divert energy away from engaging with reality, the thing that actually exists and can measurably improve or harm people’s mental and physical states, and instead towards your fantasy. That’s when it starts sounding more like a cult.

                Your kind of thinking is responsible for countless New Age spiritualists telling people they don’t need medicine, that they can just cure diseases, like AIDS, through the power of belief. You can indulge whatever fantasy you feel like, but when push comes to shove, medicine fucking works, the train will kill you if you step in front of it, etc. The speaker in your video at least acknowledged that, even if by doing so, he undermined everything else he said - at the end of the day, he has to submit to that which he labeled “illusory” and deny that which he labeled “real.” And so should you. And that means that you have to engage with materialist and empirically backed theories of psychology, sociology, politics, economics, etc. Which means, get your nonsense ideology out of here.

                • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  The benefit Hoffman’s theory does us is that is reveals the universe is governed not by physical laws, but by cognitive laws, of which apparent physical laws are a contextually dependent subset. And we can use that, because it means reality can be manipulated not just by physical technology, but also by psychological technology. Imagine a civilisation only using half of science! It would look to the average person like a society practicing biology and medicine without ever discovering chemistry or physics. That’s precisely the situation our civilisation now finds itself in. We are only using half the science that is available to us, and half of the technologies we could have already invented by now. Antirealists demand that the government pour more research money into developing psychological technologies that alter our perception of reality. And that the public embrace such psychological technologies as have already been invented. For example, the technology to see a trans person as their preferred gender presentation regardless of their physical form. That technology is essential to preventing suicides and many people refuse to adopt it. We are fighting an anti-science platform pushed by transphobes who want trans people dead.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    The benefit Hoffman’s theory does us is that is reveals the universe is governed not by physical laws, but by cognitive laws, of which apparent physical laws are a contextually dependent subset.

                    This is not what he says at all, and if he has any credibility as a scientist and doesn’t want to change careers to cult leader, he would completely disavow what you just said.

                    And we can use that, because it means reality can be manipulated not just by physical technology, but also by psychological technology.

                    This is complete nonsense.

                    That’s precisely the situation our civilisation now finds itself in.

                    No it absolutely is not.

                    Antirealists demand that the government pour more research money into developing psychological technologies that alter our perception of reality.

                    Yes, I figured this was about getting high and seeing pretty colors.

                    Why do you need the government for this? If you need more funds, why don’t you just alter reality to manifest them into existence?

                    For example, the technology to see a trans person as their preferred gender presentation regardless of their physical form.

                    Again, respecting a trans person’s identity does not require a denial of reality or of our physical forms. If the physical form of a trans person wasn’t objectively different from that of a cis person of the same gender, then we would not need any of the medications or treatments that we do - we wouldn’t even have the terms “trans” and “cis.” Please stop talking as if trans identities are somehow a denial of reality.

                    We are fighting an anti-science platform

                    If you respond to nothing else I say, then at least answer me this: why have you chosen to term something that is anti-science as “reality?” It makes absolutely no sense. Just say that science is real, that trans identities are real, and that transphobes are pushing a false and unreal narrative.

                    Try to pay attention to the language we’ve all agreed on.