Thank you, thank you, thank you, Professor Gendler (Szabo Gendler?) -- for your remarks about 19 minutes in about the Western philosophical tradition. (Sorry, I can't dingalink because I'm having to watch through Windows Media Player.)
It's really irritating to read, for example, Haidt's book on happiness or Jonah Lehrer's introduction to _How We Decide_ where Plato and Aristotle (because they regarded man as "rational" in some sense) are presented as having held the ridiculous belief that all or most of our actions must be the direct result of conscious, plodding deliberation. Both clearly recognize the role of habit and habituation and neither of them would have accepted the ridiculous inference one finds in Haidt that X is rational only if it is the result of deliberation.
Haidt and others could learn a bit from Plato and Aristotle, who both regarded emotions as TO A DEGREE and IN A CERTAIN SENSE "rational" or capable of a kind of rationality that mere appetite (e.g., hunger, lust) was not. Haidt dismisses moral intuitions as untrustworthy, non-rational, if they are emotional. Aristotle could have taught him that that quick dismissal is a fallacy. [Later] Cool! Paul pretty much agrees! (Not, probably with my adjectives above.) He even joins in in speaking of "moral progress" (without

[Around 40 minutes in]
Milton's Satan says, "The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make heaven of Hell, and a hell of Heaven." But Paul actually seems to be thinking of Shakespeare's Hamlet, who says, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Fascinating discussion by very intelligent people. I approach the horror movie problem from a different angle, from the study of "Play" - I believe there is something significant in philosophy/metaphysics/spirituality about the act of Play as being a root for what it is to be human or to 'act human'. If you strip away the connotations of child-like behavior or non-serious behavior from play, then it is an undetermined act of agency or free will. Roger Caillois, an early scholar of play, defined one category of Play as Ilinx. It is described as “causing a temporary disruption of perception," as a sort of test of the boundaries of life. An early form of it is merry-go-rounds, and intentional self-dizzying actions. Then it expand into the social realm in the form of pranks or something like exhibitionism. Skydiving, roller coasters, horror movies, the show Jackass, are also examples of this type of play. Practitioners often say something along the lines of "This makes me feel alive." It is because acts of play like these are what transcend the instinctual & natural behaviors. I don't know why it's a mystery why people are attracted to Video Games. Games are

As someone who's passed by the Grand Theft Auto fretting to look at more interesting questions (Do fighting/strategy/role-playing games, wherein a player memorizes a ruleset, thinks about how he can best use it, and then bends his opponent through it, have any effect on analytical skills? Do graphical adventure games promote lateral thinking the way traditional puzzles do?), I didn't think I could be interested in it again. And yet I was! Good job, all.

Tamar Gendler made a great point about the potential harm in video games is no different than the potential harm of novels, or even daydreaming.

I don't think she went that far. First off, she talked about the actual harm, not the potential harm. She suggested that in the future video games could get sophisticated enough to cause greater harm (by adding smell and other sensory enhancements, for example). Also, she mentioned the army's use of games that successfully inhibit an aversion to killing other human beings. Finally, she suggested that sex abuse games probably DID cause harm, since they were more directly caused sexual arousal associated with violence. Paul was also noncommittal on the relationship between games and violence. He spoke of the difficulty of interpreting correlations (not mistaking them for cause/effect), but he certainly didn't dismiss the possibility of first-person-shooter games promoting violence (more than a novel or a daydream would).

Quoting thornybranch: I do have a question though, what makes "aliefs" different than concepts such as "instinctual", "reflexive" or "subconscious" tendencies.

-TB

I think the first and last aren't quite right, because it can be a learned reaction (the racism example) and it can be a conscious sensation (poo fudge). I can't think of any difference with "reflexive" either though. They're both non-volitional reactions, right? I guess the difference is that aliefs only describe mental states but reflexive can also do physical? Hopefully they'll make a sequel to give you a real answer, this was a good listen.

yeah, this is kinda where, at times, psychology gets a little "murky" for me as far as the height and poop experiments go. "news" of these kind of experiments come out almost every day and they don't seem to really actually tell us much that's useful. they're kinda like the fMRI reports that map active parts of the brain but don't really matter a whole lot. aren't both examples just our frontal lobes overriding unconscious, automatic and universal neural networks that recognize heights and disgust? i don't think there's much else to it as far as i can tell. it's hard to immediately eat the poop-shaped fudge because our neural network for feces has already been activated and we have to wait for it to be inhibited. kind of like when you awake from a nightmare and have to wait a minute to calm down simply because your brain is flooded with "fear chemicals" or whatever you'd call it.
lastly, Paul, since you seem to think it's ok to watch porn....how much porn is ok to watch? i've estimated my habit to be no more than 5-7 hundred hours

Quoting Wonderment: I don't think she went that far. First off, she talked about the actual harm, not the potential harm.

You're right, I paraphrased her a little too liberally. What I'm trying to say is that video games themselves are not the culprit, they are a medium. Conditioning that affects Aliefs or reflexive responses in a negative direction for a society can be present in specific games, but also just as much in the news or in a popular romance novel, (maybe even more so if the news channel or the novel had smells.) The opposite can also be true. -TB

I don't play video games but from a theoretical point of view I was surprised that you only talked about the dangers to morality and not also of the benefits (catharsis), if there are any. After all, I've often heard that tragedies, murder mysteries etc... are a way to play out our most aggressive instincts in "safe mode" so to speak. So even the most repulsive video games could act as a valve, or a learning tool, to either realign beliefs and aliefs, or to alleviate the pressures that a more and more complex and sophisticated belief system is putting on our more spontaneous alief system.

Alief. I'm reluctant to accept the term. It seems to work strangely. It comes into existence only when it's false. An alief says something about the way the world is, but that something is always wrong. What are they doing the rest of the time, then? Do you have an alief when you're not standing on a glass floor looking down on a chasm? Where do aliefs go when they're not conflicting with belief? And is aversion to poop really the same as racism? I think coining a word--any word--might be the priority of this project, rather than getting at a human truth.

Quoting Ray: Alief. I'm reluctant to accept the term.

It seems to work strangely. It comes into existence only when it's false.

An alief says something about the way the world is, but that something is always wrong.

What are they doing the rest of the time, then? Do you have an alief when you're not standing on a glass floor looking down on a chasm? Where do aliefs go when they're not conflicting with belief?

They don't go anywhere, they're just in harmony. Bloom and Gendler think that it's beneficial to have them in harmony (and cite Eastern and Greek philosophies) though I'm not sure I agree. It's just that aliefs are only really noteworthy when they contradict beliefs, like how the word "seems" is almost always when the impression given by something contradicts its actual nature (or its actual nature is unknown). We have a natural alief against drinking our own urine but some people have a belief that it's healthy and purer than natural water. In that case its a false belief conflicting with a 'true' alief.

Quoting pampl: We have a natural alief against drinking our own urine but some people have a belief that it's healthy and purer than natural water. In that case its a false belief conflicting with a 'true' alief.

Isn't a true alief just a belief? Or is an alief just an unconscious belief? Which can be either true or false? In which case, what value does the new term add? I don't see any parallel with the word 'seem', either. You use it to indicate uncertainty or a difference between appearance and reality. Alief isn't about seeming. Or if it is, then it's just belief again. The glass floor makes it seem like I'm going to fall into the chasm. I believe I'm going to fall into the chasm. That's how things seem. But I'm not falling. My belief is wrong. I mean: is the concept of alief just a way of expressing confusion over how we ever have wrong beliefs?

Quoting pampl: They don't go anywhere, they're just in harmony.

I thought about this some more, and the concept makes even less sense to me now. Let me put it this way. I believe both that it's bad for me to be suspended in mid-air a thousand feet above the ground and that it's bad for me to eat poop. These are beliefs, and they're generally true. If I find myself falling through the air, a thousand feet up, or about to ingest a turd, I'm justified in feeling fear or disgust. There you have a belief system at work. So where's the alief system all this time, and what is it doing? Aliefs tell me falling is bad and eating poop is bad (I guess?), and, when I'm actually falling or eating poop, the aliefs harmonize with the beliefs? Why do I both believe and alieve the same things? Why would I do that twice?

Quoting Ray: The glass floor makes it seem like I'm going to fall into the chasm. I believe I'm going to fall into the chasm. That's how things seem. But I'm not falling. My belief is wrong.

I mean: is the concept of alief just a way of expressing confusion over how we ever have wrong beliefs?

Not as I understood the discussion. Given knowledge that you were standing on a glass bridge that is strong enough to hold you, your rational mind would, hopefully, believe that it was safe. The concept of alief refers to the fact that however convinced you were that the glass bridge was every bit as mechanicaly sound as any stone or concrete and steel bridge you use, perhaps even having seen others safely upon it, your immediate reaction on stepping on the glass bridge would still be the fear of falling. The alief concept is not a fear or confusion that our beliefs may be wrong. Having seen the pan of fudge come out of the oven, smelled it, possibly tasted it, one isn't worried that the belief that it is really fudge is wrong. Nor would one be

yeah, i didn't really like it either. it seemed redundant and kinda like she was trying to make a name for herself in the psychology community by having people cite her in books for the term "alief."

The obvious point would be that the aliefs produce the same reactions when you are not falling or eating poop. This holds even when you know, and assuming that you are reasonable also believe, that whatever the shape the fudge is still fudge and that the glass bridge is as safe as any other bridge. When the real world, beliefs, and aliefs are all aligned (no bridge or actual dog poop in the examples) all is well and peachy. When the aliefs don't match the real world and rational beliefs held about it, one is still subject to the false reactions generated by the aliefs.

Quoting Unit: I don't play video games but from a theoretical point of view I was surprised that you only talked about the dangers to morality and not also of the benefits (catharsis), if there are any. After all, I've often heard that tragedies, murder mysteries etc... are a way to play out our most aggressive instincts in "safe mode" so to speak. So even the most repulsive video games could act as a valve, or a learning tool, to either realign beliefs and aliefs, or to alleviate the pressures that a more and more complex and sophisticated belief system is putting on our more spontaneous alief system.

Very good point. This was lacking in the discussion. Search for cases of post traumatic stress syndrome and how it can be alleviated by simulation video games - or even tetris. I've also heard of cases of tetris counteracting the effects of alzheimers. Piloting school's use of video games is definitely a benefit. I don't think I would let my child get behind the wheel of a vehicle before first witnessing that they can beat any videogame, developing the proper coordination that it requires to operate a body outside of their own.

Quoting cragger: The obvious point would be that the aliefs produce the same reactions when you are not falling or eating poop...When the aliefs don't match the real world and rational beliefs held about it, one is still subject to the false reactions generated by the aliefs.

I think another term for alief is "conditioned response". We are conditioned, by instinct or experience, to have certain reactions to certain stimuli--whether those stimuli indicate a reality beyond themselves is irrelevant. Not exactly a novel idea.

One of the most stimulating chats I've heard on BHTV in a while. I always envy people who can speak in complete paragraphs off the top of their heads! (Steve Pinker and Sam Harris also come to mind.) If BHTV goes under, where will we find such high quality, intelligent discussion?