The 'chicken and egg' situation in the thought process

Hi guys,

It's been a while since I made a thread. Just had a thought and would to hear your opinions.

### WARNING: Monkeys and Verbiage Inbound ###

How important do you think it is to be able to explain an idea you believe in? In a 'chicken & egg' situation, if you've done a lot of research and reasoned thinking about an idea to the point where you have consciously decided that it's true or false, do you then need to be able to explain it, quote sources and detail complexities to claim to be able to understand your choice?

The reason I ask is because it seemed to spark a conflict of sorts in my thought process. I was watching a fairly interesting lecture on the leaps made in propulsion systems in the years after the supposed Roswell incident of '47. The lecture meandered in to the subject of a UFO being retrieved from the Roswell incident as one of the possible catalysts. I've been a believer in UFO's almost all my life, but if someone was to say to me 'convince me with your best evidence' I'm not sure I'd be able to - on the spot - recite any convincing lines I'd read, name any incidents I'd researched which strongly persuaded my belief or truly reason with them as to why I believe it to be true.

How can I convince myself if I don't think I can convince others? If I'm not qualified to convince myself, can I truly claim to be a believer?

I once read about five monkeys that were placed in a room with a banana at the top of a set of stairs. As one monkey attempted to climb the stairs, all of the monkeys were sprayed with jets of cold water. A second monkey made an attempt and again the monkeys were sprayed. No more monkeys attempted to climb the stairs. One of the monkeys was then removed from the room and replaced with a new monkey. New monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs but to its surprise, it was attacked by the other monkeys. Another of the original monkeys was replaced and the newcomer was also attacked when he attempted to climb the stairs. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Replacing a third original monkey with a new one, it headed for the stairs and was attacked as well. Half of the monkeys that attacked him had no idea why. After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, none had ever been sprayed with cold water but all stayed the f**k away from the stairs.

I got this from a site, all of the content of which is created by David Thorne. He's a fantastic writer and, even if I'm not really sure if all his email chats are real, they are addictively entertaining.
www.27bslash6.com...

Anyway...

The conflict I had arose when I was enjoying the monkey story. I can see how that story could be an analogy for certain societal systems, such as a call centre or a typical office. Too many times I've heard the phrase "that's just the way it's always been" and thought "these people are blind". Applying that gist to my belief in UFOs - and the fact that I can't recite or identify the particular evidence that convinced me - have I fallen in to the monkey trap? Has it just always been this way so I now believe in UFOs regardless?

Am I all the monkeys and the guy with the hose? Does the guy with the hose even know why he's doing it? Where does this chain of mental shortsightedness end?


I'd love to hear your thought, as always ATS

Peace

I think its very important to be able to communicate ideas in a succinct manner. It is short clear explainations that make the biggest impact in my experience.

reply to post by Thundersmurf


I've never heard that monkey story before, but it is awesome! I think that is a great analogy for most organizations, civilizations, and religions. Everyone attempts to conform to the "norm" to keep the group civil. If someone tries to do something outside the norm, the group drags them back down.

Now, eventually, if the monkeys were not fed, one of them would attempt to get the banana, and eventually they would let him, even if they were sprayed with water. That is the heart of innovation. Necessity and desperation making the rewards worth the risks. That is why the US is failing at an accelerating pace. We have stopped rewarding risk, and instead punished risk-takers, and we reward status quo, even when status quo is a failing business model like GM was before the bailout.

Anyway, I can see how this could be a chicken/egg scenario, and it definitely fits with UFO and Paranormal type discussions.

Thanks for the replies guys. I wasn't sure if this would pique any interest.

GetReady - That's a really interesting point about the monkeys going for the banana if starving or in a situation of desperation. Applying that to the thought process again, does this mean that whilst none of the monkeys are desperate, they won't go for it?

I think the idea of starvation applies to the thought model quite well so I'll use that. If the monkeys represent different aspects of my personality or parts of my thought process, will it take some kind of starvation or trauma before I can break the cycle?

Originally posted by DrFaustus
I think its very important to be able to communicate ideas in a succinct manner. It is short clear explainations that make the biggest impact in my experience.

edit on 25-6-2012 by DrFaustus because: smelling

But having already understood and been convinced previously can I still call myself a believer even if I can't convince, say, my neighbour now?

reply to post by Thundersmurf


That's a wonderful rabbit hole, and have fun with it.

Ramification is critical to completely understand when examining this sort of thing because when an event occurs, the direct impact of that event is forever preserved as factual information that affects future events by default. The contextual weight of that specific impact increases as it (that impact) repeats and is given further relative significance as a result - the repeated hosing of the monkeys in your story is a great example of this being deliberately established. The "heavy" weighting of that specific impact deeply imbues the Residual information "cloud" that is directly relevant to the specific response precedence defaults pertaining to being a monkey in that room, creating a go-to survival dictate that each monkey that finds itself in that very defined situation/location will instinctively react to in fight/flight mode. This is because their brains work solely on DNA response predilections, and are wired to group-think (using that Residual environmental information "cloud" as memory) when confronted by closely relevant stimuli. A really stark example of this is when flocks of birds perform tight areal formations without any perceptible leader or communication between birds. It's a shared "memory cloud" that is being used by all those bird brains as a group-think directive manager.

As a human being, you have an added survival capacity that allows you to override that group-think DNA predilection (it still exists, but your Intellect - dynamic information "cloud" - is available to challenge that go-to with reasoned thought based on experience and revelation) That said, many human social programming efforts work to blunt that Intellect resistance capacity in members of their own community since it can cause clashes with established authority in moments when group-think is probably the best response for community survival.

It's a delicate balance that must be struck when one is trying to be part of a community while seeking the truth as it actually exists. Changing the group-think is fairly unlikely, so most original thinkers develop their own communities as a result. We call them religions, cults, The Elks Club, and Fraternities. And biker gangs, I guess.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
But having already understood and been convinced previously can I still call myself a believer even if I can't convince, say, my neighbour now?

Yes I think so. Belief isnt reliant on rationale as far as I can see.

reply to post by Thundersmurf

I think the idea of starvation applies to the thought model quite well so I'll use that. If the monkeys represent different aspects of my personality or parts of my thought process, will it take some kind of starvation or trauma before I can break the cycle?

Sure, I think that is fair. It is easy to make drastic changes when you are highly motivated, and nothing motivates as good as desperation!

I hope you don't have to have a major trauma, but maybe even the threat of trauma could suffice? People often lose the weight or quit smoking after their doctors diagnose them with something bad, and then they finally get done what they already knew they needed to get done.

If the changes need to be in your personality, people often change after divorces, or after losing their kids, or after getting fired from a job. Hopefully you won't need all those things to happen, but if you can make the realization that terrible things are possible, maybe you can motivate yourself to change before the trauma happens?