Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Natural Human Behavior and File-Sharing

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Pedestrian Question - What is Gluten?



In this video, Jimmy Kimmel asks pedestrians who are on a gluten-free diet the question "What is gluten?" They know to various degrees, some even know what gluten is in, most don't know what gluten is enough to have made the educated decision to go on the diet.

I am going to examine two ideas that stem from this video, the first one involves whether or not people think, and the second one involves the natural tendency to copy one another and how that could be infringed by copyright law - they are, in fact, somewhat opposing topics.

However, I believe that discussing ideas with one another and copying one another can add to comprehension.

I. Treatment of Autism to Prevent Critical Thought

There are many questions that come to my mind when watching this video. The most pressing one is this. I have been on medication to treat my autism, and the most "effective" medication so far is Propranolol.

However - there is a major problem. It gets rid of my ability to think critically, meaning that instead of knowing every step I am taking and why, I flow in the moment and do things in a reactive fashion.

This is very helpful because it prevents me from getting stuck and allows me to socialize with normal people - however, I lose many of the abilities to know what I am doing, and sometimes the ability to socialize with other autistic people - when I come off of Propranolol I can start saying things that make little or no sense whatsoever.

I didn't realize that some people copy others instead of understanding each prerequisite subject leading up to their current predicament until I started doing it myself.

However, it is the mixture and socialization of different types of people discussing ideas which allow those ideas to fully develop without the weaknesses brought to them by a single perspective. Which leads me into my second topic.

II. Natural Human Behavior and File-Sharing

I was playing rummy the other day, and I noticed that the natural human behavior was to converse and talk over a subject, such as the rummy rules, and then modify them to fit the situation at hand. This involves taking something out of the "public domain" as it were and having the freedom to modify it and use it.

Musicians do this all the time. There are certain chords that are used because they exist, even certain chord structures that are repeated in many different songs.

These chord structures are not copyrighted. In another example, it used to be that when someone went to the video store to rent a movie, they brought their friends and / or family along. I remember doing this all of the time. I then shared my purchase with many others.

This natural human behavior has simply adapted to the internet - the question is whether or not the internet is going to clamp down on the natural human behavior because of corporate greed, even though the behavior is needed for society to function.

Humans have always been able to function because of free speech, speech that was not being recorded, in which ideas were passed on and off each other for inspection and peer-review in an unrecorded and laid-back manner.

We see that kind of thought coming to A.T.S. in a more stark manner likely because the natural conversations are not happening in the real world as often. In fact, recent research has found that parents of today's children do not let them hang out in person with one another or have the freedom to pursue their own interests in real life as often as their predecessors- thus they take their natural tendencies to want to refine their views online.

In the meantime, how could any musicians function if any chord progression that they thought of on their own had been copyrighted by another musician?

People in general access a creative library owned by the universe, and do not actually own any ideas, as they are equally accessible to anyone with the right amount of imagination.

I suppose what could be owned is someone's refined take on a universal matter.

This is how come many scientific or mathematical discoveries happen in multiple places at the same time, even when two or more scientists are unaware of each others' work - this is how come multiple countries were working towards reaching nuclear weapons first during World War II, even though they were not collaborating.

The video from Jimmy Kimmel Live represents how people will naturally copy each other - for example, all dieting in the same manner - through communication. But what is allowed or not allowed when it comes to copying?

I feel as if we are at a confusing time. And I could be wrong, but I think that how corporations handle copyright law could affect regular human interactions.

Discussing ideas with one another is essential in forming one's own identity.

What happens in a world where paranoia and excessive territorialism over ideas reign? What happens if people and even their best friends don't share their secrets, or their thoughts, or what they know? I think what would happen is that there would be a decrease in critical thinking skills.

People often need to talk over ideas in order to fully understand them, and a world where the social norm is not beneficial to this could be temporarily detrimental to society. Are we entering the age to oppose the Information Age, the Age of Lockdown?
edit on 08amThu, 08 May 2014 04:12:52 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Effing excellent!
Well said.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Well I'd say that we certainly are entering a time and age where knowledge/culture as an economic possession should start being viewed as a dated concept.

Our economic system values what is rare and scarce. Knowledge and culture once were, and as such were dispensed at great cost. Thanks to internet, knowledge is no longer scarce, in fact, it has become quite the opposite.

Unfortunately, the number one characteristic of any system is first and foremost self-perpetuation, however outdated said system may be. The fact that our society actively tries to lock-down any endevours that go against its economic reasoning, such as sharing, is just as natural as peoples natural inclination to share an abundant ressource.

That will change though. You can't stop evolution, biological, social, economical, or otherwise.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
It is a question about service to ego/self vs service to all. File sharing is doing service to all without expecting material compensation.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Here's another question we should all be asking: Why is Kimmel trying to make a de facto joke out of a gluten free diet?

The answer is because it makes people healthier, clears their minds, and allows them to think more logically/rationally. And all of those things are results that daddy government does not want.

Kimmel is just another mouthpiece for the establishment. And this is just a piece of propaganda designed to get "normal" people laughing at the very real psychological and physiological benefits that come from going gluten-free.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Really those things, at least the first one especially are a result of the human ego. I am far far away from that by years of working in the other direction.

I often wondered why the human ego stood up so much for beliefs that it did not understand. The Gluten example is great. Just about every day - a person argues me and either they are wrong and sticking up for something they don't know (in denial), or they are arguing with me based on an opinion (saying that there opinion is better than mine). I don't care about who thinks who is BETTER. That is why women are changing in such an egotistical way nowadays - they have to be right. It is nothing but ego. In reality it is all wrong. Yet they stand up for it because of denial. Their whole believe system is selfish, it is made up of a selfish foundation.

They told me year after year, day after day, that they didn't care about me. So what I am going to do now? I am going to show them that this soul once loved but the world pushed, and pushed, and pushed, so now I have to show that I don't care. And my apathy is going to be better than your apathy because I am going to show you mine while dancing and singing. The reason for that is because love was supposed to make me happy (like the traditional days when men got married and stayed married), but since all I have seen is apathy for the wrong reasons I have to force myself to be happy from alternative ways. Dancing and singing is one of them, so I have made a vow to start singing every time I come in contact with someone that is showing me that don't care - just a way to get the selfish egotistical judgmental immature negative energy away from me.
edit on 10Thu, 08 May 2014 10:53:53 -0500America/Chicago14America/ChicagoThu, 08 May 2014 10:53:53 -0500 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JonButtonIII
Here's another question we should all be asking: Why is Kimmel trying to make a de facto joke out of a gluten free diet?

The answer is because it makes people healthier, clears their minds, and allows them to think more logically/rationally. And all of those things are results that daddy government does not want.


It's just a different point that was trying to be made.
edit on 12Thu, 08 May 2014 12:05:20 -0500America/Chicago14America/ChicagoThu, 08 May 2014 12:05:20 -0500 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: greyer

Someone missed the OP's point lol.


Someone expanded on the OP's point so you can also see the social engineering at work behind the "joke."





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join