Hearsay is generally inadmissible evidence because it is not reliable.

It requires one to believe multiple layers of assertion with no substantiation of any.

I agree almost completely with Digger's position on commercial advertisement.

There is an appreciable artistry to it, and it can be helpful to "get the word out" about a useful product or service.

By and large though, the body of work captured by "commercial advertisement" is an aggressive invasion of one's reality. Unlike other forms of speech, commercial advertisement is not directed towards the improvement of one's awareness, but towards the contortion of one's desire. It is fundamentally offensive.


I part, though, with Digger's assertion that one cannot divest oneself of the ad's influence. While one cannot totally unring the bell, one can develop an effort to compartmentalize, or to caveat, one's intake. Regard it as entertainment, as art, or as a proposal for conveying information (viewing the ad mechanically - "what is doing what for me?")

Perhaps the capacity developed by this process can be useful elsewhere in our infotainment discernment milieu.

So is knowing human brains can be somewhat easily manipulated an excuse to manipulate them and just completely ignore autonomy? Obviously the communist/leftist says yes but what about the rest? What are real desires?

Is something like diggers post in itself an "advertisement"?

I don't think it makes sense for Autonomy to pre-exist Experience, because I understand Autonomy to be the direction of one's Identity, which itself, as I've said before, is but the reflection of one's subjective experiences.

I therefor don't see how it can be avoided for one actor to influence another without completely isolating the two.

Digger's post wasn't an "advertisement" because his purpose was not to sell you anything.

The distinction is not arbitrary if it is useful for facilitating the communication of thought.

i'm not sure he isn't trying to "sell" me anything, especially if we take thought and idea as pervasive

i agree they are different but it's probably a matter of degree

Digger, what about your desire to get a phd? Has that been "advertized" into your brain? Is it a way for you to be able to monetize your intellectualism?

we ain't blank slates

"Sell" has two senses. One is to effect an exchange of goods/services, the other is to convince others of their need/desire therefor. The two work really well in conjunction.

I attribute only the first sense of the "sell" to "advertisement", sparing "advertisement"'s utility.

If language is the problem let's just fix the language. Unless you are some kind of neoLuddite.

what's the slate made of?

it has some material composition restricting its utility


We experience through our senses, no?

huh, i'm not claiming language is the problem (well, maybe), i think they are more similar than you give them credit in a real sense

especially when digger introduces the grand narrative of advertising aspect

i mean, i put sell in quotes for a reason

i may claim "the human brain" is the problem, but that's what digger is more or less explicitly saying i think

i think we should just kind of make do and do our best and he thinks we should use it as cause to eviscerate individuality

I think I'm inventing pragmatic idealism.

* It's probably out there....

brain stuff, genetics, millions of years of evolution

probably more

if we experience through our sense how do we learn those?

is the ability for our brains to be manipulated also learned?

convincing, but let's then draw a constructive line around that dichotomy, a road to

establish individuality. An objective, faceless, inhuman Image - an impossibility, that could not be, in order to acknowledge one's own being; as "I" creates "not I", so too does "not I" create "I"

we are all individuals because we experientially are not One. (unless we're really fishooked)

Of course we don't learn them. They are innate. We may learn to process their data in certain ways.

our brains are plastic and develop with use, afaiu

our senses also develop with use

we should just teach people to not be able to be manipulated and to decide for themselves

after that we can teach them how to have free will

advertisements don't need to 'sell' anything.

i think the folly of advertisement is that there are so many things that influence a person that have a say. like for instance, no matter how good the marketing is, one user review is worth a hundred times that.

i thought the parts about how it creates an addiction on a larger scale was what digger was talking about, though i don't think it's just the advertisements that shape consumerism. It seems like a really small part, depending on how you define advertisement.

if it's strict enough to exclude political rhetoric then you can probably exclude a lot.

i guess agree with one thing. advertisement's benefits are questionable. they usually don't teach you anything.

is advertising even that good/pervasive? maybe it's just survivorship bias and other things and that it's around so much it appears it has to be effective

allegedly it has almost no affect in politics

i do know some people have fallen for the "shop local" and "keep (cities name) weird" messaging

i never ended up getting all the toys i saw on tv.

yeah i agree it's informativeness is pretty nonexistent

we could choose to ban it or severely limit it if we want to

scarcity tends to teach people caution. i don't think we need to teach them caution by schooling them. though we could i guess.

all the world's merely a stage

right, they only need to try to (read: be produced for the purpose of)

we cannot teach that obv

so what can we do?

we can create a material condition conducive to enabling them to teach themselves