And I think you're describing something that can't exist and is therefore meaningless.

You think your choices are really yours? In part they're informed by your own confirmation biases and your cultural influences, your genes, the availability of what there is to choose. I doubt there's any such thing as a genuinely unbiased, uninfluenced choice.

Of course we do, you think we don't?

I'm talking about how people exploit our tendency to confirm what we'd like to believe. Marketing companies use it, politicians use it, newspapers and other media publications use it, religions use it.

What conditioning? If I have the choice, as you suggest, then how I can I be conditioned to avoid using it too?

We are able to dissolve the reasons you think this can't exist.



Ok i agree with this, I see the confusion, I didn't mean that. We can definitely question whether we have free will in that regard, certainly we do not. However if the mind can 'get' to a place of no center, it can be freed from this conditioning, and thus have a 'free will'. It is that state of mind society doesn't accept.

No I thought there were international laws against it?
Yes I agree, I didn't mean to imply that didn't exist

Hopefully I cleared up the confusion above. I'm talking about the conditioning that leads you to believe this kinda of state cannot exist.

Maybe we can agree it's possible to produce this 'empty' state of mind momentarily?

Sure ok, as a hypothetical. During that moment you might be free of confirmation bias but would you be in a state to have a valid opinion on anything?

How would you debate something with someone in that state?

[Regarding the Muslim/Christian' countries, I think we can agree that despite laws, we could easily look at a map of the world and identify all the countries that strongly identify one way or the other. In some Islamic countries, you can't run for a political office without having been approved of by the Islamic council. In some western countries, regardless of the separation of church and state, no politician would dream of admitting to being an atheist]

Wouldn't someone 'not' in that state have a bias opinion and therefore not very valid? We may not have an opinion per say, but the mind would finally be empty and free to observe the problem or conflict at hand from a clear perspective not clouded by ones own judgments.


Debate is not the goal is it? I think someone with this state may not be able to bring emotion to the table, and would like seek understanding and solution over conflict rather than coming from a centre and trying to convey that centre to the 'other side'.

Ok I see that. I think that if we understand the state of mind we are talking about we will see being a 'politician' implies theism.

And I don't think it should be left as hypothetical, I think its scientific fact, that can be done and shown, but science has to be left behind in that moment.

Immediately you begin to consider an issue, would you not be removed from that state and again be influenced by your built in tendency to have biases like the confirmation bias. Confirmation bias has an effect because we are evolved to reach decision quickly, it's part of our phenome to behave in that way.

If you gave me a brand new subject, one I knew nothing at all about, I would quickly seek to fit it into my world view because to do otherwise would paralyse me while I try to decide how to think about it and that's potentially dangerous where you're trying to evade predators.

I don't think it's possible to detach yourself emotionally like that but you'd have to ask a psychologist for more info there.

Can you clarify?

What do you understand 'science' to mean, such that it can be 'left behind'?

Agreed, there is no room for consideration, because the act of this is reflecting is sourced in our bias.


I reject the concept of evolution in this way. When our source is 'centreless' this type of time changes its meaning completely.
Yes but seeking to fit it into your already framed world view takes to much time. Coming from an empty source, this new subject fits in 'instantaneously' and therefore no time is wasted and we can then deal with the situation at hand seamlessly.

A psychologist deals with the premise/assumption that you cannot and should not. Furthermore, he is not free from bias.


A politician cannot function from this state of mind.

Go back to that state for a moment, and then reflect on whether science can enter.