From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_. 
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:06:32 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1993Jan3.050831.26797@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> In article <1993Jan2.233547.9837@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1993Jan3.015948.18450@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>> 
>>Re: genetic personality differences and Orwell.
>>
>>Well, that isn't exactly what I meant. This is a somewhat minor point,
>>but I think it is fair to say that personalities are at least partly
>>a result of genetically dictated hormone levels, neuronal
>>configurations, etc.  I am skeptical that Orwell was 100% on the
>>environment side of the "nature vs. nurture" controversy. 
>  
> 	Ok.  Got it.  I think he was 99% enviroment, 1% nature, though.

I think he was 97.78% environment, 2.22% nature...:)_
 
> 	Interestingly enough, this same sort of topic (reshaping people)
> 	came up in another group (talk.politics.homosexuality, I think)
> 	when someone, hoping to bunkify my argument tried the tired old
> 	"Can you be cured of heterosexuality?" 
> 
> 	I answered yes.  I still stand by it.

This is an interesting application of knowledge...and I think you're
right.  
 
>>arguable, though, that genetic factors are at work also. The Thought
>>Police will _always_ be needed, because genetic variation will likely
>>_always_ produce a few people who will be malcontents.
> 
> 
> 	I prefer not to call this genetic variation, but rather 
> 	biological variation.  It is known, for instance, that a number
> 	of behavioral problems are caused by intrauterine exposure
> 	to some chemicals (drugs, mostly--both illicit and prescription).

Fair enough. "Biological" covers more bases than "genetic."
 
>>>>Actually, he never confesses to the Kardassians that he saw five, even though
>>>>he did. He remains defiant _even though_ the Kardassians have distorted
>>>>his perceptions in a way similar to the way O'Brien renders Winston
>>>>Smith unable to tell whether or not he was holding up 4 or 5 fingers.
>>> 
>>> 	Picard confesses to Troi at the end of the episode after
>>> 	being returned to the enterprise.
>>
>>The fact that he never confessed to the Kardassians is what is signif-
>>icant from the _1984_ perspective.  
> 
> 
> 	I think that STTNG shows that he *would have* if the guards
> 	hadn't come to fetch him as soon as they did. 

Actually, unless I mis-heard Picard, his final response to the Kardassian
interrgator is an almost incoherent yell: "There...are...four...lights!"
The other Kardassians then take him away to send him home. This would
seem to indicate that Picard holds firm despite the perceptual
alterations induced by the torture. The "message" of the show is thus
fundamentally opposed to Orwell's novel. Picard represents a triumph
of soemthing one might call "the human spirit."  _1984_ fans know
what O'Brien, the Thought Police man, thinks of that theory.

> 	I also have a slight problem with both 1984 and STTNG's focal
> 	point--the number that 2+2 equals and the number of lights.  I 
> 	tend to feel that there is a hard-core biological system behind
> 	human cognition that is, in some specific ways, immutable.  I would
> 	think that mathematics would be one of these points. 

I know what you mean, but on the other hand, I suspect the issue is not
whether or not you _really_ think 2+2=5, but whether or not you  
you are prepared to suppress your knowledge of your self-deceit.
The idea of doublethink is that you hold an idea which you _know_
is wrong, but you supress that knowledge so that you can assert the truth
of the idea in question. 

Why suppress the recognition of self-deception? That's an interesting
question, I think. Orwell answers it partly, perhaps: there is a struggle
in the individual between the sense of integrity and other factors (desires,
for example).  If the motivation towards the desire is stronger than the
motivation to recognize one's sense of intergrity, doublethink becomes
possible.  Torture, then, is one way to motivate you to renounce
your sense of integrity.  What do you think?  

>>> 	I do not know much about drugs or the sensory depriv chamber, 
>>> 	other than a very brief chance I got to try one. 
>>
>>Wow...where did you get to try this? Was it really as bad as that?
>
> 	Like I said, it was mostly borign, then really boring.  It is pretty
> 	clear that I lost my ability (not particularly good, anyway) to
> 	measure time after not too long, because while I was only in for
> 	maybe 1:15, if felt like a LOT longer.
> 
> 	All I got was scared.  I'm very rational, and my mind doesn't
> 	drift anywhere but into memory.  It was when this stuff started
> 	to feel "real" that I got scared.  

What do you mean, this stuff started to feel real? That's an interesting thing
to say...!

Thanks for the story about the sensory depriv. chamber, BTW. Fascinating!

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"As private parts are we to the Gods: they play with us for their sport!"
-- Blackadder
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan