Imagine if the human brain had evolved the ability to detect danger

[Londo_Jowo]

So pigs are smarter than Moonbeam.

I think it would do him wonders if he got down and dirty with the pigs as he could learn how to detect dangers.

 

[Moonbeam]

So, truth is relevant but only if it is the Focus to determine the requisite action.... IF the action bit is already determined .... what does it matter what truth is?

But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane [you aren't alone]
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-gley, [often go awry]
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promised joy.

So worse yet, what does it matter if the action the best deem best is also potentially in error. Do the stars of fate work against us or is it perhaps, unconscious of what it is we fear we create exactly that as our real intention. What if we hate ourselves and our desire is our own destruction and we walk backward into every disaster? What if the enemy is us? He who feels contempt for the other, himself, will be the last to suspect. Who would care if it weren't for all of those beautiful children. My soul cries for the child who remembers his grief consciously. I know that I died. I just can't remember how. But I remember some.

 

[Moonbeam]

Doc Savage Fan: I'm just a stupid pig among apes,

M: I love you. You can't get to me by means of false self pity or even real self pity. You are a wonderful ape.

DSF: a pig who's not nearly smart enough to know the answers...

M: One of the prime features of our competitive system is the premium we place on intelligence and the shame we try to inflict on others we hope to cause to fail by attacking it. You know perfectly well that the smartest conservative brain defectives are the most intelligent of the lot. They just use that gift to deflect unpleasant ideas away, things that might cause damage to their delusional egos. Do not use feigned humility. We all need the real thing.

DSF: but one who prefers questions instead.

M: Have a care that your questions aren't ones you create to blind yourself to better ones.

DSF: Why is it so important for you to keep telling conservatives how ugly they are all the time?

M: I tell them how they are and they supply the ugly. It's in the eye with which they behold my descriptions. Self hate is a sore toe we leave in the aisle for somebody to step on. I stomp on those with relish. A masochist loves sadists like me. But it doesn't really matter because as LunarRay suggested could be the case, we are all anxiously looking to be offended. It's hhow we get close to our feelings of worthlessness without actually feeling it as memory.

DSF: Do you imagine that you're actually helping them in some way? If so, let me be first in line to cast a jaundiced eye.

M: Do you know how to help them? Cast that eye on your own incapacity. How are you going to even help yourself if you don't know what the problem is? You can perhaps at least acknowledge that I seem to manage to draw a few flies, assorted pigs, and various other things. Have you ever seen those folk in Africa that have flies all over their faces. They never shoo them away. Why do you suppose that is? How many times have I said that self hate is a delusion, the belief in lies inculcated at a time when nobody could use reason for a defense. And here you are buying into the notion that my insults are real defending yourself against illusions, afraid of what isn't real. Should you trust that? That's what this thread is about, no? Now that I've done what I can to answer your question, I hope you'll think about mine.

[/QUOTE]

 

[chucky2]

I think Moonie you might do better to ask yourself why each section of the brain handles thoughts as they were. How did the brain as a whole decide that section of the brain would handle that risk assessment. This might go a long way in understanding why the studies on 'conservative brain defects' don't really add up to 'conservative brain defects'.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think Moonie you might do better to ask yourself why each section of the brain handles thoughts as they were. How did the brain as a whole decide that section of the brain would handle that risk assessment. This might go a long way in understanding why the studies on 'conservative brain defects' don't really add up to 'conservative brain defects'.

I think you should just tell me what your thoughts are on this because I have no idea what you are asking actually means. Very very confusing, I think.....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doc Savage Fan: I'm just a stupid pig among apes,

M: I love you. You can't get to me by means of false self pity or even real self pity. You are a wonderful ape.

DSF: I love you too Moonie but there is no self pity here...I like being a pig because I don't know how to be anything else.

******************************

DSF: a pig who's not nearly smart enough to know the answers...

M: One of the prime features of our competitive system is the premium we place on intelligence and the shame we try to inflict on others we hope to cause to fail by attacking it. You know perfectly well that the smartest conservative brain defectives are the most intelligent of the lot. They just use that gift to deflect unpleasant ideas away, things that might cause damage to their delusional egos. Do not use feigned humility. We all need the real thing.

DSF: I don't think anyone is nearly as intelligent as they think they are. I will freely admit to being stupid and I'm OK with that. My apparent humility is not feigned in my "reality". I fully understand that I have many limitations. But this is a concern of mine as I clearly abhor arrogance and wonder whether or not I'm seeing my reflection. Perhaps you can see this more clearly than I for I'm pretty sure I have blind spot 5 miles wide and am clueless as to what I cannot see.

******************************

DSF: but one who prefers questions instead.

M: Have a care that your questions aren't ones you create to blind yourself to better ones.

DSF: I'm not smart enough to ask better questions...this is all I got...I am what I am.

******************************

DSF: Why is it so important for you to keep telling conservatives how ugly they are all the time?

M: I tell them how they are and they supply the ugly. It's in the eye with which they behold my descriptions. Self hate is a sore toe we leave in the aisle for somebody to step on. I stomp on those with relish. A masochist loves sadists like me. But it doesn't really matter because as LunarRay suggested could be the case, we are all anxiously looking to be offended. It's hhow we get close to our feelings of worthlessness without actually feeling it as memory.

DSF: It looks like ugliness to me but I'm not going to pretend I know where you're coming from. I'm not personally offended by your rhetoric but I can see how others may be. I think you can explain it to me a thousand times in a thousand different ways and I'll never get it. But I'm OK with that on one hand...and deeply remorseful on the other.

******************************

DSF: Do you imagine that you're actually helping them in some way? If so, let me be first in line to cast a jaundiced eye.

M: Do you know how to help them? Cast that eye on your own incapacity. How are you going to even help yourself if you don't know what the problem is? You can perhaps at least acknowledge that I seem to manage to draw a few flies, assorted pigs, and various other things. Have you ever seen those folk in Africa that have flies all over their faces. They never shoo them away. Why do you suppose that is? How many times have I said that self hate is a delusion, the belief in lies inculcated at a time when nobody could use reason for a defense. And here you are buying into the notion that my insults are real defending yourself against illusions, afraid of what isn't real. Should you trust that? That's what this thread is about, no? Now that I've done what I can to answer your question, I hope you'll think about mine.

DSF: I don't know how to help anybody...I've tried and tried in many different ways, but my words never seem to help anyone. Yes, I have cast that eye on my own incapacity. Sure I can "at least" acknowledge that you seem to manage to draw a few flies, assorted pigs, and various other things. And you've said self hate is a delusion countless times. But I'm curious as to why you specifically direct these comments regarding self-hate and brain defects towards conservatives only...or am I somehow missing a better question?

 

[chucky2]

I think you should just tell me what your thoughts are on this because I have no idea what you are asking actually means. Very very confusing, I think.....

I'll give you an example:

Lets say we take a group comprised of equal amounts of Lefties and Righties and ask them if removing this barricade that protects them from a mass of deadly snakes (Snakes in a room!) is a good idea or not.

The Righties brain with their conservative defect fear center lights up on the scan and Righties say, No! Keep that barrier in place, it's ensuring something really potentially bad doesn't happen to us.

The Lefties brain that has a total absense of defects lights up and they say, Remove that barrier, not all snakes bite and those poor snakes don't deserve to be caged in like animals, pre-judged to be bad when they've done nothing wrong to us!

My point to you would be, rather than looking at the section of brain that lights up when answering, it may be more useful to understand how the brain actually decided that section of the brain would handle that decision. How did the knowledge that removing that barrier could have bad results get stored in the brain, or, not stored in the brain, and where? And how did the "fear center" come about to access it and how did the brain process the "fear center" kicking in.

This would seem far more useful to me than going on about conservative brain defects based on brain scans that reveal...not much really...

 

[Moonbeam]

Doc Savage Fan: I'm just a stupid pig among apes,

M: I love you. You can't get to me by means of false self pity or even real self pity. You are a wonderful ape.

DSF: I love you too Moonie but there is no self pity here...I like being a pig because I don't know how to be anything else.

M: But you call yourself by the wrong name and that name creates the wrong attitude.

******************************

DSF: a pig who's not nearly smart enough to know the answers...

M: One of the prime features of our competitive system is the premium we place on intelligence and the shame we try to inflict on others we hope to cause to fail by attacking it. You know perfectly well that the smartest conservative brain defectives are the most intelligent of the lot. They just use that gift to deflect unpleasant ideas away, things that might cause damage to their delusional egos. Do not use feigned humility. We all need the real thing.

DSF: I don't think anyone is nearly as intelligent as they think they are. I will freely admit to being stupid and I'm OK with that. My apparent humility is not feigned in my "reality". I fully understand that I have many limitations. But this is a concern of mine as I clearly abhor arrogance and wonder whether or not I'm seeing my reflection. Perhaps you can see this more clearly than I for I'm pretty sure I have blind spot 5 miles wide and am clueless as to what I cannot see.

M: Again the word isn't stupid but wise. Everything I abhor I assume is me because all I seem to do is project out there what is internal. I see the abhorrent but I don't believe it when I step back if I can reflect with self awareness. I don't want to get caught between intelligent and stupid because those are not the real issues. Those are comparisons we make from dualistic moral values I don't believe really exist although I fail to act on that all the time. Fallible without any pejorative might be better.

******************************

DSF: but one who prefers questions instead.

M: Have a care that your questions aren't ones you create to blind yourself to better ones.

DSF: I'm not smart enough to ask better questions...this is all I got...I am what I am.

M: Me either but it doesn't mean that I can't consider the possibility that the ones I ask might be there to blind me to those better ones. I am what I am but what I am can change, perhaps.

******************************

DSF: Why is it so important for you to keep telling conservatives how ugly they are all the time?

M: I tell them how they are and they supply the ugly. It's in the eye with which they behold my descriptions. Self hate is a sore toe we leave in the aisle for somebody to step on. I stomp on those with relish. A masochist loves sadists like me. But it doesn't really matter because as LunarRay suggested could be the case, we are all anxiously looking to be offended. It's hhow we get close to our feelings of worthlessness without actually feeling it as memory.

DSF: It looks like ugliness to me but I'm not going to pretend I know where you're coming from. I'm not personally offended by your rhetoric but I can see how others may be. I think you can explain it to me a thousand times in a thousand different ways and I'll never get it. But I'm OK with that on one hand...and deeply remorseful on the other.

M: None of the attacks that people do on me can hold even a candle to what I do or have done to myself. There is no greater contempt in the world greater than that for ourselves. I know this to be true. We are adults and can't be harmed further than we already have. The damage is done. All the insults we take only remind us of a truth we already believe. All the damage was done long ago.

******************************

DSF: Do you imagine that you're actually helping them in some way? If so, let me be first in line to cast a jaundiced eye.

M: Do you know how to help them? Cast that eye on your own incapacity. How are you going to even help yourself if you don't know what the problem is? You can perhaps at least acknowledge that I seem to manage to draw a few flies, assorted pigs, and various other things. Have you ever seen those folk in Africa that have flies all over their faces. They never shoo them away. Why do you suppose that is? How many times have I said that self hate is a delusion, the belief in lies inculcated at a time when nobody could use reason for a defense. And here you are buying into the notion that my insults are real defending yourself against illusions, afraid of what isn't real. Should you trust that? That's what this thread is about, no? Now that I've done what I can to answer your question, I hope you'll think about mine.

DSF: I don't know how to help anybody...I've tried and tried in many different ways, but my words never seem to help anyone. Yes, I have cast that eye on my own incapacity. Sure I can "at least" acknowledge that you seem to manage to draw a few flies, assorted pigs, and various other things. And you've said self hate is a delusion countless times. But I'm curious as to why you specifically direct these comments regarding self-hate and brain defects towards conservatives only...or am I somehow missing a better question?

M: The self hate part is universal and so is the denial. Today all of the survival value to be found from competition among groups so valuable in the past will lead to mutual self destruction. The task at hand, in my opinion, is to evolve past tribal mentality, a conservative strength and value. For the world ship to sail the anchor is going to have to be pulled up from the mud. We can only pray that when the liberals are center stage of the problem, they will be easier to reach with reason. And besides, I don't want to deal with them. They make me sick. They remind me too much of myself.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'll give you an example:

Lets say we take a group comprised of equal amounts of Lefties and Righties and ask them if removing this barricade that protects them from a mass of deadly snakes (Snakes in a room!) is a good idea or not.

The Righties brain with their conservative defect fear center lights up on the scan and Righties say, No! Keep that barrier in place, it's ensuring something really potentially bad doesn't happen to us.

The Lefties brain that has a total absense of defects lights up and they say, Remove that barrier, not all snakes bite and those poor snakes don't deserve to be caged in like animals, pre-judged to be bad when they've done nothing wrong to us!

My point to you would be, rather than looking at the section of brain that lights up when answering, it may be more useful to understand how the brain actually decided that section of the brain would handle that decision. How did the knowledge that removing that barrier could have bad results get stored in the brain, or, not stored in the brain, and where? And how did the "fear center" come about to access it and how did the brain process the "fear center" kicking in.

This would seem far more useful to me than going on about conservative brain defects based on brain scans that reveal...not much really...

I am not sure but this sounds like how a conservative brain might view the problem. My view would be to return all the snakes to the wild or call the barrier a zoo.

I know that babies have a tendency to grip an object put in the hand, presumably so it won't fall out of a tree. The exact evolution of how such things develop, other than the standard ideas given by evolution, are quite beyond me. My opinion is that we are what we are due to variation and chance, and that the brain doesn't decide anything on that level. It's just the result of genetic variations meets changing environmental niche.

 

[chucky2]

I am not sure but this sounds like how a conservative brain might view the problem. My view would be to return all the snakes to the wild or call the barrier a zoo.

Unfortunately that wouldn't be the problem, that would be the Reality. Group in an enclosed space, keep clear plexi in place = no dangerous snakes, remove clear plexi = dangerous snakes mix with group. There is no option for returning snakes to wild, calling someone to get the snakes, or put snakes in zoo.

I know that babies have a tendency to grip an object put in the hand, presumably so it won't fall out of a tree.

Presumably why though? Maybe the baby likes the feeling of its hand gripping an object. Maybe it equates the object with mama. Maybe it really is because of a tree. You can't presume that, the baby can't answer so we can't really know.

The exact evolution of how such things develop, other than the standard ideas given by evolution, are quite beyond me. My opinion is that we are what we are due to variation and chance, and that the brain doesn't decide anything on that level. It's just the result of genetic variations meets changing environmental niche.

But the brain does decide things at some levels, otherwise they wouldn't be able to have reproducible results in your brain scan studies (and I'm assuming they were in fact reproducible). Clearly a conservative brain is interpreting things differently than a liberal brain. You have claimed it's a brain defect. Yet how without understanding how both brains are classifying these things are you determining defect exists? Would you not need to first understand that, design a known true pure reasoned outcome (that both liberal and conservative testors would design prior to a test), and then work through the brain workings of both liberal and conservative individuals to see where and how the outcome is actually be derived, and why?

I'd think that we have the barest of data, a brain scan, that is really the end result of the brain mechanism. That is far too little to indicate anything...it in fact in the end may indicate nothing at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

chucky2: Unfortunately that wouldn't be the problem, that would be the Reality. Group in an enclosed space, keep clear plexi in place = no dangerous snakes, remove clear plexi = dangerous snakes mix with group. There is no option for returning snakes to wild, calling someone to get the snakes, or put snakes in zoo. [/quote]

But what you are doing here is self defining the problem as real.

c: Presumably why though? Maybe the baby likes the feeling of its hand gripping an object. Maybe it equates the object with mama. Maybe it really is because of a tree. You can't presume that, the baby can't answer so we can't really know.

M: It's what scientists think is the case. Doesn't mean it's true but our best scientific guess to date.


But the brain does decide things at some levels, otherwise they wouldn't be able to have reproducible results in your brain scan studies (and I'm assuming they were in fact reproducible). Clearly a conservative brain is interpreting things differently than a liberal brain. You have claimed it's a brain defect. Yet how without understanding how both brains are classifying these things are you determining defect exists? Would you not need to first understand that, design a known true pure reasoned outcome (that both liberal and conservative testors would design prior to a test), and then work through the brain workings of both liberal and conservative individuals to see where and how the outcome is actually be derived, and why?

M: I believe that any ideology that can be believed in the face of factual evidence to the contrary, and believed to such a degree that the believer values his belief more than life on earth, he has a brain defect. Such folk, for example, stand in the way of action on global warming.

c: I'd think that we have the barest of data, a brain scan, that is really the end result of the brain mechanism. That is far too little to indicate anything...it in fact in the end may indicate nothing at all.

M: Easy for you to say because that's what having a conservative brain defect would say. Scientific data suggests otherwise. You have to link to scientific studies that show that the physical differences between the brains of self reported liberals and conservatives that do show up in scans in areas of the brain that suggest likely predictions that also show up in the data, are spurious. You can't just have that opinion. Well you can, but don't expect me to believe it.

 

[chucky2]

chucky2: Unfortunately that wouldn't be the problem, that would be the Reality. Group in an enclosed space, keep clear plexi in place = no dangerous snakes, remove clear plexi = dangerous snakes mix with group. There is no option for returning snakes to wild, calling someone to get the snakes, or put snakes in zoo.

But what you are doing here is self defining the problem as real.

It's a test case with each person when they answer hooked up to a machine that looks at their brain. There is no self defining. It's a presented scenario with a given answer, which yields a brain scan result.

c: Presumably why though? Maybe the baby likes the feeling of its hand gripping an object. Maybe it equates the object with mama. Maybe it really is because of a tree. You can't presume that, the baby can't answer so we can't really know.

M: It's what scientists think is the case. Doesn't mean it's true but our best scientific guess to date.

That really means nothing. Which scientists? All? Some %? How absolute is their opinion, ie guess? What is it based on? Is their guess any better than anyone elses?

But the brain does decide things at some levels, otherwise they wouldn't be able to have reproducible results in your brain scan studies (and I'm assuming they were in fact reproducible). Clearly a conservative brain is interpreting things differently than a liberal brain. You have claimed it's a brain defect. Yet how without understanding how both brains are classifying these things are you determining defect exists? Would you not need to first understand that, design a known true pure reasoned outcome (that both liberal and conservative testors would design prior to a test), and then work through the brain workings of both liberal and conservative individuals to see where and how the outcome is actually be derived, and why?

M: I believe that any ideology that can be believed in the face of factual evidence to the contrary, and believed to such a degree that the believer values his belief more than life on earth, he has a brain defect. Such folk, for example, stand in the way of action on global warming.

What factual evidence? Evidence must first be evidence that is demonstably linked to fact at hand. If it's not, it's no more important than someones belief...and may in fact be less important than said belief. Surely if it's not it will be less important than that persons belief. In your global warming example, you have people who are skeptical of the degree and resulting affects of man altered climate change. In a real world of scams and real world affects of damaged economies, these skeptics want proof. What scientists provide is guess, models that don't hold, scientists shown to block/destroy/alter data, and rich advocates who use more energy in a day than the skeptics family will use all year. All for a one or two C prediction on warming when the same scientific community can't get the 10 day forcast right - but trust them, the 50 year will be spot on. Talk about self defining a real problem.

c: I'd think that we have the barest of data, a brain scan, that is really the end result of the brain mechanism. That is far too little to indicate anything...it in fact in the end may indicate nothing at all.

M: Easy for you to say because that's what having a conservative brain defect would say. Scientific data suggests otherwise. You have to link to scientific studies that show that the physical differences between the brains of self reported liberals and conservatives that do show up in scans in areas of the brain that suggest likely predictions that also show up in the data, are spurious. You can't just have that opinion. Well you can, but don't expect me to believe it.

It's easy for me to say because it's simply true. Scientific data unfortunately does not reflect otherwise, else you'll be able to show how the knowledge that releasing a bunch of dangerous snakes into a group is bad/fine gets stored in the brain, accessed by the brain, weighed by the different parts of the brain, and ultimately decided upon. I don't need to link to scientific studies on that - you do. You're the one that has the opinion, you just need to back it up. What I've been trying to tell you is your brain scan studies are not even close to indicating anything. The brain science needs to advance far more than it has, in detail, before someone like you needing to justify a rationalization can actually do so. Your own words are so apt for you: You can't just have that opinion. Well you can, but don't expect me to believe it.

Chuck

 

[Moonbeam]

chucky2: It's a test case with each person when they answer hooked up to a machine that looks at their brain. There is no self defining. It's a presented scenario with a given answer, which yields a brain scan result.

M: An imaginary or hypothetical one which you defined. What I see happening is that the conservatives release the snakes sacrificing themselves to kill all the liberals.

c: That really means nothing. Which scientists? All? Some %? How absolute is their opinion, ie guess? What is it based on? Is their guess any better than anyone elses?

M: Real experiments with real data peer reviewed to check for relevance.

c: What factual evidence? Evidence must first be evidence that is demonstably linked to fact at hand. If it's not, it's no more important than someones belief...and may in fact be less important than said belief. Surely if it's not it will be less important than that persons belief. In your global warming example, you have people who are skeptical of the degree and resulting affects of man altered climate change. In a real world of scams and real world affects of damaged economies, these skeptics want proof. What scientists provide is guess, models that don't hold, scientists shown to block/destroy/alter data, and rich advocates who use more energy in a day than the skeptics family will use all year. All for a one or two C prediction on warming when the same scientific community can't get the 10 day forcast right - but trust them, the 50 year will be spot on. Talk about self defining a real problem.

M: This is the conservative brain defect in action.

c: It's easy for me to say because it's simply true. Scientific data unfortunately does not reflect otherwise, else you'll be able to show how the knowledge that releasing a bunch of dangerous snakes into a group is bad/fine gets stored in the brain, accessed by the brain, weighed by the different parts of the brain, and ultimately decided upon. I don't need to link to scientific studies on that - you do. You're the one that has the opinion, you just need to back it up. What I've been trying to tell you is your brain scan studies are not even close to indicating anything. The brain science needs to advance far more than it has, in detail, before someone like you needing to justify a rationalization can actually do so. Your own words are so apt for you: You can't just have that opinion. Well you can, but don't expect me to believe it.

M: I don't have an opinion. I know what the scientific consensus is. It doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean I can't change my mind. It means I listen to scientific evidence. A conservative will tend to prefer his truthiness when science contradicts that belief, no matter how ridiculous that belief is.

There are lots and lots of folk who react just like you to the fact that the earth is billions of years old. They have a sacred book they think tells them otherwise and their belief in that book is so important to their egos they can't hear real facts. You chose the warmth of your altered reality over testable facts. You don't have what it takes to live with the wonder of uncertainty, to open your mind to experiences you can't imagine. Your mind is subverted by the need for constant justification.

 

[Matt1970]

^^^^^ Moonie having imaginary conversations again. Liberal brain defect in full swing. Go get some sleep. One of the side effects of sleep derivation is hallucinations.

 

[LunarRay]

^^^^^ Moonie having imaginary conversations again. Liberal brain defect in full swing. Go get some sleep. One of the side effects of sleep derivation is hallucinations.

I see Moonster and Chucky2 having a dialog... conversation...

You don't see that??

 

[LunarRay]

(... snip) M: I don't have an opinion. I know what the scientific consensus is. It doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean I can't change my mind. It means I listen to scientific evidence. A conservative will tend to prefer his truthiness when science contradicts that belief, no matter how ridiculous that belief is.

There are lots and lots of folk who react just like you to the fact that the earth is billions of years old. They have a sacred book they think tells them otherwise and their belief in that book is so important to their egos they can't hear real facts. You chose the warmth of your altered reality over testable facts. You don't have what it takes to live with the wonder of uncertainty, to open your mind to experiences you can't imagine. Your mind is subverted by the need for constant justification.

Authority is usually defined to mean; the power or right to decide on an issue and dispatch orders of compliance and to be able to actually enforce obedience.

IF a person accepts that an authority exists then I'd also expect them to comply with that authority's orders under pain of what ever that authority might be able to use to force compliance.
In a limited sense the police are an authority but in the grand scheme of things as it relates to science and I'd include brain stuff in that there really are no authorities.... There are experts but no authorities.

Experts can differ on the same topic so one has to go beyond the science to investigate how it is that one body of experts say one thing and another say the opposite.... assuming that to be the case. I'd think there are all sorts of reasons why experts can bring an agenda into the lab and twiddle the nobs to such a state as to comply with the agenda they bring.

In the case of "Brain Defect", I have to say there does exist differences which are reasonably consistent with thinking differences but in order to say one is a defect one has to bring in a subjective aspect.... One that reasonably can separate normal and abnormal.

Some say the Earth is 10,000 years old... that there is zero probability that it is 4.5 billion or so years old... They use the authority of the Christian Bible and MUST comply fearing the pain of everlasting Hell. How can experts in science hope to compete with that authority? The best they can do is point out the probability that Earth is 4.5 billion years old is greater than 95 %. This then results in the proclamation that a defect in thinking based on Fear of non compliance is at hand in those who reject the 4.5 billion year argument. The Rub is that God and his bible may exist. Science cannot totally reject that possibility so the folks in the 10,000 year group may not be defective at all.... There is a high probability that they are but not with certainty.

We just don't know!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doc Savage Fan: I'm just a stupid pig among apes,

M: I love you. You can't get to me by means of false self pity or even real self pity. You are a wonderful ape.

DSF: I love you too Moonie but there is no self pity here...I like being a pig because I don't know how to be anything else.

M: But you call yourself by the wrong name and that name creates the wrong attitude.

DSF: I'm an anomaly who's predisposed to wrong attitudes. Pig is a good name for me...someone once called me this name and it seems to have stuck.

******************************

DSF: a pig who's not nearly smart enough to know the answers...

M: One of the prime features of our competitive system is the premium we place on intelligence and the shame we try to inflict on others we hope to cause to fail by attacking it. You know perfectly well that the smartest conservative brain defectives are the most intelligent of the lot. They just use that gift to deflect unpleasant ideas away, things that might cause damage to their delusional egos. Do not use feigned humility. We all need the real thing.

DSF: I don't think anyone is nearly as intelligent as they think they are. I will freely admit to being stupid and I'm OK with that. My apparent humility is not feigned in my "reality". I fully understand that I have many limitations. But this is a concern of mine as I clearly abhor arrogance and wonder whether or not I'm seeing my reflection. Perhaps you can see this more clearly than I for I'm pretty sure I have blind spot 5 miles wide and am clueless as to what I cannot see.

M: Again the word isn't stupid but wise. Everything I abhor I assume is me because all I seem to do is project out there what is internal. I see the abhorrent but I don't believe it when I step back if I can reflect with self awareness. I don't want to get caught between intelligent and stupid because those are not the real issues. Those are comparisons we make from dualistic moral values I don't believe really exist although I fail to act on that all the time. Fallible without any pejorative might be better.

DSF: Lol...wise? Flattery will get you nowhere. Stupid is as good a word as any...perhaps ignorant is better. The more I know...the more I become aware of the vastness of my ignorance. I'm not talking about dualistic moral values...I'm talking about "reality" as I happen to see it.

******************************

DSF: but one who prefers questions instead.

M: Have a care that your questions aren't ones you create to blind yourself to better ones.

DSF: I'm not smart enough to ask better questions...this is all I got...I am what I am.

M: Me either but it doesn't mean that I can't consider the possibility that the ones I ask might be there to blind me to those better ones. I am what I am but what I am can change, perhaps.

DSF: I've changed a lot...but I just happen to be a slow learner.

******************************

DSF: Why is it so important for you to keep telling conservatives how ugly they are all the time?

M: I tell them how they are and they supply the ugly. It's in the eye with which they behold my descriptions. Self hate is a sore toe we leave in the aisle for somebody to step on. I stomp on those with relish. A masochist loves sadists like me. But it doesn't really matter because as LunarRay suggested could be the case, we are all anxiously looking to be offended. It's hhow we get close to our feelings of worthlessness without actually feeling it as memory.

DSF: It looks like ugliness to me but I'm not going to pretend I know where you're coming from. I'm not personally offended by your rhetoric but I can see how others may be. I think you can explain it to me a thousand times in a thousand different ways and I'll never get it. But I'm OK with that on one hand...and deeply remorseful on the other.

M: None of the attacks that people do on me can hold even a candle to what I do or have done to myself. There is no greater contempt in the world greater than that for ourselves. I know this to be true. We are adults and can't be harmed further than we already have. The damage is done. All the insults we take only remind us of a truth we already believe. All the damage was done long ago.

DSF: I can't think of any response so I'll double down on my last one..

******************************

DSF: Do you imagine that you're actually helping them in some way? If so, let me be first in line to cast a jaundiced eye.

M: Do you know how to help them? Cast that eye on your own incapacity. How are you going to even help yourself if you don't know what the problem is? You can perhaps at least acknowledge that I seem to manage to draw a few flies, assorted pigs, and various other things. Have you ever seen those folk in Africa that have flies all over their faces. They never shoo them away. Why do you suppose that is? How many times have I said that self hate is a delusion, the belief in lies inculcated at a time when nobody could use reason for a defense. And here you are buying into the notion that my insults are real defending yourself against illusions, afraid of what isn't real. Should you trust that? That's what this thread is about, no? Now that I've done what I can to answer your question, I hope you'll think about mine.

DSF: I don't know how to help anybody...I've tried and tried in many different ways, but my words never seem to help anyone. Yes, I have cast that eye on my own incapacity. Sure I can "at least" acknowledge that you seem to manage to draw a few flies, assorted pigs, and various other things. And you've said self hate is a delusion countless times. But I'm curious as to why you specifically direct these comments regarding self-hate and brain defects towards conservatives only...or am I somehow missing a better question?

M: The self hate part is universal and so is the denial. Today all of the survival value to be found from competition among groups so valuable in the past will lead to mutual self destruction. The task at hand, in my opinion, is to evolve past tribal mentality, a conservative strength and value. For the world ship to sail the anchor is going to have to be pulled up from the mud. We can only pray that when the liberals are center stage of the problem, they will be easier to reach with reason. And besides, I don't want to deal with them. They make me sick. They remind me too much of myself.

DSF: I don't deny it as I see it every day. I think people who don't see it may be better off at times...but then again, I can't imagine living that way. I believe that the tribal mentality is very strong among liberals as well. However, I also believe there is tremendous value in working together towards rational solutions and that is my great hope. I also believe that extremists will do everything in their power to tear down this hope.