- Oct 16, 2008
- 11,764
- 347
- 126
Outcomes matter, and outcomes of conservative policies are pretty miserable. Cultural messages matter?
So... the south needs Jesus?
So... the south needs Jesus?
That's a very bold statement -- that these "social matters are settled intellectually speaking." I do read academic papers, but they're quite a bit different from the kind you'd be referencing. Since I have access to a university library, though, I'd be thrilled if you provided a reference or two.
No solution to the bad behavior of the right is evident. Your words. This implies that no solution derived form an understanding of game theory, real or imagined, is in evidence either. The problem of how to teach ethical behavior and wisdom is ancient and endlessly frustrated. There is a good and simple reason for this. The truth of how we feel is the last thing we ever want to know, something we can even prefer dying over facing head on. What we hide from consciousness and why we can't face truth, is because what we feel is true is that we are worthless. All examples of kindness and love, all signs of hopeful happy people does two things. It creates a desire to snuff it out or it awakens something deeper.
Your game theory is to make people pay for their behavior. I suggest that the only people such a notion would appeal to is people that have a need to hate too. When you ask me to consider that attitude you asking me to inflict more pain on people I can see are already deeply sick with the pain of moral suffering. There is only love.
Or they need to stop calling Satin by that name.
Outcomes matter, and outcomes of conservative policies are pretty miserable. Cultural messages matter?
There is no way to possibly control for all the contributors to these outcomes such that you could reach the conclusion that it's a result of conservative policies, but that is far from recommending dismissal of the data or the hypothesis.
I will say that, in my view, any set of policies that rests upon a grossly distorted picture of a present state, the determinants of that present state, and the outcomes measured is bad. Such distortions are by no means unique to the right, but it seems clear that the targets are often perceptions only, and actively de-legitimizing any contrary data source is a prominent Republican method of effecting policy.
Would you consider it likely or possible that such behavior is there because of some motivation for it to occur, conscious or otherwise?
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,243
- 136
Can I remind people to please proof read your posts before hitting the "post reply" button? I'm not a grammar Nazi and I don't claim to be perfect about it myself, but there are some grammar problems which are bad enough to make what you write incoherent. No, I don't mean inelegant or awkward. I mean impossible to understand.
No. I would consider it categorical that all behavior is there because of some motivations for it to occur, conscious and otherwise.
I was just making a point that we're living at easily the most developed point in history. The relatively incredible wealth of knowledge and its discovery is simply incomparable to any time in the past. The reason it might not be obvious is it can be more difficult to develop perspective for the present.
I'm not sure what recommendations you were expecting, but as some examples something related to discussion forums: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00904097/PDF/MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf, as to what humans are actually doing in the process of argument.
And something I've been looking into recently that's related to your field: http://psychologytomorrowmagazine.com/jeff-warren-neuroscience-suffering-end/ (just one arbitrary page, but links to related material within), basically the neurological basis of existentialist states.
No, no solution to generally bad behavior is trivial, ie the one thing. In any non-trivial system, consistent solutions require as a prereq some understanding of the relevant details, such as stratagem of the players involved. Many systems can be understand, most not trivially by "the one thing that solves all". Punishment is just one possible disincentive to bad behavior, and it clearly works better than many other methods on minds too simple to grasp reason; such as reason, obviously. It's possible that love/compromise works, too, but it's pretty undeniable that centrism resulted in trump.
Similarly, the problem of teaching anything in general is non-trivial, and teaching about the self even more so due to what's proposed in that paper link above, which if true implies the evoluationary point of a (mental) dialog was to present our arguments well, and not to "figure things out" as often assumed. That has little to do with "true" feelings, just that we instinctively brag about ourselves (eg. the "good guys"), as could be seen in any number of blustering simpletons here, and therefore naturally do not wish to disturb that image, however unconvincing.
agent00f: No, no solution to generally bad behavior is trivial, ie the one thing.
Is this goal post moving?> When did not evident become non-trivial?
a: In any non-trivial system, consistent solutions require as a prereq some understanding of the relevant details, such as stratagem of the players involved.
M: I would say the best way to know what strategy somebody will reach for is to understand what morivates them. That is best done by seeing oneself in the other and knowing what you would do in those shoes.
a: Many systems can be understand, most not trivially by "the one thing that solves all". Punishment is just one possible disincentive to bad behavior, and it clearly works better than many other methods on minds too simple to grasp reason; such as reason, obviously. It's possible that love/compromise works, too, but it's pretty undeniable that centrism resulted in trump.
M: This is general enough in my opinion to be useless. I have this basket of ideas which, while not one idea at least, are the one solution to this problem, but I can't really define them.
a: Similarly, the problem of teaching anything in general is non-trivial, and teaching about the self even more so due to what's proposed in that paper link above, which if true implies the evoluationary point of a (mental) dialog was to present our arguments well, and not to "figure things out" as often assumed. That has little to do with "true" feelings, just that we instinctively brag about ourselves (eg. the "good guys"), as could be seen in any number of blustering simpletons here, and therefore naturally do not wish to disturb that image, however unconvincing.
I pasy little attention to comments about true feelings from people who I believe do not know what they feel. It would be like reading a dissertation of love written by a snake. On top of that, you suggest that people argue to defend ego rather than seeking truth. I have known that since I learned that I hate myself and so does almost everybody else. It is the motivating factor for why we will not see the truth. It's the key to understanding everything. Sorry about that.
Is this goal post moving?> When did not evident become non-trivial?
a: In any non-trivial system, consistent solutions require as a prereq some understanding of the relevant details, such as stratagem of the players involved.
M: I would say the best way to know what strategy somebody will reach for is to understand what morivates them. That is best done by seeing oneself in the other and knowing what you would do in those shoes.
a: Many systems can be understand, most not trivially by "the one thing that solves all". Punishment is just one possible disincentive to bad behavior, and it clearly works better than many other methods on minds too simple to grasp reason; such as reason, obviously. It's possible that love/compromise works, too, but it's pretty undeniable that centrism resulted in trump.
M: This is general enough in my opinion to be useless. I have this basket of ideas which, while not one idea at least, are the one solution to this problem, but I can't really define them.
a: Similarly, the problem of teaching anything in general is non-trivial, and teaching about the self even more so due to what's proposed in that paper link above, which if true implies the evoluationary point of a (mental) dialog was to present our arguments well, and not to "figure things out" as often assumed. That has little to do with "true" feelings, just that we instinctively brag about ourselves (eg. the "good guys"), as could be seen in any number of blustering simpletons here, and therefore naturally do not wish to disturb that image, however unconvincing.
I pasy little attention to comments about true feelings from people who I believe do not know what they feel. It would be like reading a dissertation of love written by a snake. On top of that, you suggest that people argue to defend ego rather than seeking truth. I have known that since I learned that I hate myself and so does almost everybody else. It is the motivating factor for why we will not see the truth. It's the key to understanding everything. Sorry about that.
Thank you. I suspect that categorical is one of those philosophical terms I have brushed up against on occasion and whose meaning for me at least is fuzzy but I'm reading it as saying I got that motivation damn tooten straight..
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,726
- 10,028
- 136
Your comment was confusing. But I think I have its meaning now. My comment was to promote the progressive spirit of Justin Trudeau.
You speak of minorities opposing "right wing", clearly because it's against their interests?
So you think "white folks" avoid progressives because they think it's against their interests? Is that your comment back to me?
Most people are not rich, worker's interests are our common interest. Our common cause. My intent is to speak of that, rather than painting everyone racist and calling it a day. Remember the idea is to include people and not draw lines around them. Conversations are going to start off rather poorly if fixated on what divides us instead of promoting and strengthening what can unite us if given the effort.
To fixate on adversarial ideas might be just what one would expect from conservative thought patterns.
I've discussed on numerous occasion what motivates pre-enlightenment simpletons like loyalty, status, etc.
It's pretty obvious the carrot/compromise approach is evidently counterproductive on people like this.
Evolutionary traits aren't motivated by "ego" or emotion in general, but rather what survives, and people who can somewhat portray themselves as good or powerful or such are better survivors.
It's real simple, why are the "poor" white nationalists drawn to right wing politics and not poors of other ethnicities? Maybe it has something to do with the allure of blaming all their problems on the latter, and self-interested policies in that vein. Hmm... a real head-scratcher here.
This is just the empirical reality of the matter; it's not my role here to be a politician.
agent00f: I've discussed on numerous occasion what motivates pre-enlightenment simpletons like loyalty, status, etc.
M: Yes, you always offer that kind of superficial explanation. Please tell me what motivates people to place value in them. Status is valued because it sucks to be inferior and everybody feels that because they know the threat of being thought of as inferior. Loyalty is valued because it consists of loyalty to a group to which membership confers the value of a feeling of superiority.
a: It's pretty obvious the carrot/compromise approach is evidently counterproductive on people like this.
M: Carrot and stick strikes me as your approach. I try to point to a different way of being that isn't based on the sickness of internalized self hate. I want people to examine the assumptions they make, to bring them to consciousness so they don't have to respond to everything in their sleep.
a: Evolutionary traits aren't motivated by "ego" or emotion in general, but rather what survives, and people who can somewhat portray themselves as good or powerful or such are better survivors.
M: Rubbish. In the first place we are looking at phenomena that are derived from our human condition, our capacity to invent divisions in the unity of being that do not really exist, to cause emotions that evolved for entirely different reasons to become attached to words, memories, and experiences, such that one can become terrified to be who one was meant to be, and become a conformistic automaton instead. Rather than survive, the problem of duality and self hate threatens the entire species. We would rather go extinct than face how we feel about ourselves and the absurdity of that is that there is nothing at all wrong with up other than that we feel there is.
M: Yes, you always offer that kind of superficial explanation. Please tell me what motivates people to place value in them. Status is valued because it sucks to be inferior and everybody feels that because they know the threat of being thought of as inferior. Loyalty is valued because it consists of loyalty to a group to which membership confers the value of a feeling of superiority.
a: It's pretty obvious the carrot/compromise approach is evidently counterproductive on people like this.
M: Carrot and stick strikes me as your approach. I try to point to a different way of being that isn't based on the sickness of internalized self hate. I want people to examine the assumptions they make, to bring them to consciousness so they don't have to respond to everything in their sleep.
a: Evolutionary traits aren't motivated by "ego" or emotion in general, but rather what survives, and people who can somewhat portray themselves as good or powerful or such are better survivors.
M: Rubbish. In the first place we are looking at phenomena that are derived from our human condition, our capacity to invent divisions in the unity of being that do not really exist, to cause emotions that evolved for entirely different reasons to become attached to words, memories, and experiences, such that one can become terrified to be who one was meant to be, and become a conformistic automaton instead. Rather than survive, the problem of duality and self hate threatens the entire species. We would rather go extinct than face how we feel about ourselves and the absurdity of that is that there is nothing at all wrong with up other than that we feel there is.
It would benefit you to understand how evolution works, particularly how it's not predicated on feelings. Eg, it's pretty obvious people disinclined towards group loyalty back in the day ended up poorly.
Carrot vs stick is a categorization of opposing approaches, and I'm point out that your & other carrot approaches have only made things worse. If jesus's love obviously failed with them, what makes you believe yours would prevail?
Also, self-hate implies self-awareness, which nobody would accuse oblivious blustering idiots of.
It's also obvious that we haven't even come close to extinct after countless generations due to self-hate or such, which rather puts a damper on that hypothesis. Also very questionable that "unity of being" means anything given history and everything previous proves humans are no more universality united than anything else on the nature channel.
In essence you're talking about rather modern academic abstractions and assuming they somehow reveal some "true nature" of a plains primate with a somewhat more advanced frontal cortex.
agent00f: It would benefit you to understand how evolution works, particularly how it's not predicated on feelings. Eg, it's pretty obvious people disinclined towards group loyalty back in the day ended up poorly.
There is little point for me to continue to argue with somebody who imagines their points are logical, scientific, and reasoned. You ground your arguments on point after point that are demonstrably false or have nothing to do with anything. What does it even mean to say that evolution is not predicated on feelings? Who is saying that evolution is predicated on feelings or predicated on anything. That is your argument, that the bad behavior of low level thinkers confers evolutionary advantage to them that needs to be dealt with via understanding game theory. In the process of arguing you point, you want to convince me, apparently, that emotions didn't evolve, that there is no relationship between the fact that we feel pleasure and pain, for example, or that feeling them has any benefits to our survival.
What I have said, over and over to you, since I seem to be talking to somebody with an agenda and a conservative brain defect, or perhaps a liberal authoritarian, is that our capacity to fear pain and need pleasure opens us via language to emotional conditioning, that we can be forced to conform to utterly psychotic norms by being brutalized and verbally intimidated as children and that no person can survive as a child with a conscious awareness of such abuse. This is such a simple and obvious point about our evolution, if you don't mind me saying so, you're making a fool of yourself arguing. Now I know that you do not have the personal experience to verify this for yourself on an emotional level. That I can handle, but the rest is just ridiculous, sorry. You argue that people argue to appear correct and that's just what it looks like.
a: Carrot vs stick is a categorization of opposing approaches, and I'm point out that your & other carrot approaches have only made things worse. If jesus's love obviously failed with them, what makes you believe yours would prevail?
M: Get the Jesus part down pat and we can move on to the other. The failure you see is your own failure.
a: Also, self-hate implies self-awareness, which nobody would accuse oblivious blustering idiots of.
M: Man oh man. Self hate is the motive for the lack of awareness of it's presence. Awareness requires becoming conscious of what you feel. People would rather die than remember because what they would be remembering is death, psychic death, but one that can mend.
This is why at first the truth is the very worst thing you can imagine, but also the best news we can ever have. How you feel about yourself, your self hate, it is all based on the belief in lies. These lies are the unconscious assumptions we make about life and they are delusions we cling to out of fear of what we really feel,
This is true of everybody who has the capacity to feel empathy, almost all of the human race. That is why I will not go down your divisive road and write 'the bad people off' They are the way they are because they were told that is what they are and they were told lies. I do not, as you seem to think, expect a person filled with self hate to love me because I see hjs real potential and he does not. I know very well that any message of hope for the emotionally really damaged is felt as a threat, that it is too dangerous emotionally ever to have hope again.
a: It's also obvious that we haven't even come close to extinct after countless generations due to self-hate or such, which rather puts a damper on that hypothesis.
M: True, and the election of Trump should given us all more confidence that will continue. Perhaps II was blinded by recent history since America is now going to be Great Again.
a: Also very questionable that "unity of being" means anything given history and everything previous proves humans are no more universality united than anything else on the nature channel.
M: Unity of being is a way of describing a state with words. Words can't cause that state to be experienced and only the experience of the state confers the awareness of that state's reality. I don't know where you took those words but it was inevitable, if you have not experienced what I referred to, that you wouldn't comprehend what I meant and would wonder off in the wrong direction.
a: In essence you're talking about rather modern academic abstractions and assuming they somehow reveal some "true nature" of a plains primate with a somewhat more advanced frontal cortex.
M: In essence what I am talking about is knowledge and awareness made possible via internal experience, opening the door to what I really feel. First time in I spent hours mumbling under my breath, I don't believe it, I had no idea I was so sad. Hehe, it gets worse from there until the real memories surface and then it all becomes real.
There is little point for me to continue to argue with somebody who imagines their points are logical, scientific, and reasoned. You ground your arguments on point after point that are demonstrably false or have nothing to do with anything. What does it even mean to say that evolution is not predicated on feelings? Who is saying that evolution is predicated on feelings or predicated on anything. That is your argument, that the bad behavior of low level thinkers confers evolutionary advantage to them that needs to be dealt with via understanding game theory. In the process of arguing you point, you want to convince me, apparently, that emotions didn't evolve, that there is no relationship between the fact that we feel pleasure and pain, for example, or that feeling them has any benefits to our survival.
What I have said, over and over to you, since I seem to be talking to somebody with an agenda and a conservative brain defect, or perhaps a liberal authoritarian, is that our capacity to fear pain and need pleasure opens us via language to emotional conditioning, that we can be forced to conform to utterly psychotic norms by being brutalized and verbally intimidated as children and that no person can survive as a child with a conscious awareness of such abuse. This is such a simple and obvious point about our evolution, if you don't mind me saying so, you're making a fool of yourself arguing. Now I know that you do not have the personal experience to verify this for yourself on an emotional level. That I can handle, but the rest is just ridiculous, sorry. You argue that people argue to appear correct and that's just what it looks like.
a: Carrot vs stick is a categorization of opposing approaches, and I'm point out that your & other carrot approaches have only made things worse. If jesus's love obviously failed with them, what makes you believe yours would prevail?
M: Get the Jesus part down pat and we can move on to the other. The failure you see is your own failure.
a: Also, self-hate implies self-awareness, which nobody would accuse oblivious blustering idiots of.
M: Man oh man. Self hate is the motive for the lack of awareness of it's presence. Awareness requires becoming conscious of what you feel. People would rather die than remember because what they would be remembering is death, psychic death, but one that can mend.
This is why at first the truth is the very worst thing you can imagine, but also the best news we can ever have. How you feel about yourself, your self hate, it is all based on the belief in lies. These lies are the unconscious assumptions we make about life and they are delusions we cling to out of fear of what we really feel,
This is true of everybody who has the capacity to feel empathy, almost all of the human race. That is why I will not go down your divisive road and write 'the bad people off' They are the way they are because they were told that is what they are and they were told lies. I do not, as you seem to think, expect a person filled with self hate to love me because I see hjs real potential and he does not. I know very well that any message of hope for the emotionally really damaged is felt as a threat, that it is too dangerous emotionally ever to have hope again.
a: It's also obvious that we haven't even come close to extinct after countless generations due to self-hate or such, which rather puts a damper on that hypothesis.
M: True, and the election of Trump should given us all more confidence that will continue. Perhaps II was blinded by recent history since America is now going to be Great Again.
a: Also very questionable that "unity of being" means anything given history and everything previous proves humans are no more universality united than anything else on the nature channel.
M: Unity of being is a way of describing a state with words. Words can't cause that state to be experienced and only the experience of the state confers the awareness of that state's reality. I don't know where you took those words but it was inevitable, if you have not experienced what I referred to, that you wouldn't comprehend what I meant and would wonder off in the wrong direction.
a: In essence you're talking about rather modern academic abstractions and assuming they somehow reveal some "true nature" of a plains primate with a somewhat more advanced frontal cortex.
M: In essence what I am talking about is knowledge and awareness made possible via internal experience, opening the door to what I really feel. First time in I spent hours mumbling under my breath, I don't believe it, I had no idea I was so sad. Hehe, it gets worse from there until the real memories surface and then it all becomes real.
First, it's simply a fact that evolution (either literally or conceptually) is the underlying basis for feature development in primates, and evolution is not predicated on emotions but rather the other way around. Thus if you want to talk about depth vs the superficial, that relationship is critical.
Second, as I've pointed out in the past, it's not evident that most children are brutalized and intimidated and that somehow our adulthood is a result of this. Maybe that was your experience but it's hardly universal. It's obvious enough that animalistic behavior (eg blustering, blind pack loyalty, etc) we observe in low iq people also exists in other animals, and the same ridiculous argument can be made that the latter also carry such emotional baggage from traumatic childhoods. What would be the counterargument there?
So now it's my fault that jesus or his message failed on them? Real strong conservative blame game there. It also certainly doesn't bode well for success after 2k years of failure.
Do other animals with primitive base instincts also lack self-awareness due to their childhood baggage?
Your model for cognitive development is faulty. Highest level cognitive functions like reason and reflection are largely learned characteristics, not innate. Think back to Flynn's talk where he demonstrates the cognitive ability of people from just 100 years ago. Are you arguing that people are so much smarter now because we stopped abusing kids or we all found jesus as of late?
What makes your experience stand out from any number of mystics who proclaim some greater supernatural truth? It's likely the case that various existentialist mental states exist, as referenced in my other link above to interchange, and certainly it feels revelatory to discover them just like any other novel discover, but they're just functions of the same bundle of brain cells and not divinity.
agent00f: First, it's simply a fact that evolution (either literally or conceptually) is the underlying basis for feature development in primates, and evolution is not predicated on emotions but rather the other way around. Thus if you want to talk about depth vs the superficial, that relationship is critical.
M: Actually not. Evolution is the word we use for the changes that happen to organisms over time. The basis of that change is selective pressures tending to favor gene transmission of successful genetic variations. Emotions in mammals have proven to be a successful adaption, but one that can now be perverted in man due to language. A superficial discussion fails to include the mechanism by which a positive adaption can become negative and work against the individual, The key is that we are susceptible to being put-down.
a: Second, as I've pointed out in the past, it's not evident that most children are brutalized and intimidated and that somehow our adulthood is a result of this. Maybe that was your experience but it's hardly universal. It's obvious enough that animalistic behavior (eg blustering, blind pack loyalty, etc) we observe in low iq people also exists in other animals, and the same ridiculous argument can be made that the latter also carry such emotional baggage from traumatic childhoods. What would be the counterargument there?
M: No counter argument is required since this is just silliness. You again use the notion that because you do not know what you feel nobody feels it. And since you do not want to know what you feel, because it is painful to feel and is suppressed and unconscious, you live in a world that is made up of that unconscious assumption. The truth is something you do not want to see and because you do not want to see it you don't and because you don't you claim it isn't there. You are in a catch 22. You do not know, you don't want to know, and you don't want to know you don't want to know.
a: So now it's my fault that jesus or his message failed on them? Real strong conservative blame game there. It also certainly doesn't bode well for success after 2k years of failure.
M: It failed on you. I didn't say it's your fault it failed on them. I said you have never tied his message because you don't have it in you at this time.
a: Do other animals with primitive base instincts also lack self-awareness due to their childhood baggage? You can't hate yourself if you can't draw delusional concepts of good and evil. Only we can do that.
Your model for cognitive development is faulty. Highest level cognitive functions like reason and reflection are largely learned characteristics, not innate. Think back to Flynn's talk where he demonstrates the cognitive ability of people from just 100 years ago. Are you arguing that people are so much smarter now because we stopped abusing kids or we all found jesus as of late?
a: Not the point. You are rather well cognitively developed but you still hate yourself. Intellect, sadly, does not confer a capacity to feel what you feel.
a: What makes your experience stand out from any number of mystics who proclaim some greater supernatural truth? It's likely the case that various existentialist mental states exist, as referenced in my other link above to interchange, and certainly it feels revelatory to discover them just like any other novel discover, but they're just functions of the same bundle of brain cells and not divinity.
From the outside looking in I am sure it would seem so. But I know it makes no sense to tell a young boy he will very likely grow up loving girls in ways he can't imagine.
M: Actually not. Evolution is the word we use for the changes that happen to organisms over time. The basis of that change is selective pressures tending to favor gene transmission of successful genetic variations. Emotions in mammals have proven to be a successful adaption, but one that can now be perverted in man due to language. A superficial discussion fails to include the mechanism by which a positive adaption can become negative and work against the individual, The key is that we are susceptible to being put-down.
a: Second, as I've pointed out in the past, it's not evident that most children are brutalized and intimidated and that somehow our adulthood is a result of this. Maybe that was your experience but it's hardly universal. It's obvious enough that animalistic behavior (eg blustering, blind pack loyalty, etc) we observe in low iq people also exists in other animals, and the same ridiculous argument can be made that the latter also carry such emotional baggage from traumatic childhoods. What would be the counterargument there?
M: No counter argument is required since this is just silliness. You again use the notion that because you do not know what you feel nobody feels it. And since you do not want to know what you feel, because it is painful to feel and is suppressed and unconscious, you live in a world that is made up of that unconscious assumption. The truth is something you do not want to see and because you do not want to see it you don't and because you don't you claim it isn't there. You are in a catch 22. You do not know, you don't want to know, and you don't want to know you don't want to know.
a: So now it's my fault that jesus or his message failed on them? Real strong conservative blame game there. It also certainly doesn't bode well for success after 2k years of failure.
M: It failed on you. I didn't say it's your fault it failed on them. I said you have never tied his message because you don't have it in you at this time.
a: Do other animals with primitive base instincts also lack self-awareness due to their childhood baggage? You can't hate yourself if you can't draw delusional concepts of good and evil. Only we can do that.
Your model for cognitive development is faulty. Highest level cognitive functions like reason and reflection are largely learned characteristics, not innate. Think back to Flynn's talk where he demonstrates the cognitive ability of people from just 100 years ago. Are you arguing that people are so much smarter now because we stopped abusing kids or we all found jesus as of late?
a: Not the point. You are rather well cognitively developed but you still hate yourself. Intellect, sadly, does not confer a capacity to feel what you feel.
a: What makes your experience stand out from any number of mystics who proclaim some greater supernatural truth? It's likely the case that various existentialist mental states exist, as referenced in my other link above to interchange, and certainly it feels revelatory to discover them just like any other novel discover, but they're just functions of the same bundle of brain cells and not divinity.
From the outside looking in I am sure it would seem so. But I know it makes no sense to tell a young boy he will very likely grow up loving girls in ways he can't imagine.
Last edited:
It's pretty obvious that language is an overwhelming advantage for juvenile development, including emotionally.
So you're making claims about the emotional state of everyone else (billions of people), yet get defensive when any claim is made about your emotional state (1 person). Hopefully the comical folly here is readily evident.
More pointedly, hating oneself is symptomatic of depressive individuals, which is a specific mental condition (ie chemical imbalance, etc) not endemic to all.
It's pretty evident that all students of the enlightenment have more value coincident with jesus than the religious right.
How do you know that other primates have no simplistic conception of good/bad? It's also rather your point that they would know of abstract reasoning if only they didn't hate themselves, as if calculus would also dawn upon them if only they divorced themselves from it. Again you appear to be extrapolating from your frankly unique situation to rather different people.
I don't doubt that you figured out some resolution to your previous troubled circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean you've also successfully diagnosed all such human troubles. Try to imagine the absurdity of some counterpart in medicine making such a proclamation.
agent00f,: It's pretty obvious that language is an overwhelming advantage for juvenile development, including emotionally.
M: It's pretty obvious a rolling stone gathers no moss, but I didn't bring that up because like this point it has nothing to do with what I am saying.
a: So you're making claims about the emotional state of everyone else (billions of people), yet get defensive when any claim is made about your emotional state (1 person). Hopefully the comical folly here is readily evident.
M: Of course I am aware of it. Have been for years and years. Just imagine how lucky you are to have run into me.
a: More pointedly, hating oneself is symptomatic of depressive individuals, which is a specific mental condition (ie chemical imbalance, etc) not endemic to all.
M: Showing your ignorance again. Everything is chemical. A pill will alter the chemistry of the chemically depressed. Freedom from rage will cure depression based of fear of feeling. It changes the chemistry and alters habituated neural pathways allowing a different kind of thinking.
a: It's pretty evident that all students of the enlightenment have more value coincident with jesus than the religious right.
M: It is evident to me that just because one studies something doesn't mean one has any intuitive understanding of what it is one is studying. Some people are more Christian without having ever heard of it than some who think they're the epitome of Christian.
a: How do you know that other primates have no simplistic conception of good/bad? It's also rather your point that they would know of abstract reasoning if only they didn't hate themselves, as if calculus would also dawn upon them if only they divorced themselves from it. Again you appear to be extrapolating from your frankly unique situation to rather different people.
M: Clearly I also know the minds of millions of other primates in addition to the billions more closely related. However I will be willing to listen to any you would chose to interview who tells you differently. The analogy you are looking for is that if apes could do calculus but wouldn't because it would make them look human, the most disgusting thing an ape could aspire to be, I might be able to teach them to do math by opening their eyes to my innate beauty. I have the kind of inner light, I am told, that millions of apes aspire to.
In fact, years ago at the end of conversations like these I used to offer my conservative friends a banana.
I don't doubt that you figured out some resolution to your previous troubled circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean you've also successfully diagnosed all such human troubles. Try to imagine the absurdity of some counterpart in medicine making such a proclamation.[/QUOTE]
M: It's pretty obvious a rolling stone gathers no moss, but I didn't bring that up because like this point it has nothing to do with what I am saying.
a: So you're making claims about the emotional state of everyone else (billions of people), yet get defensive when any claim is made about your emotional state (1 person). Hopefully the comical folly here is readily evident.
M: Of course I am aware of it. Have been for years and years. Just imagine how lucky you are to have run into me.
a: More pointedly, hating oneself is symptomatic of depressive individuals, which is a specific mental condition (ie chemical imbalance, etc) not endemic to all.
M: Showing your ignorance again. Everything is chemical. A pill will alter the chemistry of the chemically depressed. Freedom from rage will cure depression based of fear of feeling. It changes the chemistry and alters habituated neural pathways allowing a different kind of thinking.
a: It's pretty evident that all students of the enlightenment have more value coincident with jesus than the religious right.
M: It is evident to me that just because one studies something doesn't mean one has any intuitive understanding of what it is one is studying. Some people are more Christian without having ever heard of it than some who think they're the epitome of Christian.
a: How do you know that other primates have no simplistic conception of good/bad? It's also rather your point that they would know of abstract reasoning if only they didn't hate themselves, as if calculus would also dawn upon them if only they divorced themselves from it. Again you appear to be extrapolating from your frankly unique situation to rather different people.
M: Clearly I also know the minds of millions of other primates in addition to the billions more closely related. However I will be willing to listen to any you would chose to interview who tells you differently. The analogy you are looking for is that if apes could do calculus but wouldn't because it would make them look human, the most disgusting thing an ape could aspire to be, I might be able to teach them to do math by opening their eyes to my innate beauty. I have the kind of inner light, I am told, that millions of apes aspire to.
In fact, years ago at the end of conversations like these I used to offer my conservative friends a banana.
I don't doubt that you figured out some resolution to your previous troubled circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean you've also successfully diagnosed all such human troubles. Try to imagine the absurdity of some counterpart in medicine making such a proclamation.[/QUOTE]
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter