Leaderboard

Every time I hear the phrase "intelligent life", or see a documentary about the miraculous problem-solving abilities of a non-human animal, I'm reminded how self-centered the human species is, and rightfully so. A certain amount of self-importance and self-deception is required for an organism to assert itself on its environment and achieve its full potential. I'd like to assert that intelligence is common to all of life. Its just that for the majority of species, this "intelligence" is expressed through genetic mutation and success (interlifetime) instead of conceptual mutation and success (intralifetime). Complicating this, is the amount of knowledge passed between generations, the stability of the environment, as well as existing breeding preferences. We should certainly question just how much choice we have in our thoughts. Biological drives are still the motivating force, and contemplation is the simulated environment through which viability for success is tested. The quality of the results are determined by: the depth and diversity of sensory exposure the development of ideas the capacity for memory and incorporation and ignorance (willful or otherwise). The force of the biological drive(s), the perceived availability of resources, and forces in the environment determine the speed and focus of the investigation as well as the speed and focus of action. It seems that the "awareness of contemplation" actually provides the framework for the concept of divinity; this "world in the man" in which he has omnipotent power and omniscience (to the extent of his understanding). Snap to reality, to the "man in the world", and the parallel is easily drawn.

So, I was watching one of my favorite TV programs tonight. The story line had a significant resemblance to the "Pizza Gate" story. Here are the narratives that I found particularly interesting. 1.) The accused politician was completely innocent, he had been framed by an unidentified political enemy. 2.) The hacker that got into his computer was hired to frame him by said enemy. 3.) The investigator who revealed the story was a con artist interested only in generating "Click bait" to bring traffic to his ads. 4.) The first gunman who showed up to rescue the girls was stopped by the police. 5.) The second gunman killed the innocent politician in front of his daughter. 6.) The real child sex ring was discovered by the hacker who found them to frame the politician. 7.) The police not only cracked the ring but rescued the girls. 8.) The investigator created muck to throw at the police investigators that put them and their children at risk. So Politician (good guy) Hacker (greedy guy) Online investigator (very bad guy) Gunmen ( dupes) Police (heroes) Thoughts?

Let me rephrase. Why do you take issue with people using their own judgement in order to maximize the efficient use of their time? And you have this idea that judging someone to be irrational is the same as finding out they hold an irrational belief. A person can be rational and hold an irrational belief through error. When you use reason to expose the error, then you find out if they are capable of being reasonable/rational as they will at the very least begin to consider the alternative you put forth. Some beliefs, like the belief in a god, are so deeply seeded that it would take an inordinate amount of time to expose the error. There is no problem in "knowing" people who hold irrational beliefs. Just don't intertwine your life with them. There are degrees on which you should interact with people. You make love and share your most deepest secrets with your life partner, not your barber. You can hang out and play ping-pong with a friend who goes to church, but you wouldn't want to marry into his family. And you never ever ever want to hang around people because you believe --maybe irrationally!-- that they want to change. This is called "using your judgement". No one else except your closest family is your responsibility. You owe no one anything. The other part of using your judgement is knowing when a member of your closest family holds a fundamental belief that you know is an error. You talk to them, try to get them to see reason, but they constantly and consistently respond to you with irrationalities. "Using your judgement", in this instance, is knowing when you are losing your life to this person's dysfunction, have been victimized by this person because of their beliefs, and can honestly state that the likelyhood of them ever changing is near zero. The cost of staying with this person is not just yourself but all of the other people who would lose out on you because you are sacrificing yourself to this one completely irrational person. If your response to the question "Do you trust your own judgement?" is "What does that mean?" I would strongly suggest you look into that like yesterday. The correct answer to this question is an honest "F--ckin' A right I do!" Trust is always earned through consistent action that does not undermine the well being of an individual. My girlfriend trusts me because over the course of 3 years I have consistently behaved in the following manner toward her: no shouting, no name-calling, no cursing, no violence, no mind-games, no manipulation, always answer her questions honestly, acknowledge when I screw up then apologize and right the wrong, being considerate towards her needs, always asking how she is doing/does she need anything/tell me about your day, listening intently, being patient and honest and direct and calm when she is acting irrationally, being angry without being hurtful when she has wronged me. And on and on and on. She knows damn well that at my deepest level I have her health and happiness set as a priority. The actions show this and over time have allowed her a foundation to build a mountain of trust on. If you don't trust your own judgement, then you haven't been acting in your own best interest. In some way, you are betraying yourself so that someone else in your life can mistreat you. And this is at the very core of what Freedomain Radio is all about. You should think very hard about what you're doing here.

I really appreciate you sharing this with me, it reenforces my confidence that what I'm doing is right, that what I'm doing is wanted and may help and it is brave of you to share something that personal with me and other board members. I can really empathize with you, not nesseccarily with the Stalin like camp your childhood seemed to be, but with the absolute violence, evil and longing for someone to tell em that what was happening was wrong that comes with a childhood like that. I'm absolutely and terribly sorry for what happened to you and wish I could convay that in stronger words to you. You mention that you think this is the bare minimum. What else do you think I could do? Especially when it comes to verbal abuse or physical abuse that is societally accepted (like dragging a kid by the arm, at least that's accepted here) which would essentially get laughed at by child services if I brought it up. To be honest, I've never even seen a parent out right physically harm their child that wasn't in a way that is legal/accepted. I'm really eager to do more in this area but am blanking in what more I can do in the real world when confronting abusive parents and would love for any advice. Again, I really appreciate you sharing this with me, I admire you for that.

Shure. Cosmology, physics - thats all "interior design". We can not know for shure wether there is something beyond that influences our world, such as e.g. Lisa Randall suggests in her work about multiple universes. Nevertheless this something has to be sensed over here in one way or another. Shure we could assume that certain properties are literally coming from beyond this world. But if those properties do not happen by chance, they have to follow some rules. So we can find out those rules. And how likely is it that just mental properties come from somewhere else? Why not the lever principle? I would say that all those supernatural claims about brain and mind are the last retreat of the "God of the gaps" (Richard Dawkins). Exactly as much as other inherent property of matter such as walking, flying, transporting energy .... Up to you For me, life, and generally, the world becomes more and more interesting and astonishing, the more I know. Does science know 3% of all that can be possible known, or is it 90%? I would guess we are closer to 3 than to 90 But there is a nice quote from Robert Goddard, the rocket scientist: “No matter how much progress one makes, there is always the thrill of just beginning.” regards Andi

I'm not sure that free will is the opposite of a mechanistic universal. Free will, in my conception, is the ability to originate cause. This only requires potentialities and one's ability to manifest a specific potential via volitional action. Universals don't nesseccarily exclude potentialities so long as they can exists withing the context of the universals. (A simplified metaphor: If you go to a seafood restaurant for dinner, you're going to eat seafood, but you can choose between the cod, haddock, salmon, some combination, etc.) How free will arises in humans is still something with is up for debate (though we can assume it; I think determinism probably holds the burden of proof) though my own theory, which I haven't though much on it, posits that it arises through internal value-conflict, Rand made a convincing argument that 'to think or not to think' was the primary source of choice. However it does arises, it doesn't seem to me that it could be a soul, as this either split reality dulistic, eliminating the source of the universal methodology you've used to posit a soul or put the reality we perceive as something non-real with also invalidate the methodology you've used to posit a soul.

There is no discussion about the existence of soul. Soul cannot be perceived through mind or emotions. Use meditation to silence mind and emotions and you will perceive soul.

There's a few different ideas of love in Western philosophy. Romantic love - This fairy tale idea of love at first sight. In the old days it was used as an excuse for shot gun weddings. It's an ideal pushed by Hollywood as an excuse to justify a culture of casual sex. Bourgeois love - This was the old worlds Bourgeoisie ideal of matching based on wealth and power. Western love - "This assumes that personailities are dynamic and flexible things formed largely by experiences in the past. Love and marriage between such personalities are, like everything in the Western outlook, diverse, imperfect, adjustible, creative, cooperative, and changeable. The Western idea assumes that a couple comes together for many reasons (sex, loneliness, common interests, similar background, economic and social cooperation, reciprocal admiration of character traits, and other reasons). It futher assumes that their whole relationship will be a slow process of getting to know each other and mutual adjustment - a process that may never end. The need for constant adjustment shows the Western recognition that nothing, even love is final or perfect. This is also shown by recognition that love and marriage are never total and all-absorbing, that each partner remains an idependent personality with the right to an independent life. (This is found throughout the Western tradiction and goes back to the Christian belief that each person is a separate soul with its own, ultimate separate, fate)." - Quigley (Tragedy and Hope)

Hello everyone, It's been 10 months since I became an active listener of FDR and decided to show myself here for the first time. I am a Japanese female who has spent most of my life in Tokyo except 4 years in college in the U.S. Last year I told my American friend, who is also a FDR listener that I was looking for a good study material for me to improve my English and he told me about the show. He was right, listening to Stefan's talk has improved my English, but it was more than that. I am so fascinated by the content of the show itself and started my philosophical journey regarding my family, relationships, politics, and etc. It's not an exaggeration to say my life has changed and I really appreciate Stefan's work. If you looked my post here and feel good that there is a FDR listener in Japan, it's my pleasure. And if you live in Japan and kindly say hello, that would be wonderful:) All the best to everyone

Hello my fellow sirs and madams, I am a newcomer to this internet forum. *Gives you a complementary upvote as a token of friendship*. My name is Jaque Whit, but you can call me a Gentleman and a Scholar. As you can see I am very sophisticated and classy, that's why I came here, to meet other classy people like me. I'm 16 years old (I'm very mature for my age though!!) As they say, a Gentleman can never be too popular! Anyways, I hope to meet alot of sophisticated gents and ladies here so please don't hesitate to respond (or PM me ladies ). I bid you farewell my fellow brethren, as I go off to other great endeavors (me being classy again haha). Till our grand paths cross again, -A Gentleman and a Scholar

You know how you can't satirize the left because it's already an extreme satire of itself? Well, The Onion pulled it off.

We are kind of ignoring jews here because they are kind of tricky and don't agree, so we're going with the Jesus thing. God is a real jerk and he causes lots of people to suffer. He kills a lot of people. He lets a lot of people get raped and tortured. But he's actually really nice and none of those things are bad. He loves you and all that terrible stuff is good for you. No laws necessarily apply to god outside of logical consistency, i.e., God cannot move anything and simultaneously create things that he cannot move.He can only move what he can move and he can only create what he can create. If he can create anything, then he can create an immovable object, at which point, god cannot "do" absolutely anything, but that doesn't become relevant. I'm pointing out that anything that god can do, he can do and unless clearly stated otherwise, he can do anything. Got it? Anything means, "pretty much anything." God created everything. God created morality. All laws, rules, and morality are whatever god says they are. Your perceived universe has the physics and all laws that you perceive it to have because god chose for that to be that way. All you know, think, and perceive, god allows you to. The ten commandments were laws bestowed upon men and only men. They do not apply to god. Murder is only wrong because god said that it is wrong for you to do it. Not for monkeys, not for god, for humans. Humans may not murder other humans. You do not own yourself and you do not own your soul. God owns all of everything that you are. All property rights are those of god. You do not own your labor and you do not own even your own thoughts. Property of god, all rights reserved. If a person kills you or rapes you, it is not a sin against you, it is a sin against god, because it was a sin against his property. Just like if you cripple my human slave. You repay me and the slave can suck a big one. Where we apply personhood and property rights, it bypasses yourself and goes to god. All of you is an extension of him and he consents to it all. Different Christian sects have varying ideas on how to get into heaven, hell, and anything in between. Basically, the only path to heaven is through Christ. Rapists... go to heaven and get there by sucking up to the boss man. So do murderers, pedophiles, and all other types of crap. Their sins, meaning all the immoral things that they did were simply immoral to them because god said it was immoral to them. They didn't necessarily do anything wrong, they simply did what they were told was wrong. The government can tell you that it is wrong to be a jew, but that doesn't make it true. The soul is supposedly separate from the physical form. Any physical, mental, psychological damage is physical and does not go with the soul. In other words, all damage is temporary. Despite your feels, you will get over everything. if you don't like it, too bad because god does and your feelings are his property too. Raped? Beaten as a child? Mutilated? Oh, you'll be completely fine - better than fine. Time. You are here for like 80 years. You spend eternity in heaven. Can you count to infinity? Can you comprehend it? I didn't think so. If your friend punches you in the shoulder, it hurts. Momentarily. You consented and you are fine. You forget it happened. it still hurt when it happened. it took a fraction of a second. Over the course of that 80 years, you can say that it meant nothing, had not effect on you, and was completely irrelevant. In 16 billion years, do you think that you will remember this 80? Supposing god and heaven are real, no, you won't remember it. Now, please pick it apart.