Leaderboard

An argument for ontological materialism as pertaining to philosophy of mind (i.e. naturalistic physicalism); 1. Assume that there must be some substrate which defines a) when mind emerges (mental instantiation) and b) how mind operates (mental laws). i) This needn't be the same substrate in both cases, and ii) we needn't have access to it (the substrate would operate perfectly according to its laws of nature regardless). What philosophical evidence do we have that i) it is the same one, and ii) we have access to it? Note the only substrate we have access to is the physical substrate. ii) Why should a sentient being have access to the stuff (substrate) from which their mind arises (a) and which defines how mind operates (b)? 2. Mind (by definition?) requires access to an objective reality (operates on some sense data). 3. We infer that the substrate controlling how mind operates (b) is the physical substrate (brain), which we by definition have access to. - Therefore we may well have access to the substrate which defines when mind emerges (a) also. - And it may well be the same one (i). i) Why should the substrate from which mind arises (a) and which defines how mind operates (b) be the same one? (evidence #2) 4. We infer that the substrate for the operation of mind (b) evolved according to the laws of nature. - Therefore the substrate from which mind arises (a) may also have evolved according to laws of nature. - And it may well be the same one (i). [assumptions are enumerated]

Hi, Let me describe it another way. Me and a friend were bar hopping, looking for girls. At the first place we went, I ordered a beer, as did he. He proceeded to drink his. I let mine sit. As we started to leave, he said "You did not drink your beer!" I said, "I have to buy it. I don't have to drink it." My point is that as long as I am allowed to ignore those speaking and saying things I am not interested in, let them speak. But if I am forced to stop, salute, listen and agree? Nope. Not going to happen. If they expect the 'right' to speak, they need to respect my right to "Not Listen'.

Hi, I was a good 'student' in my days in school. Believed almost every thing stated. But I had 'puzzles'. One thing I noticed was almost everything I heard was called a 'theory'. What happened to 'fact'? And eventually, I was 'driven' to question gravity, when there are other 'notions' that could answer the question. The Electric Universe idea seems to counter a lot of the 'gravity' notions. So what happened to me? As a practicing Programmer and systems analyst? I had to deal with 'facts' not 'theory'. And over time began to suspect anything called a theory. I remember in the 1960s scientific inquiry about the weather concluded that in the 'near future' [Approx 2030?] we would be in another ice age, perhaps a small one? So, when I heard in the late 1990s the notion of global warming, I wondered what the heck was going on. And in response to those 'pushing' this idea, there were 'scholarly' rebuttals, mostly ignored. And that most of those 'pushing' this idea were politicians. Oooopppsss, run for the hills! Whenever any 'topic' becomes a political thing, you know the lies are going to be many, and not believable. Yet, legislation and action will be based on those distorted 'theories'. So, when I consider Socialism and the other forms, I had only to look at history to know it does not work. And Venezuela is an example of that, today. And when I took a look at 'the history of science', it seemed more like a 'club' of old men stuck on some idea (because they had published papers on that idea' who had to die before the 'new idea' could be accepted. [No, I am not the first to have this observation] If you are a 'young scientist' your 'progress' is dependent upon you passing the professors judging [and grading] of your papers. Dare not have a 'new' theory... This issue of 'knowledge' is also felt in the construction world. Supposedly the best thing to do is to embed iron in a caustic thing [called concrete]. I wondered at this one as a part time construction worker while in school. And now it seems the proof is in. After so many years [50] you end up with 'rust and dust'. Perhaps they might last 100 years, but the certainty is that every road will require massive replacement efforts and cost [if you decide to do such a thing]. I am thinking it is time for 'flying cars' so we don't have to do this monster. And for homes using concrete and iron rebar? all will have to be rebuilt and replaced. Ouch... Part of what 'enforced' this silly notion was the 30 year mortgage. It meant the home only had to last the life of the loan. I see a sad future coming...

"Whites are 75 times more likely to die from self-inflicted drug overdoses and suicides, and six times more likely to be murdered by other Whites, than to be killed by non-White assailants." wow, he links stats that show blacks commit more crime percentages wise than whites and commit more black on white crime than whites commit white on black crime but he doesn't mention it. Just goes to show how the left deliberately tries to deceive to push a narrative. #FakeNews Also, will he accept the statistics that show the crime rate in refugees/immigrant countries? will he accept the statistics on countries that have already accepted a bunch of refugees/immigrant like Sweden which has the second highest rate of rape in the world? will he accept the stats of the national debt and cost for this?

NCVS data only goes to 2015 so far: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245 I am, indeed, interested in Ferguson, and Baltimore, and BLM effects on this data for the years afterward too.

Humans can operate in both r/K breeding strategies. Some organisms cannot. Caveat, definitely not an expert on this topic. In humans, r/K involves culture, beliefs, and childhood experiences (including trauma). I think that r/K in human beings is less genetic and more environmental. Nurture over nature, though certain genes do flip on to incite the r/K behavior. There is a thing called epigenetics, which is about how the environment impacts gene expression. If something changes, the breeding strategy can change as well. Also, most teens and young adults go through a rebellious, individuation process where they experiment and do dumb things, trying to find themselves.

Here's a snippet of on of Jordan Peterson's lectures on this. The point of it is that there are no jobs available for people with an IQ lower than 85. Add to this that the sweetspot for criminality is IQ 80-90. However if you go lower than 80 you won't get much crime mainly because people are too stupid to do anything, including crime. The government says it fixes societal problems and most people believe it. The welfare programs are actually a very clever attempt at keeping the criminal elements of the population subdued. No jobs for the 80-90 IQ therefore let's give them money so they don't riot. The problems appear when 90+ start using welfare, and when welfare recipients want more welfare, and when the non-welfare recipients start making a lot more money making the welfare recipients more jealous thinking they're getting all that money from the gov'ment because they're too stupid to understand they worked for it, and so on and so forth... So the criminal elements request more welfare and the government asks the working people for more welfare in order to fix the problem, aaaand at this point it's just a vicious circle. The more we subsidize something the more of that thing we're gonna get therefore the more we subsidize dumb people the more dumb people we'll get. There are a lot of communists/socialists who are indeed good people and they're communists/socialists not because they hate the rich but because they think it fixes the problem of poverty. And if the problem of poverty is fixed then it means they'll live in a paradise because the criminal element won't invade their homes and rob and murder them. So given all of this the solution would be some sort of eugenics program (like family planning) where the household income dictates the number of kids you're allowed to have. If I'm not mistaken China has a similar program. Sounds do-able. BUT we also know that criminality is also DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to wealth inequality. This is bad considering that in any economic system if it runs for long enough the inequality gap widens more and more to astronomical proportions. This is true no matter the IQ's of the population. Now I don't know of any studies but my theory is that if crime is inevitable, high IQ crimes are white collar crimes whereas low IQ crimes are the violent kind (rape, murder, theft). Given this it's far better to get smeared in the press by high IQ communists/socialists than to get robed, raped, and murdered by some dumbass.

I stopped watching porn in 2008. With the extra time I had, I drastically improved my grades in college, and lost 70 lb of body weight. Got into good physical shape. Spent a couple years running and managed a 10 km run in under an hour. Spent another couple years weight lifting and managed to deadlift twice my weight. This coming from a guy who first had to shed 70 lb and dropped out of the category of "obese" to "normal". I also committed more of my time to volunteering. I agree with the OP: I believe pornography is immoral. This is based on my religious convictions. I won't endeavor to argue the case here, but everything I've heard about the negative effects since quitting it has convinced me that it's worth ditching porn and focusing ones time elsewhere.

The scientific theory happened. Look it up, it's pretty cool. No surprise there. The theory goes back to Svante Arrhenius who discovered the green house effect in 1895. Have you ever been to physics conference? The opposite is true. If you had paid attention at school, or if you had invested 2 minutes of research you might have realized that redox reactions ('rust and dust') occur in the case of iron in concrete when water and oxygen interact with it. If there are fractues in the concrete, that allow water to get in, you will have the reaction. If you prevent that, the iron doesn't oxidize. As do I, but for different reasons.