Kevin Beal

Yuck! What hypocritical garbage. This guy contractually agrees to fulfill his end of a deal and then has the gall to blame the other parties of exploiting him. That's narcissism and it's gross.

I'm referring to the same "you" that you are in acknowledging that I was addressing you, and that this is my argument and not yours. The you that has your body and your conscious experiences, with your history and goals etc. The you that is necessary to be having this conversation right now. The you reading my posts, gathering their meaning and coming to (dis)agreement. It's not one or the other. And if I'm pushed off a cliff, I'm forced, right? If someone asks me what kind of salad I would like to lunch, that's not forced, right? The way that this distinction is meaningful is the way that I mean "forced". I would be open to hosting a skype call about this topic if people are interested. It can be hard to get complicated ideas like these across thru text, and there is more up to interpretation on a forum than in conversation.

Sure! When you are deciding which path you want to take on your walk through the park, do you experience it as being forced upon you? Compare that with a time when you are consumed by a mood and feel a distinct lack of control. In the way that this distinction is meaningful is the way that I mean "self generating cause". Under a determinist position, the distinction I illustrated above would be meaningless. They would have to conclude that both are equally as determined and inescapable, despite our experience of it being under our control. Free will is merely an acceptance that our subjective experience is actually real. Sometimes there are exceptions, and sometimes some unconscious behavior looks conscious, and hypnotism has an affect on us, and all of this. So it's not as if every single thing we experience is the way we perceive it, but some of it kinda has to be, and I'm submitting that our conscious decision making falls under that category. And as long as determinists accept this (via performative contradiction) then I will too. It's kinda ridiculous to ask me not to.

both positions accept the reality of the physical world, but as formulated here, it makes no sense. Reality causes nothing. Reality is a concept used to describe the entirety of existing entities. It's not a thing to act or be acted upon, but a necessary requirement for causation to occur in the first place. It's analogous to saying that the concept "things" caused my arm to go up. When it is either a self generating conscious causal description or one that is described wholly in terms of synaptic firings, motor neurons, muscle contractions, etc. The conscious description requires neuronal activity, obviously, but cannot be fully accounted for in those terms, anymore than the phenomenon of liquidity can be fully accounted for with a description of molecular structure. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

That experience in your conscious subjective experience of responding to things causally, the way you experience it causally, is actually what is truly happening. (I chose to lift my arm, and the damn thing goes up). Determinism necessarily requires this causal description to be illusory, and that the subjective experience is determined by lower level processes. And "determined" in this sense means giving a full account: that none of the subjective experience is itself causal. Rather it is fluff on top a well oiled machine, just some blips resulting from the "computer program" of the mind. Superfluous fluff, and yet an extremely expensive phenotype that is not only unnecessary under a determinist view, but antithetical since it's "illusory". That's because me choosing to lift my arm is not a determined causal description. Me working through a math problem is not the same process a calculator performs. The mistake is to think that "causal" means "determined", which it doesn't. My anger can cause me to get away from an abusive person, and an abusive person can cause me to get angry, but that's not the same thing as "this input runs this series of programs and results in that output". Those two causal descriptions are entirely different. And the latter is just empirically untrue. Consider the following example: We drive on a bumpy road looking out ahead. Despite the bumps jolting my body up and down, my visual experience is smooth. What we tend to think if we are determinists or materialists, is that a calculation is made per bump resulting in the value of a correction to be signaled to our eye muscles for re-adjustment. This is not what happens. We have a vestibulo-ocular reflex that originates in our ears sensing balance, the way we'd sense touch and it reflexively affects certain systems in our body, including the eyes. It is a complicated teeter totter. One side up, the other side down. What determinists and materialists like to do when this is pointed out is to say that a teeter totter is a computer, making everything a computer and thus completely destroying any chance of having the argument by analogy using computers, which now offer zero explanation regarding brains, consciousness and free will. If everything is a computer, then it becomes a meaningless explanation. The mistake always is a misunderstanding of what is meant by "causal". Free will is absolutely causal, just not determined. The distinction being like us doing a math problem and a calculator doing it. It's an entirely different phenomenon. The calculator may simulate what we are doing, but simulations are not the things themselves.

First of all, that's a very serious charge. And second, if it's true, you just did what you accused others of, which is hypocritical. You don't provide any reasoning. Simply telling someone that they just simply need to change their mind about something is unhelpful, at best. You are free to make any accusations you want, but back them up please.

Great! But that's not what infidelity is. The conflation of these two things is the origin of the problem: you have an understanding and the cheater doesn't, in fact they break the implicit contract in the act (which is why it's called "cheating"). Otherwise, we're just talking about open relationships. Personally, I would never have an open relationship, but it's certainly not cheating.

Anything that gets people to see that there are things that they don't know that they don't know. And Bitbutter's stuff is generally very good for that. Even for someone like me who is already entirely convinced of anarchism.

Aya, youz be trollin' Can you tell us your experience with infidelity?

Good question. I don't know I guess that would probably depend on some things. It's not great if they are directly profiting from stolen money, such as if they are employed by the local government. And I think there is some good reason to believe that it's not going to accomplish anything. People profiting from violence like that have a greater investment than people who aren't really paying much attention, slowly being bled. But I'm not sure that it's strictly immoral. Personally, I abstain completely out of a visceral repulsion, and only secondarily out of principle. What do you think?

One of the biggest reasons given for break-ups is infidelity. It's most commonly experienced as a severe betrayal, obviously. And there is a lot of evidence to suggest that humans adapted for both monogamous and polygamous approaches. But we also have a capacity to murder that comes from our evolutionary history. That doesn't mean we should do that. Natural ≠ good. Also, because it annoyed me to hear it and I feel like nitpicking, emotions are not ideas. Ideas are representations of things. We have ideas of what emotions are, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Emotions can cause and be caused by thoughts, but they are separate things.

Positing that aliens began life on earth is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, albeit highly unlikely. And you realize that's a very strange thing to say (regardless of whether or not it's true), right? All you have to do is show how things that appear to be functions actually are functions, and not just features resulting from blind forces that we make sense of by describing it functionally. That is, that the intention causes the features to be. We make sense of bee queens as functioning as the producer of workers and drones, but really that's just what sort of happens naturally. The part of us that tells the story "that's her job" is an "as-if" explanation. That is, it's as-if that were her function, her job because she does lay those eggs. The problem with creation myths is that they confuse the function for the feature. That is they don't realize that the description is "as-if", but rather talk about it like the description is literal. This confuses the appearance of intentionality for actual intentionality. Evolutionary theory really only says that it's an "as-if" explanation rather than a literal one. The mechanics of which seem to be given all the available evidence to be gradual changes over time and certain environmental selectors. If we found out tomorrow that punctuated equilibrium was the mechanism, it would still be evolutionary theory. The mechanism is important, but not a make or break thing.

This doesn't explain why there is gender symmetry in infidelity. Infidelity strongly correlates with chronic depression. And chronic depression is widely considered to have roots in childhood. And self destructive behavior, such as potentially blowing up a stable marriage or long term relationship is something that begs for a psychological explanation.

Mr Beal is my father's name. You can call me Kevin

And could make a ton of money, even outside of the peer review process. Christian fundamentalists would pay out the ass for this disproof. And yet the best they can do is Ken Ham. Hmm... How do we know there isn't a cure for AIDS being suppressed? Because the person who developed it would be incredibly rich and famous.

Hey welcome! That makes sense to me I agree with you (for what it's worth) that it's not going to happen anytime soon. But for whatever reason I don't share your apathy. You can let me know if this makes any sense, but it's not anarchism, necessarily that's the goal, right? It's the morality that anarchism represents, of the NAP, and that moral position extends into many areas that aren't political. For example, child abuse and other forms of domestic violence. Other anarchic values like individuals choosing their own destinies, and how to spend their own earnings, who they choose to associate with are also applicable in non-political areas. And these things can exist in degrees, right? So, there is a whole lot of room for growth in between now and a truly stateless society. We can achieve a lot of meaningful stuff toward these values that doesn't require anarchism per se. And further, we can have a mini anarchistic society amongst our friends and family, teaching people these values, so that the evils of statism aren't as personally oppressive. I think this is especially important especially considering what the state really is. Sure the state has a centralized monopoly on violence, but even more fundamentally (I'm prepared to argue) is that the state is the people around us. Rather than a top-down hierarchy, I submit that it's a horizontal dictatorship comprised of the people in our lives who would willingly violate the NAP, against us toward their own ends. Voting to rob you and your future children to pay for their own entitlements, fighting over who the guns of the state get pointed at. And this is an area that we have much more control over. We can control who we associate with, the kinds of values we live. We can speak truth to the powers in our own lives. And maybe there are problems with this approach, I just wanted to put forward the idea in case the ideal of anarchism is being viewed as something out there. Maybe it's a bad idea in certain situations too, but just so you know there are options, even in a socialist dystopia.

The title of the thread is the title of the article, not necessarily the views of the OP.

That's not always the best approach. It rarely is, in fact. For instance, people first noticed digestion was happening ("hey, when I eat, I poop"), and then afterward tried to give an account of the mechanics of digestion. The phenomenon is taken for granted most of the time in science, and then an account is given after the fact. We don't think "am I a human being? Let's find out". Similarly, evolution describes both the observable phenomena and the mechanics of it. We observe that every living being has similarities, but not just similarities: these similarities follow a specific pattern that we can predict when we observe life with similar phenotypes. And that the exceptions to these rules also support the theory. That is, that certain plants and animals adopted a toxin approach (for example) to predators because it makes evolutionary sense, even if the lineage is entirely different. "Evolutionary sense" being that these species share a gradual adoption of these features due to similar environmental conditions. The very existence of an independently observable, predictive quality to any consistent degree for a theory is strong evidence of that theory. Gould would entirely agree, except on the mechanics. And that's perfectly reasonable, and to be expected, and maybe he's even right. Any debate would be around the origins of the functions of these phenotypes. All evolution as a theory of biology is saying is that, actually, these functions don't exist. That the appearance of "this functions as that" is an inherently intentional matter, and no intention exists beyond the decisions of individual organisms toward their own individual goals. The butterfly doesn't decide that it's offspring are are going to develop blue wings, and even if it did, it would have to have influence over a large enough section of the species to affect this change. The only alternative is that the functions are intentional designed by some conscious entity. That, presumably, being a god. So when you challenge this person to give an account for evolution without assuming evolution, it's as if you are asking a physicist to give an account of mass without assuming mass. It would be incomprehensible. At best, the challenge is far too vague.

I feel content just taking this guy at his word. No further research necessary!

Admittedly, I don't know exactly what makes a species another species, but it seems to fit my layman understanding perfectly to accept both things: that grizzlies are not polar bears and that these separate groups expressing different phenotypes not being able to produce fertile offspring. That doesn't bother me at all. Maybe it should and I'm just a dummy, but those things seem natural conclusions to me. Science should at least to some extent prove what we already know to be true, right? And neither is this definition of "species" Darwin's. The requirement in biology for things to have absolutely no exceptions is boloney, frankly. "Cats are quadrupeds" isn't always true either, or that mammals birth live young etc. That doesn't make biology "not quite credible", in fact I don't know of anyone who is bothered by this. What do evolutionary biologists say when confronted with this seeming discrepancy between these two species distinctions? Do they say "shut up! You blasphemer!" or do they have some kind of explanation? I would assume the latter.

Also, sadly, I've been increasingly dissatisfied. The things I was content with previously became much less "fulfilling". The better I get at my job, at philosophy, at self work, the more behind I feel I am. It's frustrating because I keep expecting to reach satiation of some kind and it never comes. It would be humbling if it weren't so frustrating. How much we don't know that we don't know. And I think that's what draws people in: finding out what they don't know. I desperately want people to tell me what I don't know. I'd rather feel ignorant than not even know that I'm ignorant. And those people who respond with actual consideration when confronted with their own ignorance are people who I regard highly. Those who actively resist considering it are people who I'm (very slowly) learning to spend less time engaging with. And since I value it and crave it, I give the people around me the same opportunity now: the opportunity to be totally ignorant. And what a gift that is, haha Before, I avoided rocking the boat like crazy. I was praised for being non-confrontational and got the reward of listening to people vomit out their own crazy at me, covering me in it. Which I guess was sort of therapeutic for them, but it certainly wasn't helping me to grow organically in my own way under the light of the real sun. Now social awkwardness feels less unbearable and more interesting. And life is really fucking awkward, so I think that's progress, haha!

I wonder if actually it has more to do with wanting to connection with the opposite sex than with wanting to hurt them, since a common excuse that people use is to say that they weren't getting enough time or affection from their partners, and also the actual act of having sex is super intimate. Wanting to be desired and having some kind of evidence that we are desired since we got someone else to have sex with us. And also because I often hear that people cheat but feel super guilty doing it, before, during and after. When I think of someone who had an affair, I think it's kind of sad. I recognize it as a pretty significant betrayal, but for whatever reason, I don't think of it as hateful. I imagine that person is sad inside and wanting to fill a void (and literally if you're a woman, haha). I wonder if the resentment is just an excuse. It sure is an effective one. I've never cheated, but both of my parents cheated on each other. I don't remember if it was ever actually stated, but for some reason I have stories in my head about why they both did it, and the story involves feeling alone and grieving. I imagine that the origin has something to do with having people around you and yet ironically feeling alone and isolated despite that, since that's both the precipitating event and the result of cheating. You feel alone driving you to cheat, and then you make your partner feel that loneliness through the betrayal. And also because that happens to kids pretty often that they have lots of people around them and yet no one is connecting with them. And that would make me pretty bitter and even vengeful. I don't really have any experience with it and haven't done any research, so I could be entirely off-base.

That's scary... I'm sitting most of the day I got myself a pedometer and hourly alerts to stand up like the article suggested. Thanks for the link!

Also, you could read UPB right now for free

But isn't the whole point of an objective methodology to be able to apply it consistently? It seems to me that the requirement for a loophole was not something that would have served Einstein or Darwin or whatever great scientific mind we can think of. We don't want a theory that makes it okay to murder this guy but not that guy, right? Or for this set of features to describe a mammal, and then the same set of features to describe the opposite of a mammal... Maybe I'm misunderstanding...